united states assessing the viability and adaptability of ... · the united states is a signatory...
TRANSCRIPT
United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture
Forest Service
Pacific NorthwestResearch Station
General TechnicalReportPNW-GTR-567March 2003
Assessing the Viability andAdaptability of Forest-DependentCommunities in the United StatesRichard W. Haynes
Richard W. Haynes is a research forester, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890.
Author
Haynes, Richard W. 2003. Assessing the viability and adaptability of forest-dependentcommunities in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-567. Portland, OR:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.33 p.
The work responds to the need to assess progress toward sustainable forest manage-ment as established by the Montréal Process of Criteria and Indicators. The focus is ona single indicator (commonly referred to as Indicator 46), which addresses the “viabilityand adaptability to changing economic conditions, of forest-dependent communities,including indigenous communities.” From county-level data, a composite measure wasdeveloped that combined population density, lifestyle diversity, and economic resiliency.There are 837 counties assigned a low rating representing 36 percent of the area of theUnited States but that contain less than 3 percent of the U.S. population. The rest of thepopulation is roughly divided among the 2,064 counties assigned medium ratings and the209 counties assigned high ratings. Of the forest-dependent communities, there are 742counties with a high proportion of forest land, but only 14 percent are classified as havinglow viability and adaptability.
Keywords: Community resiliency, criteria and indicators, forest dependency, MontréalProcess, socioeconomic well-being, sustainable forest management.
Abstract
This page has been left blank intentionally.Document continues on next page.
1
A fundamental societal concern increasingly debated in the past two decades has beenthe need for human actions that lead to sustainable development that meets the needsof the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their needs(WCED 1987). This debate has broadened to include notions of sustainability as a nor-mative concept reflecting the persistence over an indefinite future of certain necessaryand desirable characteristics of both ecological and human parts of an ecosystem (modi-fied from Hodge 1997). Within the forestry community, these concerns manifested them-selves in the development of frameworks for assessing the progress toward sustainableforest management.
The United States is a signatory participant of the Montréal Process for assessing prog-ress toward sustainable forest management. The Montréal Process is largely used bycounties with temperate forest resources and involves seven criteria and 67 indicators.1
Two of the criteria (numbers six and seven and containing 39 of the 67 indicators) ad-dress various human concerns including components of social well-being. These twocriteria address the need for forest management to meet societal needs and maintainand enhance long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits. This is a broader context thanthe frequently cited goal of managing forests to sustain a flow of timber and other ben-efits to promote the stability of forest industries and communities.
The focus on communities is the subject of this paper. Specifically, the purpose of thispaper is to describe an approach to assess community viability and adaptability in thecontext of the Montréal Process of Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest manage-ment (Montréal Process Working Group 1998). This is Indicator 46 of Criterion 6, whichdeals with the viability and adaptability to changing economic conditions of forest-depen-dent communities, including indigenous communities. The term community refers toboth the physical place and to the group of people who live in and identify with thatplace.
Criterion 6 and its 19 associated indicators (including Indicator 46) reflect one of theenduring goals of land management: the concern that forest management sustains aflow of timber and other benefits to promote the well-being of forest industries and com-munities. This criterion takes a broad view of how sustainable forest management influ-ences social well-being that includes the expected concerns about determinants ofeconomic well-being (often measured by jobs) as well as concerns about communitywell-being. The criterion reflects a notable evolution in thinking on the part of decision-makers, researchers, resource managers, and the public about the relation betweencommunities and forests, as well as what constitutes sustainable forest management.
Introduction
1 See www.mpci.org for a description of the Criteriaand Indicators for the Conservation and SustainableManagement of Temperate and Boreal Forests. Theseven criteria are Conservation of Biological Diversity;Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Eco-systems; Maintenance of Forest Ecosystem Health andVitality; Conservation and Maintenance of Soil andWater Resources; Maintenance of Forest Contribution toGlobal Carbon Cycles; Maintenance and Enhancementof Long-Term Multiple Socio-Economic Benefits to Meetthe Needs of Societies; and Legal, Institutional, andEconomic Framework for Forest Conservation andSustainable Forest Management.
IndicatorInterpretation
2
The discussions2 of this indicator suggested that there are two types of variables for thisindicator: (a) measures of economic dependency on forests and (b) social well-being ofcommunities. Social well-being would be a measure of both the capacity of communitiesto respond to changes and the socioeconomic status of people. In the reviews of theU.S. efforts to develop a national report on sustainable forests,3 there were suggestionsthat measures of dependency should be considered as part of Indicator 44 (employmentin the forest sector), but for clarity, both economic and social aspects of well-being areconsidered in the development of this indicator.
The Montréal Process provides little guidance for defining communities although the in-formation that is available largely addresses communities of place. The various technicalnotes on the subject refer to communities generically as forest-dependent communitiesand indigenous communities. They stress the need to assess using quantitative andqualitative information of the trends on the status of a community’s flexibility and capac-ity to adapt to changing economic conditions. Little guidance is available for whichscales need to be considered other than general direction to deal with national, regional,and local concerns. No guidance is provided for how to scale community informationupward to broader spatial scales.
I acknowledge that there are severe data limitations for assessing community viabilityand adaptability at the national scale as required in the Montréal Process. Foremost,there is a lack of systematic community-level databases except in some unique cases(such as the Pacific Northwest) where they have been assembled as part of ecoregionassessments. Even where the data have been assembled, there are severe limitationsfor measuring certain elements of community viability and adaptability.
The past two decades have seen an evolution of many terms used to depict communi-ties that have distinct connections to forest resources: community stability, forest de-pendence, forest based, community capacity, community resiliency, and now with theMontréal Process, community viability and adaptability. Viability and adaptability are notexplicitly defined in the Montréal Process but have the connotation of some of the morerecent terms such as resiliency.
This evolution of terms reveals the evolving emphasis on the complex, dynamic, andinterrelated aspects of rural communities and the natural resources that surround them.The earliest terms dealt with the limits between improved forest management and stablecommunities achieved through stable employment. By the late 1980s, the notion of com-munity stability as reflective of sustained-yield timber management was being called intoquestion (Lee 1990, Schallau 1989). Although the use of the term stability continued toendure in policy debates, concern was raised about the lack of a clear definition of stabil-ity and how it might be measured (see Richardson 1996). Seeking alternative terms,some researchers began looking beyond employment indicators to other aspects of
The Evolution of Viabilityand Adaptability 4
2 See www.mpci.org/meetings/tac/mexico/tn1-6_e.htmlfor a discussion of the rationale and approaches tomeasurement for Indicator 46.3 Roundtable workshops were held in Portland, Oregon,and Washington, D.C., in spring 2002. Reports are onfile with: David Darr ([email protected]).4 This section is condensed from Donoghue and Haynes(2002).
3
community life in order to assess community well-being (Doak and Kusel 1996, Kuseland Fortmann 1991). In addition to economic measures, indicators for poverty, educa-tion, crime, and other sociodemographic measures have been used to assess conditionswithin communities.
There are two definitions key to developing a measure for Indicator 46. First, communi-ties are defined in terms of a sense of place, organization, or structure. Second, econo-mies are defined by transactions among people that allocate scarce resources amongalternative uses. The spatial configurations of both differ, with economies generally beingspatially the larger of the two.
Concurrent with discussions about stability and well-being were discussions about theterm forest dependence, including several appeals to redefine that term (Richardson andChristensen 1997). Forest and timber dependence were initially defined in terms of com-modity production. Various research studies suggest that communities are more com-plex than traditional measurements of timber dependency would imply (see Haynes andothers 1996). Most communities have mixed economies, and their vitality is often linkedto other factors besides commodity production. Many of the communities thought of astimber dependent have been confronted with economically significant challenges, suchas mill closures, and have displayed resilient behavior as they have dealt with change.Arguments for redefining the term forest dependence emphasized that the economic tiesthat some communities have to forests are not wood product based, but reside in recre-ation and other amenities (Kusel 1996). Another concern was that the term forest de-pendence did not reflect the local living traditions and sense of place held by many com-munities (Kusel 1996). This broader connotation of the term forest dependence is oftenwhat is implied by the term forest based.
The terms community capacity and community resiliency connote the ability of a com-munity to take advantage of opportunities and deal with change (Doak and Kusel 1996,Harris and others 2000). The terms resiliency and, arguably to a lesser extent, capacitydiffer in meaning from terms such as forest dependence because they represent a pro-jected condition or ability of a community over some period. Levels of resiliency are dy-namic, just like external factors that might induce change within a community. TheForest Service is shifting its focus from dependency to concepts like resiliency (seeHorne and Haynes 1999, McCool and others 1997). Based on Harris and others (2000),factors useful in assessing community resiliency or adaptability include:
• Population size—Resiliency ratings vary directly with population size:
• Small (and often lower resiliency), less than 1,500 people.
• Large (often associated with higher resiliency), greater than 5,000 people.
• Economic diversity—Resiliency ratings vary directly with population size.
• Civic infrastructure—Higher resiliency is associated with strong civic leadership,positive attitudes toward changes, strong social cohesion.
• Amenities—Combines both civic amenities as well as natural amenities.
• Location—Locations on major trade routes; near service centers; shopping, service,or resort destinations are associated with higher resiliency. Spatial isolation is oftena characteristic of lower resiliency.
4
The history behind the evolution of terms combined with the results of recent and currentwork suggest that connectivity to broad regional economies, community cohesivenessand place attachment, and civic leadership are greater factors in determining communityviability and adaptability than factors related to employment.
There are three considerations necessary for the development of a measure of commu-nity viability and adaptability. First, there are various factors listed in the previous sectionused to depict communities and their ability to deal with changes such as changes inthe management of the surrounding forests. Second, there is a need to be specific aboutthe geographic scale at which to construct the measure. Third, there is also the issueabout how to judge the “goodness” of any measure that is developed. Recent work onecological indicators (see National Research Council 2000) suggests the following crite-ria for such judgments: the extent the measure is based on a well-understood concep-tual model, its reliability, its ability to detect differences at appropriate spatial scales,and its robustness in the sense of being able to yield reliable measures given the vari-ability in the data.
