The Land We Cared For... A History of the Forest Service's Eastern Region

This Chapter addresses the coordination and supervision of resource management by the leadership and staff of the Eastern Region and the management of major resources by the National Forests in the period since reorganization in 1966.

Soil and Water

Water is generally regarded by Forest Service personnel as the world's most valuable and necessary resource. Water is protected for its use to drink, for power, and as an asset for fishing and certain water sports. The establishment of municipal watersheds, barometer watershed studies, stream and river bank stabilization was the beginning of watershed management on the White Mountain National Forest.

Soil inventory work began on the Monongahela National Forest in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service in 1959. On the Ottawa National Forest soil inventories were completed on 50,000 acres in 1981. Such inventories provide information needed for management planning and erosion assessment. Soil scientists assist in locating trails, planning timber sales and developing prescriptions for tree planting. In 1981 the Ottawa operated 60 water quality surveillance and monitoring stations and completed watershed surveys and erosion inventories on 327,400 acres. The information obtained assured that public water supplies and swimming areas were safe and allowed for planning of management activities. [1]

The Nicolet National Forest has a similar story. The foresters there maintain regular monitoring of the 235 miles of streams, 607 miles of rivers, 34,613 acres of lakes, and 652,000 acres of land to prevent damage of the water resources. [2] Indeed, all National Forests of the Eastern Region carry on equivalent programs.

Timber Management Policies

Below-Cost Timber Sales

One consistent reaction to the timber management aspects of the 1986-7 generation of forest plans has been criticism from environmentalist groups of below-cost timber sales. The groups have charged that hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost by timber sales under the forest plans and that the plans authorize doubling or even tripling timber harvest. However, according to Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Peter C. Myers, these charges are not true. A Service wide summary made in early 1986 based on 23 final forest plans and 57 draft plans showed that the average proposed sale level for the first decade was only 11% of the total Forest's harvest. But even so, the charges have put the Forest Service in the unenviable position of explaining and defending below-cost sales, a practice it has always done. Below-cost sales are the selling of timber where the cost to the Government in preparing and administering the sale, plus the cost of road construction and reforestation exceeds the cash revenues from the sale. Some critics have said that the Forest Service ought never to make such sales, and some believe that Congress should prohibit them.

The position of the Forest Service and the USDA on below-cost sales is that such sales must be judged in terms of costs versus public benefits, not simply in terms of costs versus revenues. What are some of the public benefits from a timber sale? An obvious one is the stimulation of local economies, especially to timber related enterprises and to employment. Another benefit is meeting national needs for wood. A fundamental concept behind sustained yield forestry is to provide a dependable and consistent supply of wood products for local industry and to the nation.

For years, the Forest Service (and the USDA) have maintained that below-cost sales are not always costly. Assistant Secretary Myers has pointed out that when looked at on a national scale, the sale of timber by the Forest Service generated more cash than it cost in the years 1978 to 1983. [3]

Environmental groups may not agree that the cost of sales was less than the revenues, for much depends on how costs are determined. There is no consensus on how to do this. The Forest Service maintains that some costs which are often counted against sale revenues are in fact capital costs. A road constructed to provide access to a harvest area may be used for the next 20 or more years by recreationists and other forest users and it may enhance fire protection. Often the Forest Service builds logging roads to higher standards than needed by logging trucks so they can be put to other uses. So the roads built for timber may be a benefit to be counted against the cost of a timber sale.

Other benefits which go beyond the actual cash generated by a timber sale are improvements in wildlife habitat diversity, reduced risk of epidemic insect or disease attacks, local community stability and employment. These may seem rationalizations for timber sales, but they make good sense to most foresters. Studies have shown that certain desirable species of animals, deer and turkey, for instance, do better in new growth areas.

Current thinking in the Forest Service is that their job is to provide an optimal level and mix of multiple uses now and for the future. Timber production is only one of those uses. The multiple use mandate demands that timber production be considered in a broad multi-resource context and not from a narrow, cash-flow view alone. In an effort to broaden the context for considering timber sales, the Forest Service issued in 1983 a procedural guide to carry out economic analysis which took into account the relative value of all uses and outputs. Later, to illustrate the point, the Chiefs Office remanded to the National Forests for recomputation of costs two forest plans which showed excessive timber sales costs and which had been appealed on that basis.

In 1985 the Chief directed Regional Foresters to manage the timber sale program so that total benefits equaled or exceeded costs over time. They were to do this in an economically efficient manner consistent with multiple use principles, and they were to use the forest plans to adjust timber sale programs on individual National Forests to reflect present and future anticipated market conditions.

For the timber sales program to fit in with multiple use goals it is sometimes necessary to operate it in less efficient and more costly ways. Smaller clearcuts and wider spacing between harvest units are used even though they are less efficient, because forest managers are convinced these practices are necessary to achieve non-timber objectives, such as wildlife habitat diversity and visual scenic quality. [4]

Dedicated Timber Production Areas

Under the multiple use concept, there are already areas dedicated to specific uses—Wilderness, National Recreation Areas, Research Natural Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. In view of this, a question arises which would have been ridiculous in the old days of the Forest Service—shouldn't there be areas dedicated to timber production? The answer from the highest levels of the Forest Service and the USDA is, yes. Certain prescriptions for managing areas under the forest plans provide for management for timber production—whatever the forest is best able to produce. The concept has several advantages. It will probably be more efficient for timber production in years to come, and it will free other areas to be managed for other uses.

Areas selected for timber production would obviously be those where that is the highest and best use. These would be lands capable of efficient, high quality timber production but of relatively lower value for other uses. Even so, uses such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and motorized recreation would be permitted. Top level thinking was that areas dedicated to timber production would not be a large proportion of any National Forest. [5]

When it came to converting the theory of dedicated timber production to practice at the Regional and Forest level, there were problems. Principles of multiple use and integrated resource management get in the way of managing any piece of land solely for timber. According to Don L. Meyer, Regional Director of Planning, Programming, and Budgeting, "Prescriptions are multiple use prescriptions, and I know of none, with the possible exception of seed orchards, where timber is the sole beneficiary. [6]

Harvest Flow, Harvest Level and Timber Sale Economics

In some cases, a below-cost timber sale helps to fill in and contributes to the age diversity of the forest. It will improve the overall economic efficiency of forest management. However, good forestry theory dictates that timber sales should not exceed the productivity of the forest. This is called a nondeclining yield or "harvest flow". Nondeclining yield was an important constraint used in making the forest plans. All of the forest plans of Region 9 follow the nondeclining yield principle. But even more important in forest planning were harvest level constraints. These are multiple planning factors taken into consideration in fixing harvest levels. A nondeclining yield could be one of the factors, but there could be many others.

If the principle of nondeclining yield was used rigidly, it would be the least efficient way to manage the forest economically simply because it would be dedicated to producing the same level of every species every year. Flexibility in adjusting harvest schedules from decade to decade was considered much more desirable. In the future, when a new market is perceived, the forest plan will allow adjustment to take advantage of it. Emphasis on aspen growth in the Chippewa National Forest plan and the abandonment of pine in favor of high-quality hardwoods in the Shawnee National Forest plan illustrate the kind of flexibility that was hoped for.