The first step is to select what factors to use and how to develop measurements of thosefactors. From the previous review, the following factors were selected for assessing thedegree of community viability and adaptability: population size, economic diversity, andamenities lifestyle. The proportion of forest land in the surrounding area was used tomeasure forest dependency.
The second step involves at what spatial scale this work needs to be conducted. Thenotion of a social hierarchy combines both political and individual person organizationunits. For example, one representation is from broad common markets to nations, tostates, to counties, to communities and neighborhoods, to families and persons (see forexample, Quigley and others 1996). In the context of the Montréal Process, Indicator 46needs to assess conditions at the national level based on an understanding developedfrom the next lower spatial scale. In the United States, that scale would most likely bestates; however, it is difficult to generalize community conditions at that level.5 A compro-mise to gain both greater spatial resolution and to overcome the lack of community datasets is to use county data. These data sets have been used to monitor well-being and toreveal geographic variation, but most social scientists do not like to use these data setsas proxies for communities, primarily because of the lack of data richness for variouscomponents of social well-being such as community leadership and infrastructure, qual-ity of life, welfare, and social and economic health of a community.
Using county data, we can use the general approach developed by Horne and Haynes(1999), which used county data to develop measures of socioeconomic resiliency (de-fined as the ability of human institutions [both communities and economies] to adapt tochange) for the interior Columbia basin. The advantage of this approach was that it wasmeasurable in the context of the definition of social well-being by using existing informa-tion. Horne and Haynes (1999) developed a composite measure of three factors: eco-nomic resiliency (as a measure of economic diversity in employment), population density(a proxy for civic infrastructure), and lifestyle diversity (a proxy for social and cultural
Developing aMeasure ofCommunity Viabilityand Adaptability
5 For example, the state of Oregon (a relatively smallstate) has some 400 communities. Donoghue andHaynes (2002) found that about 10 percent of Oregon’scommunities with about 2 percent of Oregonians hadlow viability and adaptability.
5
diversity). Using this approach, we find that counties that have high socioeconomic resil-iency demonstrate quick adaptation as indicated by rebounding measures of socioeco-nomic well-being, whereas counties with low resiliency have more lingering negativeimpacts. The terms high or low should not be thought of as good or bad but rather as areflection of the ability of a county to respond to changes in social or economic factors.
Here, a similar approach was developed for the 3,110 counties (and some city-countyand borough combinations) in the United States. A composite measure was developedfor each county that considered civic infrastructure, economic diversity (in terms of em-ployment), and lifestyle diversity. Forest dependency was interpreted as being related tothe extent that each county was forested (measured by proportion of forest land in eachcounty).
Proxy measures were developed for each component of the composite measure. Eachproxy was assigned a rating of 1 for low, 2 for medium, and 3 for high. The definitionsdiffer for each measure. Population density represents civic infrastructure. Here, countieswith fewer than six people per square mile were assigned a rating of 0. These have beencalled frontier counties following the definition from the 1890 census. Counties with 6 to27 people per square mile represent rural areas. Counties with 28 to 250 people persquare mile are called intermix counties, and those with over 250 people per square mileare called interface counties6 and essentially represent urbanlike characteristics. Eco-nomic diversity (based on a Shannon-Weaver diversity index) is computed from employ-ment in major sectors including agriculture. Ratings are assigned that reflect how thediversity of a county compares relative to the average of U.S. counties. A high ratingreflects counties that are in the top 16 percent (one standard deviation) of counties, anda low rating reflects those counties in the bottom 16 percent of counties. A proxy forlifestyle diversity is composed (in equal parts) of proportion of the county population thatis minority (as a proxy for ethnic, income, and lifestyle diversity) and the availability ofnational forest lands (as a proxy for access to opportunities for outdoor recreation activi-ties). Minority status is based on variation around the country average (15.6 percent).Counties with minority populations greater than 23.94 percent were rated high, whereasthose with minority populations less than 7.3 percent were rated low. The ratings fornational forest are based on actual acres in each county. Counties with fewer than35,000 acres are assigned a rating of 1, whereas those counties with over 157,000 acresare assigned a rating of 3.
These indicators were used to develop a composite measure that combined populationdensity, lifestyle diversity, and economic resiliency. Those counties with a compositescore of 4 or less were assigned as having low adaptability and viability. Those countieswith a composite score of 4.5 to 6.5 were assigned as having medium adaptability andviability. Those counties with a composite score of 7 or greater were assigned as havinghigh adaptability and viability. A summary of the results is shown in table 1. There are837 counties assigned a low rating representing 36 percent of the area of the UnitedStates but just less than 3 percent of the U.S. population. The rest of the population isroughly evenly divided among the 2,064 counties assigned medium ratings and the 209counties assigned high ratings.
6 The definitions for intermix and interface are consistentwith research being undertaken as part of the fire plan.
6
Table 1—Summary of county data and ratings
Population Minority Native Economic Forested National CompositeRanking den sity status American diversity acres forest acres score
Number of countiesLowa 1,133 1,409 2,497 299 1,511 2,594 837Medium 1,603 948 434 2,403 857 259 2,064High 374 753 179 408 742 257 209
Percent (by area)Low 62.6 32.9 49.7 9.0 47.1 67.4 36.3Medium 31.3 32.6 26.5 70.3 35.4 9.0 56.3High 6.1 34.5 23.9 20.7 17.5 23.6 7.4
Percent (by population)Low 5.0 17.0 85.8 2.2 53.9 81.1 3.0Medium 31.2 37.2 12.6 49.7 35.3 5.6 49.5High 63.8 45.8 1.6 48.1 10.8 13.2 47.5
a Includes 384 counties assigned a rating of 0 because they are frontier counties.
Indicator 46 emphasizes the viability and adaptability of forest-dependent communities.Traditionally, this has been measured (in the United States) by the extent of employmentin forest industries, but this tends to overstate the importance of manufacturing (relativeto trade and services associated with activities such as recreation) and understates per-sonal connections to the forest for subsistence and nontraditional economic activities.Here, I use the extent of forest land in each county as a proxy for the dependence oflocal residents on forest resources. Three maps show the results (figs. 1 through 3).The colors denote the extent of forest land in each county. Those with less than the U.S.average (32.5 percent) are shown in yellow, those with more than the U.S. average areshown in green (32.5 to 66.2 percent forest land), and those with greater than 66.3 per-cent forest land are shown in blue. For the purpose of this indicator, it is the countiesshown in blue that represent forest-dependent communities. Figure 1 shows the countiesassigned a rating of low viability and adaptability. These counties contain 8.3 millionAmericans but comprise 36 percent of the area of the United States. Figures 2 and 3show the counties assigned a rating of medium or high viability and adaptability, respec-tively. Of the 742 counties with a high level of forest dependence (shown in blue), 102 areassigned a rating of low viability and adaptability.
Because the discussions of the indicator indicate a concern about those communitieswith less viability and adaptability, the detailed information for the 837 counties (and bor-oughs) assigned a low composite rating (shown in fig. 1) are listed in the appendix. Theresults for those counties with a low rating are summarized for both population and areain table 2 by four broad regions. The regional data illustrate how most of the people af-fected are in the two Eastern regions, whereas most of the area is in the West.
Discussion
7
Fig
ure
1—C
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y to
cha
ngin
g ec
onom
ic c
ondi
tions
.
8
Fig
ure
2—C
ount
ies
with
med
ium
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y to
cha
ngin
g ec
onom
ic c
ondi
tions
.
9
Fig
ure
3—C
ount
ies
with
hig
h vi
abili
ty a
nd a
dapt
abili
ty t
o ch
angi
ng e
cono
mic
con
ditio
ns.
10
Although much of the emphasis has been on the counties with low composite rankings,most (640 counties) of the heavily forested counties have actually medium or highrankings. Many of these are counties with extensive urban populations such as those inAtlanta, Seattle, or Portland, whereas others contain significant recreation areas suchas Shenandoah and Olympic National Parks or the Upper Peninsula in Michigan. Theseresults suggest that forests often contribute to positive notions of the amenities associ-ated with residential and recreation areas.
There is a question of how well this indicator rates viability and adaptability. In the lastsection, several criteria were presented for such judgments. The first pertains to the ex-tent to which the measure is based on a well-understood conceptual model. Throughoutthis paper, I have argued that the evolution of the concern about the viability and adapt-ability of a community reflects the broader changes in our understanding of communitywell-being and its relation to the surrounding forest or natural resources. Although thereis often ambiguity about the definition of social well-being, there is acceptance of itsutility (see McCool and others 1997). The second criterion addresses the reliability of theindicator. One demonstration of this has been the previous use of similar indicators inboth community (Harris and others 2000) and bioregional assessments (see Horne andHaynes 1999, McCool and others 1997), and in state-level attempts to address sustain-able forest management (see Donoghue and Haynes 2002). In all cases, useful meas-ures were developed and helped expand our understanding of how communities differ intheir propensity to deal with external changes. The third criterion pertains to the ability ofan indicator to detect differences at appropriate spatial scales. The above examples alsodemonstrate these abilities in the various measures that were developed. The fourth cri-terion is robustness of the indicator to provide reliable measures given the variability inthe data. The various maps do illustrate the ability to deal with spatial differences, butadditional work will be needed to demonstrate the extent of temporal variation inherent insocial and economic data. In summary, as a first approximation, the measure developedhere for Indicator 46 meets most of the criteria for “goodness.”
These results (like those of Horne and Haynes 1999) suggest that most Americans livein areas with moderate to high viability and adaptability, but there are extensive areascharacterized by low viability and adaptability for economic and social changes. Figure 4illustrates this dilemma. It also suggests that extent of forest land is more or less evenlydistributed across areas of both low and high adaptability. Finally, it should not be con-cluded that these areas of low adaptability are in some type of distress. They simplyhave low adaptability or resiliency to social and economic changes.
Table 2—Population and area of the United States by region, with low variability andadaptability by region
Population AreaExtent of forest land Extent of forest land
Region Low Medium High Low Medium High
– – – Thousand/people – – – – – – – Thousand/acre – – – –
North 2,702 492 513 164,223 14,328 22,844South 1,843 367 682 120,405 9,272 21,347Rocky Mountains 1,088 154 62 196,329 46,506 10,023Pacific Coast 189 205 49 25,651 178,429 12,752
Total United States 5,823 1,219 1,306 506,608 248,535 66,966
Note: Individual columns may not add to the total owing to rounding.
Interpreting theResults
11
It is interesting to note those counties that are both heavily forested and that have me-dium or high viability and adaptability. Of the 209 counties with high viability and adapt-ability, only 22 are heavily forested. Most of these are in urban areas such as Seattle. Ofthe 2,064 counties with medium viability and adaptability, 30 percent are heavily forested.Several are near urban areas, but others contain significant residential developmentsincluding counties thought of as recreation counties (see Johnson and Beale 1995) af-firming the rich connections between forests and human populations beyond just timberfor wood products. Of the 285 counties identified by Johnson and Beale (1995), 44 per-cent are heavily forested.
The intent of the original indicator was to identify forest-dependent communities. As wasargued in an earlier section, this is both difficult to do and is probably inappropriate atthe broad scale of national indicators. However, we do have community data for easternOregon where we can examine the relation between the counties rated as having lowadaptability and the communities in those counties. In eastern Oregon, there are 10counties rated as having low adaptability. These 10 counties contain 46 communitiesranging in size from a population of 3 to nearly 10,000. Of the 46 communities, 26 wererated by Reyna (1998) as being small, isolated from major population centers, andlacking in economic diversity. The results suggest that the approach taken to developa measure of Indicator 46 does provide a useful first approximation of areas where com-munity assistance may be needed to offset the effects of changes in broad-scale landmanagement.
Another inference concerns the intent of Indicator 46 to address those areas with indig-enous communities. Each county was assigned a scale for its extent of American Indianor Alaska Native population. Counties with an American Indian and Alaska Native popula-tion less than 1 percent were assigned a rating of 0. Those counties with a populationproportion between 1 and 5.77 percent were assigned a rating of 1 (the U.S. average is
Figure 4—Population and area by degree of adaptability and extent of forest land.
12
1.9 percent). Those with a population greater than 5.78 percent were assigned a ratingof 2. Generally, indigenous communities are difficult to identify other than as communi-ties associated with American Indian reservations. For example, in eastern Oregon,Reyna (1998) identified seven communities as being associated with American Indianreservations. Only 1 of these communities is in 1 of the 10 counties identified as havinglow adaptability. Seven of the ten counties are identified as having average (1.9 percentof population) or higher populations of American Indians, but none has more than 5.77percent of its population as being American Indian. There are 65 counties and boroughsthat do have significant American Indian or Alaska Native populations. The largest num-bers are concentrated in six states: Alaska, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, SouthDakota, and Oklahoma.
Finally, I caution against drawing inferences about economic conditions from the assign-ment of low viability and adaptability. In other studies (Horne and Haynes 1999), littlerelation is found between reduced economic opportunities and extent of forest land.
Indicator 46 attempts to address the links among land management, the flow of goodsand services, and social well-being of human communities. In that sense it reflects thecurrent scientific thinking about the relation between the biophysical and socioeconomiccomponents of ecosystems. It is difficult, however, to reconcile its intent with the almostmystical reference to communities without specific definition or clarity in terms of spatialhierarchy among communities and higher levels of administrative governments.
There are three possible research directions that can be taken to improve our treatmentof this indicator. First, there is the need for refinement of the specific proxies used in thecomposite measure. There is the opportunity to develop other midscale measures thatmight better represent social and economic conditions. Included in this should be anexamination of the relations between the variables used in developing the compositemeasure. Second, there is the need to use existing (or to develop new) community data-bases to better understand the relation between midscale measures of social and eco-nomic conditions and actual community-level measures. Third, there is the opportunity toimprove our ability to estimate nontimber outputs (both goods and services) and to valuethem. These are key to better describing the benefits of forest management.
Thinking more broadly, there are significant science challenges in developing an indica-tor for community condition. First, there is the intellectual challenge of developing ameasure for viability and adaptability. Multiple terms like adaptability, viability, and resil-iency add confusion, but the essential point is the need to capture the essence of thedynamics of communities and changes in their functioning. Second, the development ofindicators is a pressing managerial problem. Indicator 46 addresses the need to identifywhich communities may need assistance in adjusting to changes in land managementapproaches, outputs, or other changes. This poses two challenges: the need to betterunderstand the relation between forest management and communities and the need todevelop adequate proxies for broad-scale measurement of certain attributes of commu-nity adaptability. Finally, we need to develop a coincidental understanding of how to en-gage community development interests in a discussion of viability and adaptability asthey are often the agents of change.
Closing
13
When you know: Multiply by: To find:
Acres 0.40 Hectares
Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers
The basic county data sets were provided by Mike Vasievich. Xiaoping Zhou prepared themaps. Judy Mikowski helped in the construction of the composite measure and dataindexes.
Doak, S.; Kusel, J. 1996 . Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part 2: A socialassessment. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress—assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: Universityof California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 375-402. Vol 2.
Donoghue, E.M.; Haynes, R.W. 2002. Assessing the viability and adaptability ofOregon communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-549. Portland, OR: U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11 p.
Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Decker, D. 2000. Rural communities inthe inland Northwest: an assessment of small communities in the interior and upperColumbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 120 p.(Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:scientific assessment).
Haynes, R.W.; McCool, S.; Horne, A.; Birchfield [Burchfield], J. 1996. Naturalresource management and community well-being. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(2):222-226.
Hodge, T. 1997. Toward a conceptual framework for assessing progress toward sustain-ability. Social Indicators Research. 40: 5-98.
Horne, A.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency inthe interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-453. Portland, OR: U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p.(Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:scientific assessment).
Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C.L. 1995. Nonmetropolitan recreational counties: identificationand fiscal concerns. Working Pap. 6. Chicago, IL: Loyola University. 14 p. [plusappendixes].
Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part I: A new approach. In:Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress—assessments and scien-tific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers forWater and Wildland Resources: 361-374. Vol. 2.
Kusel, J.; Fortmann, L. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities.Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Forest andRangeland Resources Assessment Program; report; contract 8CA85064. 2 vol.
Lee, R.G. 1990. Sustained yield and social order. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch,W.J., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources.Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 83-94.
Metric Equivalents
Acknowledgments
Literature Cited
14
McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.A.; Allen, S.D. 1997. Social assessment. In: Quigley,T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the in-terior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep.PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station: 1873-2009. Vol 4. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Co-lumbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).
Montréal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montréal Process.http://www.mpci.org. (January 9, 2002).
National Research Council. 2000. Ecological indicators for the Nation. Washington,DC: National Academy Press. 180 p.
Quigley, T.M.; Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific as-sessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions ofthe Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 197 p.[plus appendices]. (Quigley, T.M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Manage-ment Project: scientific assessment).
Reyna, N.E. 1998. Economic and social characteristics of communities in the interiorColumbia basin. In: Economic and social conditions: economic and social character-istics of interior Columbia basin communities and an estimation of effects on commu-nities from the alternatives of the eastside and Upper Columbia River basin draftenvironmental impact statements. Part 1. A report prepared by the Interior ColumbiaBasin Ecosystem Management Project. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement: 4-81.
Richardson, C.W. 1996. Stability and change in forest-based communities: a selectedbibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-366. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.
Richardson, C.W.; Christensen, H. 1997. From rhetoric to reality: research on thewell-being of forest-based communities. In: Integrating social science and eco-system management: a national challenge, proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-17.Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern ResearchStation: 195-200.
Schallau, C.H. 1989. Sustained yield versus community stability: An unfortunatewedding? Journal of Forestry. 87(9): 16-23.
World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED]. 1987. Our commonfuture—report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. London:Oxford University Press. [Pages unknown].
15
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
01
02
9A
L, C
lebu
rne
Cou
nty
11
02
13.
53
20
10
57
AL,
Fay
ette
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
03
01
06
1A
L, G
enev
a C
ount
y2
20
21
4.0
20
10
63
AL,
Gre
ene
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
01
06
5A
L, H
ale
Cou
nty
13
02
14.
02
10
10
75
AL,
Lam
ar C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
30
10
85
AL,
Low
ndes
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
011
05
AL,
Per
ry C
ount
y1
30
21
4.0
31
011
07
AL,
Pic
kens
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
011
31
AL,
Wilc
ox C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
30
20
13
AK
, Ale
utia
ns E
ast
Bor
ough
03
24
23.
52
02
01
6A
K, A
leut
ians
Wes
t C
ensu
s A
rea
03
24
23.
52
02
05
0A
K,
Bet
hel C
ensu
s A
rea
03
24
23.
52
02
06
0A
K, B
risto
l Bay
Bor
ough
03
24
23.
52
02
06
8A
K,
Den
ali
02
14
34.
02
02
09
0A
K,
Fai
rban
ks N
orth
Sta
r B
orou
gh1
22
42
4.0
20
21
50
AK
, K
odia
k Is
land
Bor
ough
03
24
13.
02
10
21
64
AK
, La
ke a
nd P
enin
sula
Bor
ough
03
24
23.
52
02
18
5A
K,
Nor
th S
lope
Bor
ough
03
24
23.
52
02
20
1A
K, P
rince
of W
ales
-Out
er K
etch
ikan
Cen
sus
Are
a0
32
42
3.5
30
22
40
AK
, S
outh
east
Fai
rban
ks C
ensu
sA
rea
02
24
34.
02
02
26
1A
K,
Val
dez-
Cor
dova
Cen
sus
Are
a0
32
42
3.5
20
22
70
AK
, W
ade
Ham
pton
Cen
sus
Are
a0
32
42
3.5
20
22
80
AK
, W
rang
ell-
Pet
ersb
urg
Cen
sus
Are
a0
32
41
2.5
30
40
12
AZ
, La
Paz
Cou
nty
03
23
23.
50
05
011
AR
, Bra
dley
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
05
01
7A
R, C
hico
t Cou
nty
13
02
13.