Market anticipation, especially with hardwoods which take three or four human generations to reach the sawlog stage, can never be more than an educated guess. But that is the challenge the Forest Service faces when it comes to predicting timber sales. It must be added that although the forest plans are projected for 50 years, they will be reviewed and modified as needed every 10 or 15 years. [7]

Timber Management at the Regional Level

Like so many other functions within the Forest Service, timber management decisions are made at the grassroots, or treeroots in this case. Decisions on when and what to harvest and how to do it are made at the National Forest and District level. The function of the timber management staff within the Regional Office is to advise and coordinate timber management operations.

Program Advanced Silviculture Studies

In 1981 the Regional Office inaugurated a program to certify silviculturists in the Region. Operated by the Region's timber management staff, Program Advanced Silviculture Studies (PASS) was designed to improve expertise in silviculture at the National Forest level. PASS provides instruction, dissemination of information, and testing for certification. This program, like several others, has become a combined effort with Region 8, the Southern Region, thereby adding to the knowledge of those who are doing the basic silviculture work of the eastern National Forests.

Timber Resource Plans

Years before various federal laws required environmental impact statements and forest plans, the Timber Management Branch of the Regional Office prepared timber resource plans for the National Forests. The plans were coordinated with Forest Service Research and, based on field inventories conducted by teams from the Regional Office, data was processed with a crude mainframe computer programmed by Virgil Pendow in the Regional Office.

Timber was "King" in those days and there was great pride in the job done by the Inventories and Plans branch. Many young foresters, fresh out of forestry schools, worked on the inventories and resource plans. It was traditional that they worked until the job was done and hardly knew the meaning of "8 to 5." If the schedule called for an inventory of the Superior National Forest in mid winter with snow up to your hips, that was when it was done. Today, many of those foresters are in positions of management.

Managing Wilderness

One possible management prescription of current National Forest plans is wilderness. Unfortunately, there is not enough untouched wilderness to meet the perceived need, so some of the areas selected for wilderness management are lands which were logged many years ago but today have recognizable wilderness qualities. To some old foresters, the idea of saying that an old cut-over area is a wilderness is absurd, but if Congress designates such an area as wilderness or if the forest planners select it to recommend for wilderness, it must be managed as such. [8]

The policy set by federal legislation for managing designated wildernesses and for areas recommended for wilderness calls for no harvesting, no planting, no improvements, no new roads, no off-road vehicle use, pesticide use only when the resource is threatened, and fire control only in accordance with an approved fire plan. [9] Behind this policy lies the philosophy that over time, real wilderness can be made out of areas once cut-over or even once farmed.

The people in timber management and forest planning have learned to deal with the special problems involving wilderness in the East. They know they have to work within the political realities of Congressionally designated wildernesses, but they are dedicated to the principle that in the end, there is no such thing as "Eastern Wilderness" as distinguished from "Western Wilderness." For them, the quality of wilderness is a definable management goal which is the same nationwide.

The timber managers and planners have also come to understand that areas once considered suitable only for timber production might be put to better use as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, wildlife management areas, natural areas, historical areas, recreation areas, and research areas. In effect, in Region 9, timber is no longer "King" and public use is.

Importance of Management Prescriptions

Once the forest plans are finalized, the prescription for managing a given area cannot be changed except by starting the process anew. Forest managers cannot unilaterally decide to superimpose activities allowed under one management goal on an area with another management goal. The new procedure locks in the work accomplished by the National Forest plans. Without it, the years and millions of dollars expended on the forest plans might be wiped out by unilateral decisions at the National Forest and District levels.

Unresolved Issues In Silviculture

Regional silviculturalists are concerned that forest managers have been getting mixed signals from current research on silviculture. The result may be confused on how to manage the forests. In the 1960's the best research seemed to indicate that even-aged management was the best method of silviculture. However, when forest managers look at current Forest Service standards and guidelines for managing certain areas, selection or uneven-aged management was being reemphasized. This was especially true for areas where wildlife or recreational uses were indicated. There was no research to support a re-emphasis on uneven-aged management, but there were practical advantages to it having to do with diverse public uses. Even so, people trying to decide which method to use may become confused. Says Ken Shalda, Timber Sales Group Leader of the Region staff:

"I think we are going to have a lot of frustrated people out on the ground, trying to figure out what is going to work. They have been dealing primarily with even-aged stands, and now someone says they have to manage them in an uneven-aged manner! They want to know, how are we going to do that?" [10]

On Clearcutting

Probably no single issue is more controversial since 1966 than clearcutting. The Monongahela National Forest Controversy, which focused on clearcutting, will be described in Chapter XV. When the Controversy occurred, it caught the Regional Office by surprise. The Regional Office did not become involved in the matter until late because it seemed to be a local problem. Today, the Regional Office would probably move quickly to head off an emerging issue such as that before it got out of hand. But the Monongahela Controversy was the first major challenge to the standard Forest Service policy of clearcutting.

The Monongahela Controversy and other protests against clearcutting did not immediately change Region 9 timber management thinking on clearcutting. What changed was the method of presenting clearcutting to the public and the ways to handle objections. For years few people in the Regional Office thought the Monongahela National Forest did anything wrong in clearcutting. The best Forest Service research indicates clearcutting is a good way to harvest, not only from the standpoint of efficiency, but for the sake of the forest and wildlife. For one thing, clearcutting more nearly approximates the effects of natural fire than selective cutting.

The Region experts are convinced that the principal mistake in the Monongahela situation was not the size of the clearcuts or even the fact that clearcuts were used. They believe the problem was the unsightly, unutilized materials that were left on the ground. It is a common saying around timber management offices that if no one could see clearcuts for five years, there would be no problem. There would be enough restorative growth in five years to make the site visually acceptable.

For some, proof of the theory came in 1981, when the Monongahela National Forest hosted the National Tourism Plan Meeting. Many in attendance went to visit the very sites which had been so highly publicized in the Monongahela Controversy. Since it was only a few years since the Controversy, there were no tall trees, but there were impressive growths of Appalachian hardwoods, a good diversity of species, and a healthy forest situation.

Timber management people have also become more sophisticated at making clearcuts palatable to the public. In the 1960's, they tried to hide clearcuts with what were euphemistically called travel influence zones and water influence zones. These were strips of uncut trees left along highways and waterways which screened from view large clearcuts. Today, such strips have largely been abandoned in favor of integrated planning involving landscape management experts, foresters, and others.

Managing for Desirable Species

Part of the work of Regional timber management people is to assist the individual National Forests in managing for desirable species. Black cherry on the Allegheny National Forest, aspen on the Minnesota and Wisconsin Forests, Appalachian hardwoods on the Monongahela National Forest, yellow birch in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, paper birch in the Lake States, walnut and white ash in the southern National Forests of the Region, and pine where it has markets or is needed for visual qualities are all examples of desirable species. They are considered desirable in those instances not only because they are valuable trees or have good markets, but because they make good wildlife habitat or are needed to improve scenic values. However, there are no fixed rules about desirable species. White pine, which is desirable for timber, may be a detriment for wildlife. Scrub oak which is desirable for wildlife, may be worthless for timber. All of these factors were built into the forest plans and were carefully reviewed by the Regional timber management staff.