51
05
02
5A
R,
Cle
vela
nd C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
3
Appendix
16
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
05
04
9A
R, F
ulto
n C
ount
y1
10
22
3.5
20
50
53
AR
, Gra
nt C
ount
y1
10
22
3.5
30
50
65
AR
, Iza
rd C
ount
y1
10
22
3.5
30
50
73
AR
, Laf
ayet
te C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
20
50
79
AR
, Li
ncol
n C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
20
50
87
AR
, M
adis
on C
ount
y1
11
21
3.5
22
05
08
9A
R, M
ario
n C
ount
y1
10
22
4.0
31
05
10
9A
R, P
ike
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
53
10
511
1A
R,
Poi
nset
t C
ount
y2
20
21
4.0
10
511
7A
R, P
rairi
e C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
10
51
27
AR
, Sco
tt C
ount
y1
11
21
4.0
33
05
12
9A
R, S
earc
y C
ount
y1
10
22
4.0
31
05
13
3A
R, S
evie
r C
ount
y2
21
21
4.0
30
51
41
AR
, Van
Bur
en C
ount
y1
10
22
4.0
31
05
14
7A
R, W
oodr
uff C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
10
60
91
CA
, Sie
rra
Cou
nty
01
14
24.
03
30
80
09
CO
, Bac
a C
ount
y0
11
32
4.0
13
08
011
CO
, Ben
t Cou
nty
02
13
23.
00
08
01
7C
O,
Che
yenn
e C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
00
80
23
CO
, C
ostil
la C
ount
y0
31
32
4.0
21
08
02
5C
O, C
row
ley
Cou
nty
12
13
24.
00
08
02
7C
O,
Cus
ter
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
03
30
80
33
CO
, D
olor
es C
ount
y0
11
32
4.0
23
08
03
9C
O,
Elb
ert
Cou
nty
11
03
23.
50
08
05
5C
O,
Hue
rfan
o C
ount
y0
21
32
4.0
22
08
05
7C
O,
Jack
son
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
02
30
80
61
CO
, Kio
wa
Cou
nty
01
13
22.
50
08
06
3C
O,
Kit
Car
son
Cou
nty
02
03
23.
00
08
07
1C
O,
Las
Ani
mas
Cou
nty
02
13
24.
01
20
80
73
CO
, Li
ncol
n C
ount
y0
20
32
3.0
00
80
75
CO
, Lo
gan
Cou
nty
12
03
24.
00
08
08
1C
O, M
offa
t Cou
nty
01
03
23.
51
20
80
87
CO
, Mor
gan
Cou
nty
12
03
13.
00
08
09
5C
O,
Phi
llips
Cou
nty
11
03
23.
50
08
09
9C
O,
Pro
wer
s C
ount
y1
21
31
3.0
00
81
03
CO
, R
io B
lanc
o C
ount
y0
10
31
3.0
13
08
115
CO
, S
edgw
ick
Cou
nty
02
03
23.
00
08
12
1C
O,
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
08
12
5C
O, Y
uma
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
12
01
3F
L, C
alho
un C
ount
y1
21
22
4.0
31
20
29
FL,
Dix
ie C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
31
20
41
FL,
Gilc
hris
t C
ount
y2
20
21
4.0
21
20
43
FL,
Gla
des
Cou
nty
12
12
24.
01
12
04
5F
L, G
ulf C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
31
20
67
FL,
Laf
ayet
te C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
31
21
23
FL,
Tay
lor
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
03
13
00
3G
A, A
tkin
son
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
17
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
13
00
5G
A, B
acon
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
03
13
00
7G
A, B
aker
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
52
13
06
5G
A, C
linch
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
13
09
9G
A, E
arly
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
52
13
10
1G
A,
Ech
ols
Cou
nty
12
12
13.
03
13
12
5G
A, G
lasc
ock
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
03
13
16
5G
A,
Jenk
ins
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
13
23
9G
A, Q
uitm
an C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
31
32
43
GA
, R
ando
lph
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
52
13
25
9G
A, S
tew
art C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
31
33
01
GA
, War
ren
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
13
30
7G
A, W
ebst
er C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
31
33
19
GA
, W
ilkin
son
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
16
00
3ID
, Ada
ms
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
03
31
60
11ID
, B
ingh
am C
ount
y1
22
32
4.0
11
60
15
ID,
Boi
se C
ount
y0
10
32
4.0
33
16
02
5ID
, C
amas
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
01
31
60
29
ID,
Car
ibou
Cou
nty
01
03
13.
02
31
60
35
ID,
Cle
arw
ater
Cou
nty
01
13
13.
03
31
60
37
ID,
Cus
ter
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
02
31
60
47
ID,
Goo
ding
Cou
nty
12
03
13.
00
16
04
9ID
, Ida
ho C
ount
y0
11
31
3.0
23
16
05
1ID
, Je
ffers
on C
ount
y1
20
31
3.5
01
16
05
9ID
, Le
mhi
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
02
31
60
63
ID,
Linc
oln
Cou
nty
02
13
23.
00
16
06
7ID
, M
inid
oka
Cou
nty
12
03
13.
00
16
07
1ID
, O
neid
a C
ount
y0
10
32
3.5
12
16
07
3ID
, Ow
yhee
Cou
nty
02
13
12.
01
16
07
7ID
, Pow
er C
ount
y0
21
31
3.0
12
16
07
9ID
, S
hosh
one
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
03
31
60
87
ID,
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
12
03
14.
01
21
70
09
IL, B
row
n C
ount
y1
20
12
4.0
11
70
13
IL,
Cal
houn
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
17
02
3IL
, Cla
rk C
ount
y2
10
11
3.5
11
70
25
IL, C
lay
Cou
nty
21
01
13.
51
17
05
9IL
, G
alla
tin C
ount
y1
10
12
4.0
11
17
06
1IL
, G
reen
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
70
65
IL,
Ham
ilton
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
17
06
9IL
, H
ardi
n C
ount
y1
10
12
4.0
21
17
07
1IL
, H
ende
rson
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
17
07
9IL
, Ja
sper
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
51
17
14
9IL
, Pik
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
71
69
IL, S
chuy
ler
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
17
17
1IL
, Sco
tt C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
71
75
IL, S
tark
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
17
18
9IL
, W
ashi
ngto
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
1
18
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
17
19
1IL
, Way
ne C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
11
80
07
IN,
Ben
ton
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
18
17
1IN
, War
ren
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
00
1IA
, Ada
ir C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
90
03
IA, A
dam
s C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
90
05
IA, A
llam
akee
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
19
00
9IA
, Aud
ubon
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
02
3IA
, But
ler C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
90
25
IA,
Cal
houn
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
02
9IA
, Cas
s C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
90
35
IA, C
hero
kee
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
03
7IA
, C
hick
asaw
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
03
9IA
, Cla
rke
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
04
3IA
, Cla
yton
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
51
19
04
7IA
, Cra
wfo
rd C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
90
51
IA, D
avis
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
05
3IA
, Dec
atur
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
06
9IA
, Fra
nklin
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
07
1IA
, Fre
mon
t Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
07
3IA
, Gre
ene
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
07
5IA
, Gru
ndy
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
07
7IA
, Gut
hrie
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
08
1IA
, Han
cock
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
08
5IA
, H
arris
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
90
89
IA, H
owar
d C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
01
90
91
IA,
Hum
bold
t C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
90
93
IA, I
da C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
90
95
IA, I
owa
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
10
7IA
, Keo
kuk
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
19
10
9IA
, K
ossu
th C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
911
7IA
, Luc
as C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
911
9IA
, Lyo
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
91
21
IA, M
adis
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
91
31
IA, M
itche
ll C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
91
33
IA, M
onon
a C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
91
35
IA, M
onro
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
91
41
IA, O
’Brie
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
91
43
IA, O
sceo
la C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
91
47
IA, P
alo
Alto
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
50
19
15
1IA
, P
ocah
onta
s C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
91
59
IA,
Rin
ggol
d C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
11
91
61
IA, S
ac C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
91
65
IA, S
helb
y C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
01
91
71
IA, T
ama
Cou
nty
12
21
24.
01
19
17
3IA
, Tay
lor C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
11
91
77
IA, V
an B
uren
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
51
19
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
19
18
5IA
, Way
ne C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
11
91
95
IA, W
orth
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
19
19
7IA
, Wrig
ht C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
00
03
KS
, And
erso
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
00
07
KS
, B
arbe
r C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
02
00
11K
S,
Bou
rbon
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
20
01
3K
S, B
row
n C
ount
y1
22
12
4.0
02
00
17
KS
, C
hase
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
01
9K
S,
Cha
utau
qua
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
51
20
02
3K
S,
Che
yenn
e C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
02
00
25
KS
, Cla
rk C
ount
y0
11
12
2.5
02
00
27
KS
, Cla
y C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
00
29
KS
, C
loud
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
03
1K
S, C
offe
y C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
00
33
KS
, C
oman
che
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
03
9K
S,
Dec
atur
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
04
1K
S,
Dic
kins
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
00
43
KS
, D
onip
han
Cou
nty
11
11
12.
51
20
04
7K
S,
Edw
ards
Cou
nty
12
01
24.
00
20
04
9K
S, E
lk C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
12
00
53
KS
, E
llsw
orth
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
06
3K
S, G
ove
Cou
nty
01
01
11.
50
20
06
5K
S,
Gra
ham
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
06
7K
S, G
rant
Cou
nty
12
01
13.
00
20
06
9K
S, G
ray
Cou
nty
12
01
24.
00
20
07
1K
S, G
reel
ey C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
02
00
73
KS
, G
reen
woo
d C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
02
00
75
KS
, H
amilt
on C
ount
y0
20
12
3.0
02
00
77
KS
, H
arpe
r C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
02
00
81
KS
, H
aske
ll C
ount
y1
20
11
3.0
02
00
83
KS
, H
odge
man
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
08
5K
S,
Jack
son
Cou
nty
12
21
24.
01
20
08
9K
S,
Jew
ell C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
02
00
93
KS
, Kea
rny
Cou
nty
02
01
12.
00
20
09
5K
S,
Kin
gman
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
09
7K
S, K
iow
a C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
02
00
99
KS
, La
bette
Cou
nty
22
11
14.