Despite its interest in encouraging desirable species, the Region has no master plan or agenda for meeting national or even Regional timber needs in these species. They would not, for example, tell a National Forest it should be growing pine because there is a national need for it. However, they will recommend actions which seem in the best interests of the Forest. [11]

Oxboard, A Replacement for Plywood

A new product of the Potlatch Company called Oxboard promises to create significant new markets for low demand timber such as aspen. Oxboard is produced by new technology whereby aspen logs are flaked into two-inch, paper thin strands and dried in a tumbler. The strands are mixed with phenolic resin and petroleum based wax in a large caldron. Then, a machine, aligns the strands in layers of different directions. Twenty-two sheets of five layers each are then placed on a hydraulic press and compressed under heat. Then the slabs are trimmed and readied for shipping. Panels of 4 x 8 feet, one-half inch thick were selling in 1982 for $7.95 each when plywood panels were at $8.50 each. The Potlatch Company was convinced that plywood would become more and more expensive and was confident that Oxboard would replace it in many uses.

The Potlatch Company constructed a new Oxboard plant at Cook, Minnesota in 1982. The $40 million plant required three years to complete. Unfortunately, the housing industry was so depressed that it was 1987 before the plant was put in operation. [12]

Wood Products as Fuel

Because of high heating costs in the Lake States, wood products were increasingly being used as fuel in the 1980's. Wood chips, which could be bought at $16 to $30 per ton were the principal fuel type. In recent years wood pellets have emerged as a new product. The pellets are made from wood chips by grinding them into a powder, drying the powder, and compressing it into pellets. In this form, they are easier to store, burn better, and leave less residue, ash, and creosote. Pellets are presently being used to heat schools, public buildings and some businesses in northern Minnesota. Some large buildings such as hotels which once burned coal have converted to pellets or wood chips. [13]

Another wood product in use is the wood briquette. These are produced in much the same way as pellets. A wood briquette, about 3.5 inches in diameter, burns like regular fuel wood. One disadvantage to both pellets and briquettes is that they are held together only by compression and will deteriorate quickly if exposed to water or excessive moisture. Installation costs for converting to burning wood products for furnaces is high, but the fuel costs, as compared to coal, natural gas, or electric heating, is much less. [14]

In 1982, the Blackduck Development Corporation of Bemidji, Minnesota, sought a city permit to build a wood briquette plant for the purpose of providing fuel for heating Bemidji High School. A side benefit to the briquette plant was that the briquettes would be made from waste wood produced by local sawmills which had previously been dumped around the area. [15]

A new steam generating plant at the Flambeau Paper Company near Ironwood, Michigan and the Ottawa National Forest uses the wood refuse from the plant to generate more than five megawatts of electric power and 150,000 pounds per hour of high pressure steam. This operation saves 300,000 barrels of oil per year which would have been used to fuel the plant. [16]

Timber Management on Recreation Oriented Forests

Certain National Forests of the Eastern Region are not large timber producers. Rather, they focus their management on recreation, water, wildlife habitat, and scenic qualities. The Green Mountain is such a National Forest. The Green Mountain timber staff plants very little, only when they are trying to convert from a hardwood forest to a softwood forest and that is just for deer herd purposes. Wayne Kingsley, Forester on the Green Mountain, explains that in a pine woods, the softwoods intercept the snow, holding up some of it, so the deer have easier traveling and are a little warmer. The deer population in the Green Mountain peaked in 1969 or 1970 when there was an abundance of low vegetation for them to eat, but the population has dropped off since then.

In recent years, timber cutting on the Green Mountain has been minimal. The maximum allowable cut in one year is 28 million board feet. Kingsley says that the most he can remember having cut in one year was 20 million board feet, and in 1986 only about 11 million was harvested. [17] Supervisor Steve Harper describes his forest as a second growth forest, primarily hardwoods, with only about 9% in softwoods. His staff is managing timber on about 130,000 acres of the total 300,000 plus. [18]

What has evolved over time on the Green Mountain National Forest, according to Supervisor Harper, is that the lands along the roads, in accessible areas, are more intensively managed, leaving the least accessible areas to follow their natural courses. "Since we're the playground for a lot of people," said Kingsley, "we have to be very sensitive on how we manage the Forest. There's somebody watching us all the time." The forest management has to be integrated with the timber management with the water resources, and with the visual resources. [19]

Wildlife and Fish Management

Cooperative Programs

By law, wildlife and fish belong to the states. The Forest Service provides the habitat but management is a joint effort between the Forest Service and the state departments of conservation. In the 1930's the Regional Foresters of both Regions 7 and 9 signed memoranda of agreement with Directors of Conservation in all of the states of the Regions which gave to the states authority over wildlife management and left to the Forest Service the management of habitat. This arrangement opened the way for a variety of cooperative wildlife programs.

Some of the early programs were aimed at bringing back native species to the re-established forests. Federal fish hatcheries were established in the 1930's on the Monongahela and White Mountain National Forests. Other examples would be programs in Illinois and Missouri to return the deer, turkey, and squirrel which had virtually disappeared from many cut-over areas. Buck Horngold, a Region 9 biologist, working with the St. Louis Zoological Society, captured large numbers of deer in Wisconsin and released them in the Clark and Mark Twain National Forests. Also, as mentioned earlier in this report, there were cooperative efforts to raise and release wild turkeys in Missouri during the 1930's. Today deer and turkey abound in the Missouri Ozarks, largely as a result of these programs.

Today's Programs

Many of the memoranda of agreement signed in the 1930's have been amended several times. Joint fish hatcheries have been established and cooperative waterfowl impoundments have been constructed in the Lake States. The State of Illinois has a joint program with Region 9 whereby it deposits $250,000 a year into an account which the Region uses for habitat improvement in Illinois.

Joint programs have also returned marten and fisher to the north woods. The fisher had disappeared when the large northern hardwoods were cut early in the century. Fishers lived deep in the mature forests. Their habitat was destroyed when the woods were cut, and they were trapped to near extinction. The marten has a similar history. It is much smaller—only about 15 inches long and weighing three to four pounds. Both animals have extremely valuable pelts; the fisher in recent years has been worth about $200 per pelt and the marten about $100. The marten is equivalent to the Russian sable. According to Jack Godden the introduction of the fisher was completed by the White Mountain National Forest by 1960. This was accomplished with New Hampshire Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cooperation and support. With the cooperation of the Canadian government, Regional wildlife experts worked out programs to introduce fishers from Canada onto the Ottawa and Nicolet National Forests. Plans are under way to release fisher and marten in the Hiawatha National Forest as well. [20]

Knutson-Vandenberg Act Applied to Wildlife

The 1930 Knutson-Vandenberg Act set up a fund administered by the Forest Service to which those who purchased timber from National Forests were required to make contributions for reforestation and timber stand improvement. This was called the KV Fund, and although the original Act authorized the use of such funds for "wildlife habitat management," they were never widely used for that purpose until the National Forest Management Act of 1976 made the KV Fund more available. The same Act authorized the Forest Service to use money collected from timber stumpage sales for wildlife habitat improvements. Today the Region spends about $1 million a year of KV funds on wildlife management. [21]

Funds for Wildlife in Wisconsin

Federal gun control laws provide that revenues generated by the sale of firearms and ammunition may be allotted to wildlife management. In 1975, a jointly developed wildlife plan was set in motion by the Forest Service and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to utilize the designated revenues. Since then, the moneys spent on wildlife on the National Forests in Wisconsin have approached the proportion allocated to other Forest activities. [22]

Goals of Wildlife Management

The goal of wildlife management in Region 9 is to restore and maintain the animals which were historically part of the wildlife ecology of the National Forests. There is a practical side to this effort. The policy is more than simply to create an historically authentic zoological garden. There can be real economic and other benefits. Besides being extremely effective in porcupine control, fishers are already being trapped by commercial trappers in Minnesota. The value of the pelt harvest in Minnesota in 1986 was estimated by Wildlife Biologist Robert Radtke at $250,000. Hundreds of people are involved in trapping in the Lake States. The beaver, which was nearly trapped out by the turn of the century, have also made a comeback under Forest Service management and is once again now being trapped.

Certain game birds have been restored to the National Forests, thus appreciably enhancing the attraction to hunters. Ruffed grouse, which once flourished throughout the central part of Region 9 but had disappeared by 1930, have been restored by cooperative programs. Quail have been restored to the Wayne-Hoosier, Shawnee, and Mark Twain National Forests.

The policies toward game animals and birds have changed since the 1930's when the main thrust was restoring game to the National Forests. Today's objective is habitat diversity which provides for all species. There are about 960 species of vertebrates in the Forests of the Region and the idea is to try to manage the Forests to accommodate all 960. However, emphasis is put on endangered and threatened species. The sand hill crane and the whooping crane, for example, are being studied for return to the Michigan forests. [23]

The Kirkland's warbler is a song bird found only in Michigan. The warbler is protected in a large set aside area of the Huron National Forest. No harvesting is allowed in the jack pine where the birds nest. Over 95% of the Kirkland's warblers in the world are found in the management area on the Huron. [24]

Current policy is to manage against animals such as feral cats, wild dogs, wild boars, and others which now live in the National Forests but which were not there originally. By the same token, any attempt to introduce a non-native specie would have to be approved by the Chief after an intensive process of review. There is no desire to repeat mistakes of the past such as the English sparrow and starling.

Adverse influences on wildlife may be the object of control measures. Cowbirds, which lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, are live trapped on the Michigan National Forests. Trout streams are protected from beaver dams by stream bed improvements, especially in northern Wisconsin.

There are many experiments in introducing new species of fish in lakes and streams in the Midwest. Chinese grass carp, threadfin shad, Atlantic stripers, and several other species offer apparent advantages, and have been tried in many places. But the Region is extremely reluctant to allow non-native species in waters of the National Forests.

Wildlife Considerations in Forest Planning

The two dominant themes in the public reaction to the draft forest plans in the Eastern Region were the desires for protection of wildlife and improved recreation. Wildlife experts in the Regional Office carefully reviewed the forest plans to see that they met wildlife needs. Sometimes no changes were needed because the forest biologists had already had their say and had been heard. Examples are the forest plans of several National Forests of the northern Lake States which emphasized management to increase aspen because aspen forests make excellent habitat for deer, ruffed grouse, turkey, and 70 or so other species.

There were other times when the Regional Office biologists became involved in forest plans. This was the case with the Shawnee National Forest draft plan. The Shawnee is a middle-aged forest with most trees about the same age. One of the most important goals of wildlife management is to obtain a better distribution of age classes so that species which live in young, middle-aged, and mature forests can all prosper. When the Shawnee draft plan reached the Regional Office, it had no standards and guidelines which set specific objectives for age class distribution. However, age diversity objectives were added to the final Shawnee Forest Plan as a result of comments from Regional Office and Illinois Department of Conservation wildlife biologists and other interested members of the public. In much the same way, the Superior National Forest Plan was changed to provide fewer roads to improve the habitat of the eastern timber wolf.

Working with Private Agencies

Under federal legislation known as the Challenge Grant Program, Region 9 carries on wildlife programs with private agencies such as the Izaak Walton League and the National Wildlife Federation. The costs of such programs are shared equally by the Forest Service and the agencies. Considerable work has been done with Ducks Unlimited, for instance, in creating wetlands areas such as the Oakwood Bottoms of the Shawnee National Forest. Similar improvements in habitat have been made in conjunction with Trout Unlimited, Delta County Conservation Sportsmen, and other conservation organizations.

Wildlife Management in Wilderness

If areas which were once cut-over were left for nature to take its course, the eventual result would be a return to wilderness, but the process would take many decades, perhaps centuries. It is necessary for wilderness areas to be managed. However, wilderness management must be approached very carefully. There may be some fish stocking to return native species. Prescribed burning may be used to emulate the natural ecological role of fire. Chemical treatment might be used to prevent exotics from taking over. Some of these measures require plans and approval of the Chief when applied to wilderness.

The prescriptions for protecting and maintaining wilderness wildlife conditions are contained in the forest plans. The Region wildlife people are convinced that the means to obtain effective wildlife management have been written into the forest plans because of the integrated resource management approach. When Robert Radtke became the first forest biologist in Region 9, no one listened much to biologists. Today, with 100 wildlife biologists in the Region, they have an equal voice. Moreover, annual budgets for wildlife programs have gone in the past 30 years from $30,000 to more than $6 million. [25]

Deer Problems

The National Forest in the Eastern Region with the most severe deer problem is the Allegheny. Deer were once threatened with extinction in parts of the northeast, but with the return of the forests, they are flourishing. Indeed, deer have become such a menace on the Allegheny that management of the situation is difficult. The deer browse line can be seen throughout the Forest. All edible vegetation has been stripped by the browsing deer up to about five feet. Plantings of the valuable black cherry and white ash are quickly devoured by the deer. Forest managers have sprayed fertilizer on plantations to make them grow quickly enough to be above the browse line before the deer ruin them. Hunting seasons and rules are liberal on the Allegheny, but the deer problem persists. [26]

Recreation

The philosophy of the Eastern Region is that the quality of recreation depends on the integrity of the environments and not on the luxury of the accommodations. Due to the fragmented ownership pattern of its National Forests, the Region has taken special care to prevent degeneration of the environments such as has taken place on neighboring private lands. The goal is to provide the public with access to lands unencumbered by "No Trespass" signs, allowing unrestricted movement for outdoor recreational activities. The National Forests are virtually the only place in the East where such outdoor freedom can be found.

In the past, the Region has attempted to make available to the public what it wanted in recreation, even when that meant high priced facilities with costly operations and maintenance. Amenities such as bath houses, flush toilets, developed campgrounds, and boat launch ramps were common. But eventually, the Region found itself with too many developed sites, many of them seriously under-utilized and costly to maintain.

Recent Trends

For reasons that are not completely understood, recreation use within the Eastern Region has declined in recent years. Some activities such as cross-country skiing have increased, but hunting, fishing, auto touring, hiking, snowmobiling and camping show a decline. Recreation fees collected in the Region in 1984 totaled $1,386,998, down 9.5% from the previous year. In 1984, there were 1,707 developed camp, picnic, swim, winter sports, and other sites in the Region. There were 286 fee sites, mostly campgrounds. Of the 846 swim, campground and picnic sites, 95% had less than 50% occupancy and 57% had less than 20% occupancy.

Another trend is that recreation use is not taking place in acceptable proportion to where recreation dollars are being spent. Dispersed use, that is those recreational activities not involving developed sites, accounts for 65 to 70% of all recreational use. However, about 80% of all recreation dollars have gone to developed sites. [27]

In view of these trends, the Regional Office has undertaken some new policy initiatives. Since the first Resources Planning Act in 1975, national policy has been to emphasize dispersed rather than developed recreation. In line with that policy, the Region has urged the National Forests to take a hard look at their overabundance of developed recreation sites, to eliminate those which are not efficient, and to seriously consider not replacing the more highly developed facilities when they wear out.