01
20
10
1K
S, L
ane
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
10
5K
S,
Linc
oln
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
10
7K
S, L
inn
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
20
10
9K
S,
Loga
n C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
02
011
5K
S, M
ario
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
011
7K
S,
Mar
shal
l Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
119
KS
, Mea
de C
ount
y0
20
12
3.0
02
01
23
KS
, Mitc
hell
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
12
7K
S,
Mor
ris C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
0
20
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
20
12
9K
S, M
orto
n C
ount
y0
21
12
4.0
02
20
13
1K
S,
Nem
aha
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
13
5K
S,
Nes
s C
ount
y0
10
11
1.5
02
01
37
KS
, N
orto
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
01
39
KS
, O
sage
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
20
14
1K
S,
Osb
orne
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
14
3K
S, O
ttaw
a C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
01
45
KS
, P
awne
e C
ount
y1
20
12
4.0
02
01
47
KS
, P
hilli
ps C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
01
49
KS
, P
otta
wat
omie
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
20
15
1K
S, P
ratt
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
15
3K
S,
Raw
lins
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
15
7K
S,
Rep
ublic
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
50
20
15
9K
S, R
ice
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
50
20
16
3K
S,
Roo
ks C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
01
65
KS
, R
ush
Cou
nty
01
01
11.
50
20
16
7K
S,
Rus
sell
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
50
20
17
1K
S, S
cott
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
17
9K
S,
She
ridan
Cou
nty
01
11
11.
50
20
18
1K
S,
She
rman
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
18
3K
S, S
mith
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
20
18
5K
S, S
taffo
rd C
ount
y1
11
11
2.5
02
01
87
KS
, Sta
nton
Cou
nty
02
21
23.
00
20
19
1K
S,
Sum
ner
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
20
19
5K
S, T
rego
Cou
nty
01
11
22.
50
20
19
7K
S,
Wab
auns
ee C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
01
99
KS
, W
alla
ce C
ount
y0
11
12
2.5
02
02
01
KS
, W
ashi
ngto
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
02
03
KS
, Wic
hita
Cou
nty
02
21
23.
00
20
20
5K
S,
Wils
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
02
07
KS
, W
oods
on C
ount
y1
12
12
3.5
12
10
17
KY,
Bou
rbon
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
01
21
05
5K
Y, C
ritte
nden
Cou
nty
11
02
23.
52
21
05
7K
Y, C
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
11
02
23.
53
21
07
7K
Y, G
alla
tin C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
22
10
79
KY,
Gar
rard
Cou
nty
21
02
13.
51
21
09
7K
Y, H
arris
on C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
12
110
5K
Y, H
ickm
an C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
12
112
3K
Y, L
arue
Cou
nty
21
02
13.
51
211
49
KY,
McL
ean
Cou
nty
21
02
13.
52
211
59
KY,
Mar
tin C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
32
116
9K
Y, M
etca
lfe C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
22
117
1K
Y, M
onro
e C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
22
118
9K
Y, O
wsl
ey C
ount
y1
10
22
4.0
31
21
20
1K
Y, R
ober
tson
Cou
nty
11
02
23.
52
21
21
9K
Y, T
odd
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
01
21
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
21
22
5K
Y, U
nion
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
01
21
23
3K
Y, W
ebst
er C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
12
12
37
KY,
Wol
fe C
ount
y2
10
21
4.0
31
21
23
9K
Y, W
oodf
ord
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
01
22
02
1LA
, C
aldw
ell
Par
ish
12
02
24.
03
22
02
3LA
, C
amer
on P
aris
h1
10
21
2.5
02
20
27
LA,
Cla
ibor
ne P
aris
h1
30
21
4.0
31
22
03
5LA
, E
ast
Car
roll
Par
ish
13
02
13.
51
22
05
9LA
, La
Sal
le P
aris
h1
20
21
3.0
32
20
91
LA,
St.
Hel
ena
Par
ish
13
02
13.
53
22
113
LA,
Ver
mili
on P
aris
h2
20
21
4.0
02
30
03
ME
, Aro
osto
ok C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
32
30
07
ME
, Fra
nklin
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
53
23
02
1M
E,
Pis
cata
quis
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
53
23
02
3M
E,
Sag
adah
oc C
ount
y2
10
11
3.5
32
30
25
ME
, S
omer
set
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
53
23
02
9M
E,
Was
hing
ton
Cou
nty
11
11
12.
53
26
08
3M
I, K
ewee
naw
Cou
nty
01
01
33.
53
26
09
5M
I, Lu
ce C
ount
y1
21
12
4.0
32
61
09
MI,
Men
omin
ee C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
32
611
3M
I, M
issa
ukee
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
52
26
119
MI,
Mon
tmor
ency
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
53
26
14
1M
I, P
resq
ue I
sle
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
53
26
15
1M
I, S
anila
c C
ount
y2
10
11
3.5
12
70
01
MN
, Aitk
in C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
22
70
05
MN
, Bec
ker
Cou
nty
12
21
24.
02
27
011
MN
, Big
Sto
ne C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
70
23
MN
, C
hipp
ewa
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
50
27
02
9M
N,
Cle
arw
ater
Cou
nty
12
21
24.
02
27
03
3M
N,
Cot
tonw
ood
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
27
04
3M
N, F
arib
ault
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
27
04
5M
N,
Fill
mor
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
70
51
MN
, Gra
nt C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
70
57
MN
, H
ubba
rd C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
32
70
63
MN
, Ja
ckso
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
70
69
MN
, Kitt
son
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
51
27
07
1M
N,
Koo
chic
hing
Cou
nty
01
11
23.
03
12
70
73
MN
, Lac
qui
Par
le C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
70
77
MN
, La
ke o
f th
e W
oods
Cou
nty
01
11
33.
52
27
08
1M
N,
Linc
oln
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
27
08
9M
N,
Mar
shal
l Cou
nty
11
01
12.
51
27
10
1M
N, M
urra
y C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
02
71
07
MN
, N
orm
an C
ount
y1
11
11
2.5
02
711
3M
N,
Pen
ning
ton
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
27
115
MN
, Pin
e C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
22
711
7M
N,
Pip
esto
ne C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
0
22
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
27
119
MN
, Pol
k C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
02
71
21
MN
, Pop
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
71
25
MN
, R
ed L
ake
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
51
27
12
7M
N,
Red
woo
d C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
02
71
29
MN
, Ren
ville
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
50
27
13
3M
N, R
ock
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
27
13
5M
N,
Ros
eau
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
51
27
14
3M
N, S
ible
y C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
71
49
MN
, Ste
vens
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
27
15
1M
N, S
wift
Cou
nty
12
01
24.
00
27
15
3M
N, T
odd
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
27
15
5M
N, T
rave
rse
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
50
27
15
9M
N, W
aden
a C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
22
71
65
MN
, Wat
onw
an C
ount
y1
20
12
4.0
02
71
67
MN
, Wilk
in C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
71
73
MN
, Yel
low
Med
icin
e C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
02
80
13
MS
, C
alho
un C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
22
80
15
MS
, Car
roll
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
28
02
3M
S, C
lark
e C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
32
80
53
MS
, H
umph
reys
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
51
28
05
5M
S,
Issa
quen
a C
ount
y1
30
21
4.0
21
28
06
1M
S,
Jasp
er C
ount
y1
30
21
4.0
31
28
06
9M
S,
Kem
per
Cou
nty
13
12
13.
53
28
10
3M
S, N
oxub
ee C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
22
811
9M
S, Q
uitm
an C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
12
81
29
MS
, Sm
ith C
ount
y1
20
21
4.0
32
28
15
5M
S, W
ebst
er C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
32
90
05
MO
, Atc
hiso
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
02
90
11M
O, B
arto
n C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
12
90
13
MO
, Bat
es C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
90
15
MO
, Ben
ton
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
29
01
7M
O,
Bol
linge
r C
ount
y1
10
12
4.0
21
29
02
5M
O,
Cal
dwel
l Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
03
3M
O, C
arro
ll C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
90
41
MO
, Cha
riton
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
04
5M
O, C
lark
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
05
7M
O, D
ade
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
06
1M
O,
Dav
iess
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
06
3M
O, D
eKal
b C
ount
y1
20
12
4.0
02
90
75
MO
, Gen
try
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
07
9M
O, G
rund
y C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
90
81
MO
, H
arris
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
90
85
MO
, Hic
kory
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
29
08
7M
O, H
olt C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
90
89
MO
, How
ard
Cou
nty
12
01
24.
01
29
09
3M
O, I
ron
Cou
nty
11
01
13.
53
2
23
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
29
10
3M
O, K
nox
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
111
MO
, Lew
is C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
911
5M
O, L
inn
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
117
MO
, Liv
ings
ton
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
119
MO
, McD
onal
d C
ount
y2
21
11
4.0
22
91
21
MO
, Mac
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
91
25
MO
, Mar
ies
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
29
12
9M
O, M
erce
r Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
13
7M
O, M
onro
e C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
12
91
39
MO
, Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
14
7M
O, N
odaw
ay C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
91
51
MO
, Osa
ge C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
22
91
63
MO
, Pik
e C
ount
y1
20
11
3.0
12
91
71
MO
, Put
nam
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
17
3M
O, R
alls
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
18
5M
O, S
t. C
lair
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
29
19
7M
O, S
chuy
ler C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
12
91
99
MO
, Sco
tland
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
20
5M
O, S
helb
y C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
12
92
11M
O, S
ulliv
an C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
12
92
17
MO
, Ver
non
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
22
7M
O, W
orth
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
29
22
9M
O, W
right
Cou
nty
11
01
24.
02
13
00
01
MT,
Bea
verh
ead
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
02
33
00
03
MT,
Big
Hor
n C
ount
y0
32
32
3.5
13
00
05
MT,
Bla
ine
Cou
nty
03
23
23.
50
30
00
7M
T, B
road
wat
er C
ount
y0
11
32
4.0
13
30
00
9M
T, C
arbo
n C
ount
y0
10
32
4.0
13
30
011
MT,
Car
ter
Cou
nty
01
03
23.
50
23
00
15
MT,
Cho
utea
u C
ount
y0
22
32
3.5
01
30
01
7M
T, C
uste
r C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
03
00
19
MT,
Dan
iels
Cou
nty
01
13
22.
50
30
02
1M
T, D
awso
n C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
03
00
25
MT,
Fal
lon
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
30
02
7M
T, F
ergu
s C
ount
y0
11
32
3.5
12
30
03
3M
T, G
arfie
ld C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
03
00
35
MT,
Gla
cier
Cou
nty
03
23
24.