Recreation facility management in the future is to be keyed to "more primitive outdoor recreation." [28] Luxuries such as flush toilets, electricity, and hot showers are to be eliminated. If these are to be provided to National Forest users, it should be done by private enterprise. The new emphasis is on quality outdoor recreation, which should not be confused with convenience or luxury.

Using integrated resource management, the Region intends to maintain the environments so that a high quality recreational experience is available. To do this there must be continuing professional training for the people working in recreation and comprehensible planning which encompasses multiple use precepts.

In addition, the Region recognizes that Forest and District administrators will have to adjust their attitudes. Closing sites and down-scaling amenities will not come easy to some managers. However, such adjustments will be necessary if the new policy is to be implemented. Overall, the Region expects recreational use to "grow modestly" over the next 20 years. This probably reflects a realization that primitive recreation is not for everyone. [29]

Enforcement

The job of enforcing Forest Service rules for the use of the National Forests falls to the Ranger Districts. Their personnel are the ones who must apprehend abusers and see that they are punished. They receive training in enforcement and understand that it is part of their job. However, there are several factors which complicate enforcement. One is the way it is budgeted. The cost of enforcement must come out of the District's recreation budget. It is not a fixed cost, and since Districts have many other uses for recreation money, there is often little left for enforcement.

Another factor in lack of enforcement is the attitude toward it throughout the Region. Many Forest Service employees at the District and Forest levels do not look upon themselves as law enforcement officers. Forest Service people have seldom carried arms in the Eastern Region. But in view of the fact that some individuals who use the National Forests do carry arms, people charged with enforcement are concerned about doing so without being armed themselves. The result is that Forest Service rules are sometimes violated. The majority of people who go into the National Forests are law-abiding citizens, but unfortunately some are not. [30] Enforcement is further complicated by the judicial system. Offenders must be taken into local courts where the power of the local magistrate to try cases involving violations of Forest Service rules may or may not be established.

The complexities of enforcement can be illustrated by the following story. Several years ago there was a designated nature trail in the LaRue-Pine Hills Ecological Area of the Shawnee National Forest. The trail was clearly marked for walking only. Motorized vehicles were prohibited by authority of the Forest Supervisor according to a sign posted at the entrance to the trail. Despite the sign, the trail had become a favorite of off-road vehicle (ORV) riders. Many of them hauled in their vehicles from great distances and even other states. A person could hardly walk on this trail without being run over by three-wheelers and motorcycles. The noise and exhaust fumes completely ruined the experience for anyone looking for a quiet walk on a nature trail. The knobby tires of the ORV's cut deeply into the trail and contoured the shoulders on curves so that the trail looked like a race track. It was obvious that the Supervisor's order was not being enforced.

A visit to the same trail in October 1987 revealed that there was no longer a sign on the entrance and that there had been recent use by ORV's. The vehicles had cut ruts 14 inches deep and gouged out large bog holes. On one hillside, the trail had been worn down by the tires and erosion was at least three feet deep.

But even though the sign has been taken down, one cannot assume that the District has completely given up on enforcement. The problems of ORV enforcement are not that simple. A recent lawsuit against the Shawnee National Forest by an ORV user has caused the Forest Supervisor to suspend temporarily all efforts to prevent ORV use until the suit is settled. Presently, the trail is wide open for ORV use. It can still be used for nature walks, but the user must choose a day when the ORV's are not present and must walk around deep ruts and bog holes. [31]

The ORV Problem

Enforcement problems are not confined to ORV use. However, ORV's have become a major problem on many National Forests. ORV's became a major form of recreation in the National Forests in the 1970's. Motorcycles have been ridden in the Forests since most of the National Forests of the Eastern Region were established. In the 1960's, two new developments, the trail bike and the snowmobile, opened a whole new aspect of recreation. Made mostly in Japan, these light and durable vehicles were designed for difficult terrain. Part of the joy of riding one was to take it down a forest path or across country where no street vehicle could go. Unfortunately for the environment and for their own safety, some riders wanted to push the vehicles to the limit, jumping over obstacles or speeding recklessly down forest trails.

The impact of trail bikes and snowmobiles on the National Forest environment was sometimes harmful. Forest trails were worn and damaged to the point that they became gullies of erosion after rains or the snow melted. Quiet nature trails were ruined for others by the roar of engines and smell of exhaust fumes.

Then in the 1970's came new ORV's, the all-terrain vehicles (ATV's). These three- and four-wheeled motorcycle-like vehicles have wide, balloon tires with coarse tread and are designed to go many places even the trail bikes cannot go. On dry terrain, the wide tires do little damage, but in wet conditions the wide tires displace much muddy soil.

The riding of ORV's has become a popular sport, practiced sometimes by families, even small children, for whom tiny vehicles are made. There are organized riders' clubs, some of which have been compared to motorcycle gangs. Hunters and fishermen use the ORV's, and people who live in or near the National Forests have adopted riding the vehicles as a convenient form of transportation. Increased uses of National Forest lands have brought ORV's into direct conflict with more traditional recreation, resulting in frictions between people, incidents, protests, and even law suits.

Dealing with ORV's

In 1972 Presidential Executive Order 11644 established policies and procedures to insure that the use of ORV's would be controlled. The Order was the result of concurring reports from forest biologists that ORV's were a threat to the environment. The position of the Regional Office was and is that ORV's are a legitimate use, only if they do not do serious damage to the resources. However, decisions on how to handle the ORV problem on the National Forests were left to the Forest Supervisors. The result was a wide range of policies. On the White and Green Mountain National Forests, where there was little demand for ORV use and few acres that are suitable, ORV's were prohibited. The Wayne National Forest was opened completely to ORV's. Some of the National Forests developed designated ORV trails. The best known of these is the Chadwick Trail in Missouri. Several National Forests attempted to exclude the ORV's from certain, areas, which led to a spate of lawsuits, both from ORV users and their opponents. To complicate matters, the Chequamegon National Forest adopted its own signing policy.

Regional Policy Formulated

Recognizing that the public probably expected a more consistent policy concerning ORV's, the Regional Office took advantage of the opportunity presented by the forest planning process of the mid-1980's to make its position clear. The Region wanted a more uniform policy and better enforcement. A staff study had found enforcement of ORV controls to be "sporadic and inconsistent" throughout the Region. In a blunt letter to the Forest Supervisors, Regional Forester Larry Henson attributed some of the inadequate enforcement to a lack of awareness of the problem or indifference to it on the part of some National Forest managers. Recognizing that "management of ORV's is viewed by some to be of low priority," Henson was also concerned that the problems of ORV's were not being adequately addressed in some of the forest plans. He forwarded to the Supervisors four recommendations made by the Regional Office Recreation, Range, Wildlife, and Landscape Management (RRWL) staff: [32]

1. Ways should be found to accommodate ORV uses compatible with other uses and without unacceptable environmental damage. This would be facilitated by working with user groups, by providing separate areas, and by effective use of signs.

2. The Regional signing policy should be followed without deviations. Failure to do so would be confusing to all forest user and "cause increased non-motorized user concern with Forest Service management." Failure would also present problems in enforcement and create new and unwanted trails in the Forest.

3. Planning ATV facilities should be tailored to fit demand. Where heavy demand existed for use by wider vehicles, all other vehicles and uses should be kept off the trails for safety's sake.