01
13
00
37
MT,
Gol
den
Val
ley
Cou
nty
01
03
23.
01
13
00
39
MT,
Gra
nite
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
03
33
00
41
MT,
Hill
Cou
nty
12
23
24.
00
30
04
3M
T, J
effe
rson
Cou
nty
11
13
14.
02
33
00
45
MT,
Jud
ith B
asin
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
01
33
00
51
MT,
Lib
erty
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
30
05
3M
T, L
inco
ln C
ount
y0
11
32
4.0
33
30
05
5M
T, M
cCon
e C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
03
00
57
MT,
Mad
ison
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
01
3
24
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
30
05
9M
T, M
eagh
er C
ount
y0
11
32
4.0
23
30
06
1M
T, M
iner
al C
ount
y0
11
32
4.0
33
30
06
5M
T, M
usse
lshe
ll C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
13
00
69
MT,
Pet
role
um C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
03
00
71
MT,
Phi
llips
Cou
nty
02
23
23.
00
30
07
3M
T, P
onde
ra C
ount
y0
22
32
4.0
12
30
07
5M
T, P
owde
r R
iver
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
01
33
00
77
MT,
Pow
ell C
ount
y0
21
31
3.5
23
30
07
9M
T, P
rairi
e C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
03
00
83
MT,
Ric
hlan
d C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
03
00
85
MT,
Roo
seve
lt C
ount
y0
32
32
3.5
03
00
91
MT,
She
ridan
Cou
nty
01
13
22.
50
30
09
5M
T, S
tillw
ater
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
01
33
00
97
MT,
Sw
eet
Gra
ss C
ount
y0
10
32
4.0
13
30
09
9M
T, T
eton
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
01
33
01
01
MT,
Too
le C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
03
01
03
MT,
Tre
asur
e C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
13
01
05
MT,
Val
ley
Cou
nty
02
23
23.
00
30
10
7M
T, W
heat
land
Cou
nty
01
03
23.
51
23
01
09
MT,
Wib
aux
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
31
00
3N
E, A
ntel
ope
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
31
00
5N
E, A
rthu
r Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
00
7N
E,
Ban
ner
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
00
9N
E,
Bla
ine
Cou
nty
01
01
23.
00
13
10
11N
E,
Boo
ne C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
10
15
NE
, Boy
d C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
17
NE
, Bro
wn
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
02
1N
E, B
urt C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
03
10
23
NE
, B
utle
r C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
03
10
27
NE
, C
edar
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
31
02
9N
E,
Cha
se C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
31
NE
, Che
rry
Cou
nty
01
11
23.
50
23
10
33
NE
, C
heye
nne
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
31
03
5N
E, C
lay
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
31
03
9N
E,
Cum
ing
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
31
04
1N
E,
Cus
ter
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
04
7N
E,
Daw
son
Cou
nty
12
01
24.
00
31
04
9N
E,
Deu
el C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
51
NE
, Dix
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
10
57
NE
, Dun
dy C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
59
NE
, F
illm
ore
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
31
06
1N
E,
Fra
nklin
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
31
06
3N
E,
Fro
ntie
r C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
65
NE
, F
urna
s C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
10
67
NE
, Gag
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
10
69
NE
, G
arde
n C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
0
25
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
31
07
1N
E,
Gar
field
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
07
3N
E,
Gos
per
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
07
5N
E, G
rant
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
07
7N
E, G
reel
ey C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
81
NE
, H
amilt
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
10
83
NE
, H
arla
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
10
85
NE
, Hay
es C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
87
NE
, H
itchc
ock
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
31
08
9N
E, H
olt C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
91
NE
, H
ooke
r C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
10
93
NE
, H
owar
d C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
13
10
95
NE
, Je
ffers
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
13
10
97
NE
, Jo
hnso
n C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
10
99
NE
, Kea
rney
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
01
NE
, Kei
th C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
110
3N
E, K
eya
Pah
a C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
13
110
5N
E,
Kim
ball
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
311
07
NE
, Kno
x C
ount
y1
22
12
4.0
031
113
NE
, Lo
gan
Cou
nty
01
11
22.
50
3111
5N
E,
Loup
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
3111
7N
E,
McP
hers
on C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
112
1N
E, M
erric
k C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
112
3N
E, M
orril
l Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
311
25
NE
, N
ance
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
27
NE
, N
emah
a C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
112
9N
E,
Nuc
kolls
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
31
NE
, Oto
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
113
3N
E,
Paw
nee
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
35
NE
, P
erki
ns C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
113
7N
E,
Phe
lps
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
39
NE
, P
ierc
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
114
3N
E, P
olk
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
51
311
45
NE
, R
ed W
illow
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
47
NE
, R
icha
rdso
n C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
13
114
9N
E, R
ock
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
311
51
NE
, S
alin
e C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
115
5N
E,
Sau
nder
s C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
116
1N
E,
She
ridan
Cou
nty
02
21
23.
00
311
63
NE
, S
herm
an C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
116
5N
E, S
ioux
Cou
nty
01
01
23.
51
23
116
7N
E,
Sta
nton
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
69
NE
, Tha
yer
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
50
311
71
NE
, T
hom
as C
ount
y0
10
12
3.5
02
311
75
NE
, Val
ley
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
311
79
NE
, Way
ne C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
118
1N
E,
Web
ster
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
26
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
311
83
NE
, W
heel
er C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
118
5N
E, Y
ork
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
32
00
1N
V, C
hurc
hill
Cou
nty
02
13
23.
01
32
00
9N
V, E
smer
alda
Cou
nty
02
13
13.
01
23
20
17
NV,
Lin
coln
Cou
nty
02
13
23.
51
13
20
27
NV,
Per
shin
g C
ount
y0
21
31
2.0
03
50
03
NM
, Cat
ron
Cou
nty
02
13
13.
52
33
50
07
NM
, Col
fax
Cou
nty
02
13
24.
01
23
50
11N
M, D
e B
aca
Cou
nty
02
03
23.
00
35
01
9N
M,
Gua
dalu
pe C
ount
y0
31
32
3.5
03
50
21
NM
, H
ardi
ng C
ount
y0
21
32
4.0
12
35
02
9N
M, L
una
Cou
nty
13
13
13.
50
35
03
7N
M, Q
uay
Cou
nty
02
13
23.
00
35
05
9N
M, U
nion
Cou
nty
02
03
24.
01
23
60
31
NY,
Ess
ex C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
23
60
41
NY,
Ham
ilton
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
51
36
04
9N
Y, L
ewis
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
53
37
09
5N
C, H
yde
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
52
37
17
7N
C, T
yrre
ll C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
23
80
01
ND
, Ada
ms
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
00
3N
D,
Bar
nes
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
38
00
5N
D,
Ben
son
Cou
nty
03
21
23.
50
38
00
7N
D,
Bill
ings
Cou
nty
01
01
24.
01
33
80
09
ND
, B
ottin
eau
Cou
nty
01
11
22.
50
38
011
ND
, B
owm
an C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
80
13
ND
, Bur
ke C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
80
19
ND
, C
aval
ier
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
02
1N
D,
Dic
key
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
02
3N
D,
Div
ide
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
02
5N
D,
Dun
n C
ount
y0
22
12
3.0
03
80
27
ND
, Edd
y C
ount
y0
11
12
2.5
03
80
29
ND
, E
mm
ons
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
03
3N
D, G
olde
n V
alle
y C
ount
y0
10
12
3.5
02
38
03
7N
D, G
rant
Cou
nty
01
11
23.
00
13
80
39
ND
, G
riggs
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
04
1N
D,
Het
tinge
r C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
80
43
ND
, K
idde
r C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
80
45
ND
, La
Mou
re C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
80
47
ND
, Lo
gan
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
04
9N
D, M
cHen
ry C
ount
y0
10
12
3.0
01
38
05
1N
D,
McI
ntos
h C
ount
y0
10
12
2.5
03
80
55
ND
, M
cLea
n C
ount
y0
22
12
3.0
03
80
57
ND
, Mer
cer
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
50
38
05
9N
D, M
orto
n C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
03
80
61
ND
, M
ount
rail
Cou
nty
03
21
23.
50
38
06
3N
D,
Nel
son
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
27
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
38
06
5N
D, O
liver
Cou
nty
01
11
22.
50
38
06
7N
D,
Pem
bina
Cou
nty
11
11
12.
50
38
06
9N
D,
Pie
rce
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
07
1N
D,
Ram
sey
Cou
nty
12
11
24.
00
38
07
5N
D,
Ren
ville
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
07
7N
D,
Ric
hlan
d C
ount
y1
11
12
4.0
01
38
08
1N
D,
Sar
gent
Cou
nty
01
01
33.
50
38
08
3N
D,
She
ridan
Cou
nty
01
01
22.
50
38
08
5N
D, S
ioux
Cou
nty
03
21
24.
00
13
80
89
ND
, Sta
rk C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
80
91
ND
, S
teel
e C
ount
y0
20
12
3.0
03
80
93
ND
, S
tuts
man
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
50
38
09
5N
D,
Tow
ner
Cou
nty
01
11
22.
50
38
09
7N
D,
Tra
ill C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
03
80
99
ND
, W
alsh
Cou
nty
12
01
24.
00
38
10
3N
D,
Wel
ls C
ount
y0
20
12
3.0
03
81
05
ND
, W
illia
ms
Cou
nty
12
11
24.
00
39
12
7O
H, P
erry
Cou
nty
21
01
14.
02
13
91
75
OH
, Wya
ndot
Cou
nty
21
01
13.
50
40
00
3O
K, A
lfalfa
Cou
nty
12
12
24.
00
40
00
7O
K, B
eave
r C
ount
y0
11
22
2.5
04
00
09
OK
, B
eckh
am C
ount
y1
21
22
4.0
04
00
11O
K,
Bla
ine
Cou
nty
12
22
13.
00
40
02
5O
K,
Cim
arro
n C
ount
y0
21
22
3.5
01
40
03
3O
K, C
otto
n C
ount
y1
22
22
4.0
04
00
39
OK
, C
uste
r C
ount
y1
22
22
4.0
04
00
43
OK
, Dew
ey C
ount
y0
21
22
3.0
04
00
45
OK
, E
llis
Cou
nty
01
12
22.