4. Current ORV plans should be reviewed, changed if needed, and tied in with the forest plans. [33]

As a result of the Region's recommendations, ORV plans were developed by each National Forest in the Eastern Region except the Wayne National Forest, which is joined administratively with the Hoosier National Forest. The Hoosier prepared a plan but it was barred from execution by a federal court order based on a case before the court. The Supervisor of the Wayne-Hoosier withdrew the Hoosier plan and EIS, closed the Forest to all motorized travel off roads, and directed that the Wayne plan not be completed. The Hoosier remains closed to ORV's to date. All other Forests' ORV plans were implemented. [34]

ORV Use

A Regional study of the ORV situation published in 1985 revealed that the use of motorcycles and ATV's had risen steadily since 1976 on the Huron-Manistee, Ottawa, and Shawnee National Forests. On the Monongahela, White Mountain, Nicolet, Green Mountain, and Chequamegon National Forests there was relatively little use by ORV's of any type. Snowmobile use was heaviest on the Hiawatha and Huron-Manistee National Forests, although the use had declined sharply during the period studied. The Shawnee, Mark Twain, and Wayne-Hoosier National Forests reported virtually no snowmobile use, undoubtedly because there is very little snow. [35]

Cultural Resources Management

Cultural resources constitute a fragile, limited, nonrenewable portion of the total environment. Because they are the physical legacy of various stages of past human life ways, they are illustrative of human cultural development. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic architectural resources. These resources are represented by sites, buildings, districts, and objects. [36]

The types of resources recorded in the Eastern Region include prehistoric Indian sites ranging in time from 10,000 years ago to just before European contact. On several of the northern National Forests, there are Proto-historic Indian Villages which indicate early trading contacts (17th and early 18th centuries) with Europeans as well as contemporary Indian villages and ceremonial sites. Historic archaeological resources are very numerous and include logging camps, farmsteads, log driving dams, and CCC camps. Historic architectural features include the administrative headquarters of the Chippewa National Forest, lookout towers, historic houses and farmsteads, early iron smelting furnaces, and logging camps.

Cultural resources management is tied inextricably to a body of federal legislation. The Antiquities Act was passed in 1906 in recognition that cultural resources (archaeological sites only at that time) required protection from destruction. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 provided for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance. More recently, the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974), and the Archaeological Resources Act (1979) have expanded greatly the role of the federal government in the area of cultural resources management.

With the passage of the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, federal agencies like the Forest Service are required to evaluate the potential adverse impacts of all land altering activities to cultural resources. This expanded legislation put the Forest Service in the business of archaeology and history in a big way and required yet another management responsibility for Region 9.

All cultural resources subject to destruction or alteration are evaluated with regard to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria for significance. The NRHP is an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment. The NRHP was designed to be and is administered as a planning tool. The criteria are:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and

a. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

b. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

c. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

d. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The investigator's conclusion regarding the eligibility of a particular property for nomination to the NRHP is reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in consultation with the Forest Service. If the properties do not meet any of the criteria, no further action is required. If the property is determined eligible, then appropriate preservation measures are developed by the responsible agencies.

Following the identification and assessment of the cultural resources, land use limitations are offered which are designed to protect and preserve the resource. As indicated earlier, cultural resources are fragile, limited, nonrenewable portions of the natural and cultural environment; any direct land altering activities (i.e., roads, reservoirs, logging) or indirect impacts (i.e., increased public use of an area containing sites) may threaten the preservation of the site. These potential impacts or adverse effects are evaluated, and appropriate mitigative alternatives are offered. Mitigation may include avoidance, data recovery through excavation, or other means of preservation.

Responding to the body of federal legislation indicated above, Region 9 moved to meet its new historic preservation responsibilities. In 1976, Judith G. Propper was hired as the first Regional Archaeologist. Realizing that professional archaeologists and historians could not be placed immediately on each Forest, a cultural resource paraprofessional program was established in 1977. This program utilized archaeologists and historians from universities and museums to conduct cultural resource training workshops for foresters and forest technicians. Many of the Region 9 National Forests use the paraprofessionals to conduct small-scale surveys and assessments which are more conveniently conducted in-house rather than by contract.

By 1978, two archaeologists were hired to oversee cultural resources on more than one Forest. Janet G. Brashler was shared by the Michigan National Forests and Dick T. Malouf handled the Mark Twain and Shawnee National Forests for a short time. Today there are archaeologists on each of the Forests in Region 9, and a few Forests have more than one cultural resource specialist.

As indicated earlier, cultural resource surveys and assessments must be conducted ahead of activities which constitute potential adverse impacts to cultural resources. Projects conducted by the Forest Service typically requiring assessments include mineral exploration, logging, road construction, recreation developments, and land exchanges. Through 1986 the Mark Twain National Forest has conducted, either in-house or by contract, approximately 180 such assessments. [37]

Thousands of archaeological and historical sites have already been identified on the Forests of the Eastern Region. At this writing, approximately 1,800 sites have been recorded on the Shawnee National Forest, with only 20% of the Forest surveyed. [38] The Nicolet National Forest has located over 150 prehistoric Indian occupation sites and over 350 Euro-American sites such as logging camps, homesteads, and fur trade posts. Archaeologists have learned from their findings that the prehistoric population peaked after A.D. 800 and for reasons unknown abandoned the Nicolet area around A.D. 1400. [39] As part of their long-term planning objective to preserve a representative sample of the Forest's cultural resources for future research and public enjoyment, the Chippewa National Forest has five sites on the National Register:

1. The Supervisor's Office at Cass Lake, which is a large log structure constructed in 1935 by the CCC.

2. The first Ranger Station on the Chippewa National Forest, built in 1904, located near the Cut Foot Sioux Area. This building is also the first Ranger Station built in Region 9.

3. The Turtle Mound, also in the Cut Foot Sioux Area. This is a large, turtle-shaped mound that held religious significance for the Chippewa and Sioux during their intertribal wars.

4. The Camp Rabideau Civilian Conservation Corps Camp. This site is the only one remaining in this area with the original structures that housed the CCC during their work on the Chippewa constructing roads, trails, campground, etc.

5. Lake Winnibigosh Dam Archaeological Site located on the Deer River District.

Some innovative cultural resource projects either completed or under way in the Eastern Region include an oral history of Odie and Florence Bridgeman, Shawnee National Forest [40], a living history interpretive site on the White Mountain National Forest, a history of the CCC camp sites on several Forests, interpretive exhibits of social history on the Monongahela, and oral history projects on the Monongahela and White Mountain National Forests.

At this writing, most all of the Forests of Region 9 have cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Minerals and Energy

The National Forests in Region 9 with known significant oil deposits are the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Wayne. There is coal in several, with commercial quantities on the Monongahela. But even at the height of the oil crisis of the mid-1970's, environmentalists outside and within the Forest Service wanted to go slow on exploiting energy resources in the National Forests for fear of environmental damage.

A serious problem in any use of mineral resources in the National Forests of the Eastern Region arises from the fact that most of the lands in the system were purchased from private owners. On some of these lands, the mineral rights had previously been separated from the surface rights. Sometimes there were even different owners of mineral rights since speculators and oil and coal companies had bought them without acquiring the surface. When such lands were sold to the government, many owners of mineral rights refused to sell. In areas where separate mineral rights were common, the only way government land acquisition agents could put together reasonable purchase units was by excluding mineral rights from the dealings. The result was that some private owners were left holding mineral rights to National Forest land and the Forest Service had only limited power to oversee the use of minerals on these lands.

The best solution to the problem of private mineral rights owners on National Forest land would be for the Forest Service to purchase all such mineral rights. Unfortunately, no funds have been available for such a sweeping program. However, Congress has funded purchase of some "highly sensitive and significant" areas where mineral activity would be completely intolerable. [41]

When mineral rights are left in the possession of third parties due to separation from the surface prior to federal acquisition, the mineral owners or those who lease the mineral rights have the right to do whatever is necessary to exploit their minerals. The Forest Service must allow reasonable drilling and mining activities even if damage is done to the surface environment.

The policy of the Eastern Region has been to supervise any mineral use on National Forest land so that the least possible damage is done to the environment and to the other resources. For instance, oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny, Wayne, and Monongahela National Forests and underground coal mining on the Monongahela have been carefully planned and inspected so that the environmental impact has been minimal. [42] Permanent damage to the environment is not permitted. Since strip mining of coal is virtually impossible without causing permanent damage, an Act of Congress in 1977 made strip mining illegal on eastern National Forests. [43]

Until 1946, the Forest Service had full responsibility for government owned minerals on National Forest land and complete management authority. That year, the President's Reorganization Plan Number Three transferred authority for all but common minerals such as stone, sand, gravel, etc., to the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Since that time, management decisions concerning oil and gas, coal, and other valuable minerals have been made by various agencies of the Department of Interior. [44]

The policy of the Eastern Region is to encourage mineral development on the National Forests. It is deemed in the national interests to make these resources available to meet national needs for energy and minerals. There are already more than 100,000 oil wells within the National Forests of the Region as well as coal, lead, iron, copper, and zinc mines. The only significant production of fluorspar and tripoli in the country takes place on and near the Shawnee National Forest in extreme southeastern Illinois.

However, because of declines in mineral prices and depressions in the mineral industries, mineral activity in the Region is waning. An example of this is the town of Ironwood, Michigan, headquarters for the Ottawa National Forest and part of an important copper mining area. The community once had a population of 20,000 but today has less than 7,000. The Iron Range region of Minnesota, one of the world's leading producers of iron ore and other heavy metals, has fallen into a deep depression. This affects the National Forests of the Region such as the Nicolet, Ottawa, and Superior. A $540 million zinc mine planned by Exxon Corporation to be placed adjacent to the Nicolet National Forest was recently abandoned because of economic conditions. The lead industry in southeastern Missouri, which goes back to French miners in the early 18th century, has been depressed by low lead prices. Mining activity on and near the Mark Twain National Forest has declined correspondingly.

On the other hand, there has been extensive oil and gas development in the lower part of Michigan on and near the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Fluorspar and tripoli mining continues on the Shawnee. And extensive exploration and prospecting activities are taking place on several National Forests, particularly the Monongahela, Allegheny, and Chequamegon. But until the prices of oil, gas, and heavy metals rise substantially there will probably be a continued decline of mineral development in the Region.

The lack of mineral activity does have a good side to it. It eliminates many of the conflicts with environmentalists which would undoubtedly arise from proposals to mine and drill on National Forest lands. The Superior National Forest is known to be heavily mineralized, including the BWCA. If these minerals ever again become the target for development, a fight of heroic proportions can be expected.

Land Management

Completing the National Forests

All of the Regional Foresters of the Eastern Region have been concerned about the incomplete land ownership patterns of the Region's National Forests. In the early 1970's the Region was able to make considerable headway on this problem. According to Jay H. Cravens, the Regional Forester during those years, rising public interest in outdoor recreation and the environment along with cooperation from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation facilitated the acquisition of significant new lands. [45] One example, the Green Mountain National Forest has acquired nearly 40,000 acres since 1970. The Forest received $10 million dollars in 1985 and 1986 for land acquisitions. Green Mountain Forest Supervisor Steve Harper states unequivocally, "We're still building a National Forest here." [46]

New Land Acquisition Laws

The means to continue building National Forests was provided in 1965 when Congress passed a new kind of land acquisition law. Under the Weeks and Clarke-McNary Acts, the only types of land which could be purchased were watershed and cut-over timber lands. Because of decreased appropriations from Congress and rapidly rising land prices, purchases under these programs declined to practically nothing after World War II. As a result, the Eastern Region could not complete the purchase units of many of its newer Forests. The Wayne, Hoosier, Shawnee, and several other National Forests remained less than half completed. According to Gordon Small, Director of Lands, Watershed and Minerals Management, who began working in land acquisition in the mid-1960's, "We had some real fragmented Forests and some real ownership problems." [47]

The new land acquisition law which brought about a big change was the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. This Act, described in more detail in Chapter XI, provided a means whereby land could be purchased for recreational purposes. The Act set up the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) which received moneys from the sale of surplus property, admission fees to federal recreation areas, and motorboat fuel taxes. The Fund could be used to purchase land for the National Forest, National Park, and National Wildlife Refuge Systems.

Lands purchased for the National Forest System were to have recreational or wilderness values and had to be located within or adjacent to existing National Forest boundaries. A special provision recognized the prevailing need for additional recreation in the East by directing that no more than 15% of the land purchases would be made in areas west of the 100th meridian. This meant that 85% of the purchases would have to be made in Regions 8 and 9. [48]

Subsequent legislation expanded the types of the land which could be acquired. While the L&WCF Act emphasized recreation, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act added the broader conservation aspects of preserving an ecological system. Another new dimension came with laws which protected endangered species of wildlife and which authorized the purchase of habitat lands.

Implementing the New Laws

Region 9 made good use of the new laws to resume its land acquisition and continue building its National Forests. One of the first major L&WCF acquisitions was the Sylvania Tract, a potential wilderness area, which was incorporated into the Ottawa National Forest. The beautiful Eleven Point River in southern Missouri was added to the Mark Twain National Forest under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Summarizing the program, Gordon Small has said:

"There have been some very substantive additions to the National Forest System where the emphasis has been on what the recreation or wildlife benefits might be". [49]

The areas acquired include not only recreation and wildlife habitat lands, wilderness, and wild and scenic rivers, but also National Recreation Areas and what are called Recreational Composite Areas. The latter are areas which were once administered by the now defunct Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Much of the Region's purchase effort was directed toward filling in the Wayne National Forest, the most incomplete Forest in the Eastern Region. Today, the Wayne, Hoosier, Shawnee, and other National Forests of the Region still have scattered government ownership, but substantial progress has been made. [50]

A curious feature about land acquisition in the Eastern Region is that land is relatively inexpensive. In parts of northern Minnesota, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and even in New England, land can still be purchased in large tracts for $200 to $400 per acre. The Region seldom has to pay over $500 to $600 per acre except for lake and river frontage. In contrast, barren and rocky land in the West often sells for more than $1,000 per acre. It would seem that in the Region which has the most population and the most cities, land prices would be higher, but it is not true. Wooded uplands, unmanaged forests hundreds of miles from cities, and isolated wetlands in the Eastern Region do not command high prices. This situation, combined with a growing public interest in public lands in the Region has helped in the effort to acquire land. It must be added that because there are so many states and so much population in the Region, considerable political pressure can be exerted on Congress to appropriate money for land purchases. [51]

Land Acquisitions in the Eighties

In recent years, the job of completing the Forests in the Eastern Region has been one of finding ways to keep the program alive by adapting to current trends. Under the Carter Administration, the emphasis was on land acquisition and millions of dollars were made available. Often, the Forest Service was seen as land grabbers. The Reagan Administration shifted to land exchanges and the flow of money dwindled. Most land purchases were of a new type. They were the product of pressures put by local citizens or groups to have the Forest Service buy a tract of land in which there was special interest. The pressure was put on members of Congress to secure the necessary appropriation. In this situation, the Forest Service was little more than a passive bystander who was asked in the end to buy the land.