50
40
04
9O
K, G
arvi
n C
ount
y2
22
21
4.0
04
00
51
OK
, Gra
dy C
ount
y2
21
21
4.0
04
00
53
OK
, Gra
nt C
ount
y0
11
22
2.5
04
00
55
OK
, Gre
er C
ount
y1
21
22
4.0
04
00
59
OK
, H
arpe
r C
ount
y0
10
22
2.5
04
00
61
OK
, H
aske
ll C
ount
y1
22
22
4.0
24
00
67
OK
, Je
ffers
on C
ount
y1
21
21
3.0
04
00
69
OK
, Jo
hnst
on C
ount
y1
22
22
4.0
04
00
73
OK
, K
ingf
ishe
r C
ount
y1
21
22
4.0
04
00
75
OK
, Kio
wa
Cou
nty
12
22
24.
00
40
07
7O
K,
Latim
er C
ount
y1
32
21
3.5
34
00
85
OK
, Lov
e C
ount
y1
22
22
4.0
04
00
93
OK
, Maj
or C
ount
y1
10
21
2.5
04
00
99
OK
, Mur
ray
Cou
nty
22
22
14.
00
40
10
3O
K, N
oble
Cou
nty
12
22
24.
00
40
10
7O
K,
Okf
uske
e C
ount
y1
32
21
3.5
04
011
3O
K, O
sage
Cou
nty
13
22
13.
50
40
12
7O
K,
Pus
hmat
aha
Cou
nty
12
22
24.
03
40
12
9O
K,
Rog
er M
ills
Cou
nty
02
12
23.
50
1
28
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
40
14
9O
K,
Was
hita
Cou
nty
12
12
24.
00
40
15
1O
K, W
oods
Cou
nty
11
12
12.
50
40
15
3O
K,
Woo
dwar
d C
ount
y1
21
22
4.0
04
10
01
OR
, Bak
er C
ount
y0
11
42
4.0
23
41
02
1O
R,
Gill
iam
Cou
nty
01
04
22.
50
41
02
3O
R, G
rant
Cou
nty
01
14
24.
03
34
10
25
OR
, Har
ney
Cou
nty
02
14
13.
51
34
10
37
OR
, Lak
e C
ount
y0
21
41
3.5
13
41
04
5O
R, M
alhe
ur C
ount
y0
31
41
3.0
01
41
04
9O
R, M
orro
w C
ount
y0
21
41
3.0
12
41
05
5O
R,
She
rman
Cou
nty
01
14
11.
50
41
06
3O
R,
Wal
low
a C
ount
y0
10
42
4.0
23
41
06
9O
R,
Whe
eler
Cou
nty
01
04
24.
02
34
20
23
PA
, C
amer
on C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
34
20
59
PA
, Gre
ene
Cou
nty
21
01
13.
52
42
10
5P
A, P
otte
r Cou
nty
11
01
23.
53
46
00
3S
D, A
uror
a C
ount
y0
11
32
2.5
04
60
05
SD
, B
eadl
e C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
04
60
07
SD
, B
enne
tt C
ount
y0
32
32
3.5
04
60
09
SD
, B
on H
omm
e C
ount
y1
11
32
3.5
04
60
13
SD
, Bro
wn
Cou
nty
11
13
23.
50
46
01
7S
D,
Buf
falo
Cou
nty
03
23
23.
50
46
01
9S
D, B
utte
Cou
nty
01
13
22.
50
46
02
1S
D,
Cam
pbel
l C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
04
60
25
SD
, Cla
rk C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
04
60
31
SD
, C
orso
n C
ount
y0
32
32
4.0
01
46
03
3S
D,
Cus
ter
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
01
34
60
37
SD
, Day
Cou
nty
12
23
24.
00
46
03
9S
D,
Deu
el C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
04
60
41
SD
, Dew
ey C
ount
y0
32
32
3.5
04
60
43
SD
, D
ougl
as C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
04
60
45
SD
, E
dmun
ds C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
04
60
49
SD
, Fau
lk C
ount
y0
10
31
1.5
04
60
51
SD
, Gra
nt C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
04
60
53
SD
, Gre
gory
Cou
nty
01
13
22.
50
46
05
5S
D,
Haa
kon
Cou
nty
01
13
22.
50
46
05
7S
D,
Ham
lin C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
04
60
59
SD
,H
and
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
46
06
1S
D,
Han
son
Cou
nty
11
03
23.
50
46
06
3S
D,
Har
ding
Cou
nty
01
03
23.
50
24
60
67
SD
,H
utch
inso
n C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
04
60
69
SD
,H
yde
Cou
nty
02
23
23.
00
46
07
3S
D,
Jera
uld
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
46
07
5S
D, J
ones
Cou
nty
01
13
23.
00
14
60
77
SD
,K
ings
bury
Cou
nty
11
03
23.
50
46
07
9S
D,
Lake
Cou
nty
11
03
23.
50
46
08
7S
D,
McC
ook
Cou
nty
11
03
23.
50
29
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
46
08
9S
D,
McP
hers
on C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
04
60
91
SD
, M
arsh
all C
ount
y0
22
32
3.0
04
60
95
SD
, Mel
lette
Cou
nty
03
23
23.
50
46
09
7S
D, M
iner
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
46
10
1S
D, M
oody
Cou
nty
12
23
24.
00
46
10
5S
D,
Per
kins
Cou
nty
01
13
23.
50
24
61
07
SD
, Pot
ter
Cou
nty
01
03
22.
50
46
111
SD
, S
anbo
rn C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
04
611
5S
D, S
pink
Cou
nty
01
13
22.
50
46
119
SD
, Sul
ly C
ount
y0
10
32
2.5
04
61
23
SD
, Trip
p C
ount
y0
22
32
3.0
04
61
25
SD
, T
urne
r C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
04
61
27
SD
, U
nion
Cou
nty
11
03
23.
50
46
13
7S
D,
Zie
bach
Cou
nty
03
23
24.
00
14
70
07
TN
, B
leds
oe C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
34
70
33
TN
, Cro
cket
t Cou
nty
22
02
14.
01
47
05
7T
N,
Gra
inge
r C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
24
70
67
TN
, H
anco
ck C
ount
y2
10
21
3.5
34
71
35
TN
, Per
ry C
ount
y1
10
22
3.5
34
71
75
TN
, Van
Bur
en C
ount
y1
10
22
3.5
34
71
81
TN
, Way
ne C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
34
71
83
TN
, Wea
kley
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
01
48
00
3T
X, A
ndre
ws
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
00
9T
X, A
rche
r Cou
nty
11
02
12.
50
48
011
TX
, Arm
stro
ng C
ount
y0
10
22
2.5
04
80
17
TX
, Bai
ley
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
50
48
01
9T
X, B
ande
ra C
ount
y1
10
22
3.5
04
80
23
TX
, Bay
lor C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
80
31
TX
, Bla
nco
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
03
3T
X, B
orde
n C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
80
35
TX
, B
osqu
e C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
80
43
TX
, Bre
wst
er C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
80
45
TX
, Bris
coe
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
05
1T
X,
Bur
leso
n C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
80
59
TX
, C
alla
han
Cou
nty
11
02
12.
50
48
06
5T
X,
Car
son
Cou
nty
11
12
23.
50
48
06
9T
X, C
astr
o C
ount
y1
31
21
3.5
04
80
71
TX
, C
ham
bers
Cou
nty
22
02
14.
00
48
07
7T
X, C
lay
Cou
nty
11
12
23.
50
48
07
9T
X, C
ochr
an C
ount
y0
30
21
2.5
04
80
81
TX
, Cok
e C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
80
83
TX
, C
olem
an C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
80
87
TX
, C
ollin
gsw
orth
Cou
nty
02
12
12.
00
48
09
3T
X,
Com
anch
e C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
80
95
TX
, Con
cho
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
10
1T
X, C
ottle
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
30
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
48
10
3T
X, C
rane
Cou
nty
03
02
23.
50
48
10
5T
X, C
rock
ett C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
81
09
TX
, C
ulbe
rson
Cou
nty
03
02
23.
50
48
111
TX
, D
alla
m C
ount
y0
20
22
4.0
02
48
115
TX
, D
awso
n C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
811
7T
X, D
eaf S
mith
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
50
48
119
TX
, Del
ta C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
81
23
TX
, De
Witt
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
12
5T
X,
Dic
kens
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
12
7T
X,
Dim
mit
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
12
9T
X, D
onle
y C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
81
31
TX
, Duv
al C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
81
33
TX
, E
astla
nd C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
81
37
TX
, E
dwar
ds C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
81
43
TX
, Era
th C
ount
y2
20
21
4.0
04
81
49
TX
, Fay
ette
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
15
1T
X, F
ishe
r C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
81
53
TX
, Flo
yd C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
81
55
TX
, Foa
rd C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
81
61
TX
, Fre
esto
ne C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
81
65
TX
, G
aine
s C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
81
69
TX
, Gar
za C
ount
y0
30
21
2.5
04
81
71
TX
, G
illes
pie
Cou
nty
11
02
23.
50
48
17
3T
X,
Gla
ssco
ck C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
81
75
TX
, Gol
iad
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
19
1T
X, H
all C
ount
y0
30
22
3.5
04
81
93
TX
, H
amilt
on C
ount
y1
10
22
3.5
04
81
95
TX
, H
ansf
ord
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
19
7T
X,
Har
dem
an C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
82
05
TX
, Har
tley
Cou
nty
02
02
12.
00
48
20
7T
X,
Has
kell
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
211
TX
, H
emph
ill C
ount
y0
20
21
2.5
01
48
21
9T
X, H
ockl
ey C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
82
29
TX
, H
udsp
eth
Cou
nty
02
12
23.
00
48
23
3T
X,
Hut
chin
son
Cou
nty
12
12
24.
00
48
23
5T
X, I
rion
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
23
7T
X, J
ack
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
23
9T
X, J
acks
on C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
82
43
TX
, Jef
f Dav
is C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
82
47
TX
, Ji
m H
ogg
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
25
3T
X, J
ones
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
25
5T
X,
Kar
nes
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
50
48
26
1T
X, K
ened
y C
ount
y0
30
22
3.5
04
82
63
TX
, Ken
t Cou
nty
01
02
22.
50
48
26
7T
X,
Kim
ble
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
26
9T
X, K
ing
Cou
nty
01
12
22.
50
31
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
48
27
1T
X, K
inne
y C
ount
y0
30
22
3.5
04
82
75
TX
, Kno
x C
ount
y0
31
21
2.5
04
82
79
TX
, Lam
b C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
82
81
TX
, La
mpa
sas
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
28
3T
X, L
a S
alle
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
28
5T
X, L
avac
a C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
82
87
TX
, Lee
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
28
9T
X, L
eon
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
02
48
29
3T
X,
Lim
esto
ne C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
82
95
TX
, Li
psco
mb
Cou
nty
02
12
23.
00
48
29
7T
X, L
ive
Oak
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
30
1T
X, L
ovin
g C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
83
05
TX
, Lyn
n C
ount
y1
31
21
3.5
04
83
07
TX
, McC
ullo
ch C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
83
11T
X, M
cMul
len
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
31
7T
X, M
artin
Cou
nty
02
02
12.
00
48
31
9T
X, M
ason
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
32
7T
X, M
enar
d C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
83
31
TX
, Mila
m C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
83
33
TX
, Mill
s C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
04
83
35
TX
, Mitc
hell
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
50
48
33
7T
X, M
onta
gue
Cou
nty
11
02
24.
00
14
83
41
TX
, Moo
re C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
83
45
TX
, Mot
ley
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
35
3T
X, N
olan
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
35
7T
X, O
chilt
ree
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
35
9T
X,
Old
ham
Cou
nty
02
12
23.
00
48
36
5T
X, P
anol
a C
ount
y2
20
21
4.0
24
83
71
TX
, Pec
os C
ount
y0
30
22
3.5
04
83
77
TX
, P
resi
dio
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
38
3T
X,
Rea
gan
Cou
nty
03
02
12.
50
48
38
5T
X, R
eal C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
83
87
TX
, Red
Riv
er C
ount
y1
20
22
4.0
24
83
89
TX
, Ree
ves
Cou
nty
02
02
12.
00
48
39
1T
X, R
efug
io C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
83
93
TX
, Rob
erts
Cou
nty
01
02
22.
50
48
39
9T
X,
Run
nels
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
411
TX
, San
Sab
a C
ount
y0
21
22
3.0
04
84
13
TX
, Sch
leic
her
Cou
nty
02
02
12.
00
48
41
5T
X, S
curr
y C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
84
17
TX
, Sha
ckel
ford
Cou
nty
01
02
11.
50
48
42
1T
X,
She
rman
Cou
nty
02
02
12.
00
48
42
9T
X, S
teph
ens
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
43
1T
X, S
terli
ng C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
84
33
TX
, Sto
new
all C
ount
y0
20
22
3.0
04
84
35
TX
, Sut
ton
Cou
nty
03
02
23.
50
32
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
48
43
7T
X,
Sw
ishe
r C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
04
84
43
TX
, Ter
rell
Cou
nty
02
12
23.
00
48
44
5T
X, T
erry
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
44
7T
X, T
hroc
kmor
ton
Cou
nty
02
02
23.
00
48
45
7T
X, T
yler
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
03
48
46
1T
X, U
pton
Cou
nty
02
12
23.
00
48
46
5T
X, V
al V
erde
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
47
5T
X, W
ard
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
00
48
48
3T
X, W
heel
er C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
84
87
TX
, Wilb
arge
r C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
85
01
TX
, Yoa
kum
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
50
48
50
3T
X, Y
oung
Cou
nty
12
02
13.
00
48
50
5T
X, Z
apat
a C
ount
y1
20
21
3.0
04
90
01
UT,
Bea
ver
Cou
nty
01
03
23.
52
24
90
09
UT,
Dag
gett
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
02
34
90
15
UT,
Em
ery
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
01
34
90
17
UT,
Gar
field
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
02
34
90
23
UT,
Jua
b C
ount
y0
11
32
3.5
12
49
02
7U
T, M
illar
d C
ount
y0
11
32
4.0
13
49
02
9U
T, M
orga
n C
ount
y1
10
32
4.0
21
49
03
1U
T, P
iute
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
02
34
90
33
UT,
Ric
h C
ount
y0
10
32
3.5
12
49
05
5U
T, W
ayne
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
01
35
10
21
VA
, Bla
nd C
ount
y1
10
21
3.5
32
51
02
9V
A, B
ucki
ngha
m C
ount
y1
30
21
3.5
35
10
37
VA
, Cha
rlotte
Cou
nty
13
02
13.
53
51
09
7V
A, K
ing
and
Que
en C
ount
y1
31
21
3.5
35
110
5V
A, L
ee C
ount
y2
10
21
4.0
21
511
57
VA
, R
appa
hann
ock
Cou
nty
12
02
24.
02
511
67
VA
, R
usse
ll C
ount
y2
10
21
4.0
21
53
01
3W
A,
Col
umbi
a C
ount
y0
10
42
4.0
23
53
02
3W
A, G
arfie
ld C
ount
y0
10
42
3.5
12
53
02
5W
A, G
rant
Cou
nty
22
14
14.
00
53
03
9W
A, K
licki
tat C
ount
y1
21
41
3.5
21
53
04
3W
A, L
inco
ln C
ount
y0
11
42
2.5
15
30
49
WA
, Pac
ific
Cou
nty
12
14
24.
03
53
06
9W
A,
Wah
kiak
um C
ount
y1
11
41
2.5
35
30
75
WA
, Whi
tman
Cou
nty
12
04
24.
00
54
01
3W
V,
Cal
houn
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
53
54
01
7W
V,
Dod
drid
ge C
ount
y1
10
12
3.5
35
40
21
WV
, Gilm
er C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
35
40
23
WV,
Gra
nt C
ount
y1
10
11
3.0
31
54
08
5W
V, R
itchi
e C
ount
y1
10
11
2.5
35
40
87
WV
, Roa
ne C
ount
y2
10
11
3.5
35
41
01
WV
, Web
ster
Cou
nty
11
01
13.
53
25
41
05
WV,
Wirt
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
53
33
Tabl
e 3—
List
of 8
37 fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt c
ount
ies
with
low
via
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
bilit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive
Nat
iona
lA
rea
key
Are
a na
me
dens
itya
Min
ority
bA
mer
ican
cR
egio
nd
Em
ploy
men
te
Com
posi
tef
For
est l
and
gfo
rest
h
55
011
WI,
Buf
falo
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
55
01
3W
I, B
urne
tt C
ount
y1
11
12
3.5
25
50
19
WI,
Cla
rk C
ount
y2
10
11
3.5
25
50
51
WI,
Iron
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
53
55
05
3W
I, Ja
ckso
n C
ount
y1
22
12
4.0
25
50
65
WI,
Lafa
yette
Cou
nty
11
01
12.
51
55
06
7W
I, La
ngla
de C
ount
y1
10
12
4.0
31
55
10
3W
I, R
ichl
and
Cou
nty
21
01
13.
52
55
10
7W
I, R
usk
Cou
nty
11
01
23.
52
55
12
9W
I, W
ashb
urn
Cou
nty
11
11
23.
53
56
00
3W
Y, B
ig H
orn
Cou
nty
01
03
13.
01
35
60
09
WY,
Con
vers
e C
ount
y0
10
32
4.0
13
56
011
WY,
Cro
ok C
ount
y0
11
31
3.0
23
56
01
5W
Y, G
oshe
n C
ount
y1
10
32
3.5
05
60
19
WY,
Joh
nson
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
01
35
60
23
WY,
Lin
coln
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
02
35
60
25
WY,
Nat
rona
Cou
nty
11
13
24.
01
15
60
27
WY,
Nio
brar
a C
ount
y0
10
32
3.0
01
56
02
9W
Y, P
ark
Cou
nty
01
03
24.
02
35
60
31
WY,
Pla
tte C
ount
y0
10
32
3.0
11
56
03
5W
Y, S
uble
tte C
ount
y0
10
32
4.0
23
56
03
7W
Y, S
wee
twat
er C
ount
y0
21
32
4.0
02
56
04
3W
Y, W
asha
kie
Cou
nty
02
03
24.
01
25
60
45
WY,
Wes
ton
Cou
nty
01
13
24.
01
3
a P
opul
atio
n de
nsity
(pe
rson
per
squ
are
mile
): 0
= 0
–5, 1
= 6
–28,
2 =
29–
250,
3 =
>25
0.b
Min
ority
(pe
rcen
t):
1 =
0–7
.33,
2 =
7.3
4–23
.93,
3 =
>23
.94.
c Nat
ive
Am
eric
an: 0
= 0
–1, 1
= 1
.1–5
.77,
2 =
>5.
78.
d R
egio
n: 1
= N
orth
, 2 =
Sou
th, 3
= R
ocky
Mou
ntai
ns, 4
= P
acifi
c co
ast.
e E
mpl
oym
ent:
(Sha
nnon
Wea
ver
Inde
x): 1
= 0
–0.7
6684
, 2 =
0.7
6685
–0.8
7421
, 3 =
>
0.87
422–
1.f C
ompo
site
: (po
pula
tion+
[(m
inor
ity+
NF
are
a)/2
]+em
ploy
men
t).
g F
ores
t la
nd (
perc
ent)
: 0
= 0
–5.0
, 1
= 5
.1–3
2.5,
2 =
32.
6–66
.2,
3 =
≥66
.3.
h N
atio
nal f
ores
t: 1
= 0
–35,
000,
2 =
36,
000–
157,
000,
3 =
>15
7,00
0 ac
res.
This page has been left blank intentionally.Document continues on next page.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle ofmultiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood,water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with theStates and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and NationalGrasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater serviceto a growing Nation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programsand activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited basesapply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for com-munication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contactUSDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider andemployer.
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnwTelephone (503) 808-2592Publication requests (503) 808-2138FAX (503) 808-2130E-mail [email protected] address Publications Distribution
Pacific Northwest Research StationP.O. Box 3890Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of AgriculturePacific Northwest Research Station333 S.W. First AvenueP.O. Box 3890Portland, OR 97208-3890
Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use, $300