In the 1980's the Eastern Region has put increasing emphasis on land exchanges. The Region has exchanged from 10,000 to 25,000 acres per year. It is a viable alternative to purchases when little money is available. The exchanges are made when it is in the best interests of the National Forests. They are done to rearrange the ownership patterns to make them more manageable or to better match the resources. In the past, exchanges were initiated largely by inholders, but currently the Region is making a coordinated effort in conjunction with the forest planning process to identify those areas where they would be willing to make exchanges.

A new innovation in the exchange process has been the role of third parties. These are often non-profit environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy, an organization which specializes in rescuing threatened natural and wildlife areas. An example of a creative land exchange involved the Dixon Springs area in southern Illinois. The State of Illinois operated a Agricultural Station on the Dixon Springs area under a permit from the Forest Service. The State wanted to make extensive, improvements at Dixon Springs but was not willing to do so on National Forest land. Since the State had no lands within the Shawnee National Forest it could exchange for the Dixon Springs area, the Region encouraged The Nature Conservancy to work out a three-way deal involving an office building in Chicago. In the deal, The Nature Conservancy purchased inholdings within the Shawnee National Forest and gave them to the Shawnee in exchange for the Dixon Springs area. The exchange was value for value, but the Shawnee received lands which were much more useful to it, and the State gained control of Dixon Springs so it could proceed with its improvements.

Such machinations as the Dixon Springs deal may become more common in the future. After 1989 all funds for new land purchases may end completely because that is when the L&WCF is due to expire. However, there is reason for hope. President Reagan has put together the President's Commission on the Outdoors to review the situation. Perhaps the work of this Commission will lead to a renewal of the L&WCF or a new source of funds for acquisitions. If not, the Eastern Region will look for other ways to continue building its National Forests. [52]

Although the goal of land acquisition is completion of all National Forests, the Region has to be realistic. Certain purchase units were started too late to ever be completed. There is a large purchase unit of the Wayne National Forest in which only 160 acres has been acquired by the government. Rather than nurse the false hope that this unit can someday be finished, the Region is ready to exchange its 160 acres and close the unit.

The Marietta Unit of the Wayne National Forest is a different case. The Unit has very low percentage of government lands and heavy development along the roads. It does not look like a part of a National Forest. [53] Even so, there is no thought of giving up on it. The plan for the Unit is to keep building—to acquire as much land as possible in order to protect special features and establish reasonable and manageable forest areas away from the roads. However, in the words of Gordon Small, "The Marietta is probably the biggest challenge around to get that done." [54]

On other Forests such as the Shawnee where there are ownership problems, most of the incomplete units have resources on which to focus. Such units will be completed to reasonable levels of government ownership someday. [55]

The Small Tracts Act

There are land management problems originating with inholders on most National Forests. This is true even on a Forest like the Chequamegon, where government ownership is 81%. Some people who own land adjacent to National Forest land deliberately trespass on it and use it for their own benefit. They know it may be years before the Forest Service discovers it. Others mistakenly believe, based on erroneous surveys or titles, that land is theirs when it is not. It is impossible for the Rangers to patrol every property line. Indeed, they do not know exactly where some of the lines are because they may have not been surveyed.

The policy of most National Forests is to try to settle issues of trespass or improper use by inholders through the Small Tracts Act. [56] This Law, passed in 1983, allows the Forest Service to sell small tracts of land an inholder has been using in honest error or strips of government owned rights-of-way surrounded by private lands. [57] Using the Small Tracts Act, the Forest Service can sell land in question to the individual who has been using it and thereby eliminate a troublesome problem. [58]

Reference Notes

1. Ottawa National Forest, Annual Report, 1981 (January 2, 1982), p. 8.

2. Kennell M. Elliott, "History of the Nicolet National Forest," p. 53.

3. Peter C. Myers, "Below-Cost Timber Sales: An overview of the Issue—Understanding the Linkages." Address to Conference on the Economics of National Forest Timber Sales, Spokane, Washington, February 17, 1986.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Don L. Meyer, Editorial Comments, October 9, 1987.

7. Ibid.

8. Ken Shalda and Lee Hanks, Interview, December 17, 1986.

9. Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, Regional Guide for the Eastern Region (Eastern Region, n.d.), pp. 3(51-57).

10. Ken Shalda and Lee Hanks, Interview.

11. Ibid.

12. Duluth News Tribune, November 7, 1982.

13. Mesabi Daily News, Virginia, Minnesota, November 17, 1982.

14. The Pioneer, Bimidji, Minnesota, October 29, 1982.

15. Ibid.

16. Ironwood Daily Globe, Ironwood, Michigan, October 19, 1982.

17. Wayne Kingsley, Interview, October 2, 1986.

18. Steve Harper, Interview, October 2, 1986.

19. Wayne Kingsley, Interview.

20. Robert Radtke, Interview, December 20, 1986.

21. Reforestation, 16 United States Code 576-576b: National Forest Management Act of 1976, 90 Statutes at Large 2949, Section 18; and Radtke, Interview.

22. Robert Radtke, Interview.

23. Ibid.

24. William C. Erickson, Interview, October 7, 1986.

25. Robert Radtke, Interview.

26. Paul Brohin, Interview, August 10, 1986.

27. Charles R. Joy, "A Discussion Paper: Recreation Management for the Eastern Region," (Eastern Region, 1985), pp. 2, 9.

28. Ibid., p. 11.

29. Ibid., p. 12-18.

30. Yost, Interview.

31. David E. Conrad, personal observations, October 1987.

32. Henson to Supervisors, April 18, 1985, Regional Office files.

33. Gaylord Yost and Dick Joy, "Eastern Region ORV Situation," January 1985, Regional Office files.

34. Gaylord Yost, Interview.

35. Gaylord Yost and Dick Joy, "ORV Situation."

36. Executive Order 11,593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 1971.

37. Dick Malouf to Michael J. McNerney, October 20, 1986.

38. Dan Haas, Interview, 1987.

39. Rhinelander Daily News. July 29, 1983, p. 15.

40. Shawnee National Forest, "Family of the Hills, an Oral History of Odie and Florence Bridgeman," Cultural Resource Report #1, n.d.

41. Larry Henson, Interview, August 12, 1985.

42. Gilbert Churchill, Interview.

43. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 445.

44. Jack Jacks (Regional Geologist), Editorial Comments, October 1987.

45. Jay H. Cravens to David E. Conrad, February 1987.

46. Steve Harper, Interview, October 1, 1986.

47. Gordon Small, Interview, December 18, 1986.

48. The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 78 Stat. 897.

49. Gordon Small, Interview.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. David E. Conrad, observations, August 1985.

54. Gordon Small, Interview.

55. Ibid.

56. William Byers, Interview.

57. National Forest System, Land Conveyance, 96 Statutes at Large, 2535.

58. William Byers, Interview.

Beaver aircraft dropping water on spot fire, Kawishiwi Ranger District, Superior National Forest, Minnesota, 1962.