United States

Department of

Agriculture

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SO-l 21

and Ozark- 1. 1m 1 The Ouachita

St. Francis Natlonal r-orests:

A History of the Lands and

USDA Forest Service Tenure

Stephen Strausberg and Walter A. Hough
SUMMARY

This brief history of the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests shows that many factors influenced the land, vegetation, wildlife, and other resources that have been under USDA

Forest Service administration for almost 90 years. These two national forests are somewhat unique because they were created

from land in the public domain, as were the western forests, but

also contain land purchased under the Weeks Law and ClarkeMcNary Act, as do al1 eastern national forests. This history also

shows that laws, acts, and regulations not only created the national forests in Arkansas and Oklahoma, but continue to give

more and more specific direction for their use and management.

The effects of political and judicial decisions on these forests have

been tremendous.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank al1 those individuals and organizations that helped

provide information, documents, and comments during the preparation of this

history of the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, especially the

Southern Forest Experiment Station for providing funds for the History Department of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville to initiate this project,

as well as for Publishing the finished work. Al1 photographs used in this publication are from the USDA Forest Service and were provided by Faith Skoog

and Barbara Williams with the Ouachita National Forest and by Tracy Powers

with the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests.

Our thanks and recognition go to the people that reviewed and commented

on the manuscript including: Roger Coleman, Mike Curran, Dan Nolan, and

Bi11 Pell with the Ouachita National Forest; Jack Fortin, Lynn Neff, and Robin

Shaddox with the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests; Tom Foti with the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission; Jim Guldin with the Southern Forest

Experiment Station; and John Gray, a forestry consultant from Little Rock,

Arkansas. Two of these, Bi11 Pell and Jim Guldin, reviewed the manuscript

severa1 times. They provided invaluable suggestions and additional material

that helped make major improvements in the final manuscript.

June 1997

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ORIGINAL PEOPLE AND FOREST COVER IN WESTERN

ARKANSAS AND EASTERN OKLAHOMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT AND

LOGGING:1686-1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ORIGINS OF THE ARKANSAS AND OZARK NATIONAL

FORESTS: 1907-1908. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

EARLY FOREST SERVICE ACTMTIES: 1908-1925. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

FOREST SERVICE ACTMTIES: 1925-1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE NEW DEAL: 1936-1942 . . . . . 18

THE FOREST SERVICE’S ROLE DURING AND AFTER

WORLD WAR II: 1942-1963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

THE GREAT SOCIETYYEARS: 1960’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT STRENGTHENS: 1970’s. . . . . 27

OTHER ISSUES AFFECTING FOREST SERVICE

MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

CONFLICT BETWEEN INTEREST GROUPS AND THE

FOREST SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

NEW APPROACH BY THE FOREST SERVICE: 1990’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

TIMELINE.................................................. 35

LITERATURECITED......................................... 37

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

i

The Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests:

AHistory of the Lands and USDAForest Service Tenure

Stephen Strausberg and Walter A. Hough

INTRODUCTION

The United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Forest Service (FS) is dedicated to conserving the resources and environmental benefits of the

Nation’s forests and rangelands. National forests and

grasslands are managed to serve the needs of the

people who own them and to conserve them for future

generations. The Forest Service works with State forestry organizations to help private landowners apply

good forestry practices on their lands. Also, research

is conducted to find better ways to manage and use

the Nation’s renewable resources. The 1897 Organic

Administration Act, which created the Forest Service,

states that “no national forest shall be established,

except to improve and protect the forest within the

boundaries.” That is a mission the Forest Service continues to pursue (USDA FS 1991b).

Throughout the domain of the Forest Service, the

multiple users of national forest lands are locked in

political combat. Despite the best intentions of the

agency, contrasting views about the use of National

Forest System resources are being fought out in the

courts and the media. Two of the forests managed by

the Forest Service are the Ouachita and Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests (NF’s), encompassing almost

3 million acres in Arkansas and Oklahoma (USDA FS

1991b). A historical analysis of the situation on these

forests prior to and during the stewardship of the Forest Service allows for illumination and appraisal of

both the impediments and opportunities for the use

of National Forest System lands. The history of shifting congressional mandates and public interactions

provides an appreciation of the changing role of the

Forest Service in Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The Ouachita NF is located South of the Arkansas

River in western Arkansas and extends into eastern

Oklahoma, and most of the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s

are north of the river (fig. 1). These national forests

have been the site of recent controversy in which users were at odds with each other as well as with the

Forest Service. Using Forest Service appeals procedures, the judicial system and their congressional representatives, various organized groups, and individuals

are demanding reappraisal of the role of the Forest

Service in the stewardship of these lands.

The debate over the future of these national forests

is rooted in the past. How did nature and humans interact to shape these forests? How did laws, regulations,

and policies over the years influente management practices for various resources?

The material presented here will concentrate on

lands in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma and

will not cover the St. Francis NF in eastern Arkansas.

More information about the St. Francis NF can be

found in Bass (1981) and Wi1kinson.l Hopefully, this

brief history of the Ouachita and Ozark NF’s will help

shed some light on the above questions.

ORIGINAL PEOPLE AND FOREST COVER

IN WESTERN ARKANSASAND

EASTEXN OKLAHOMA

Native Americans and Early Explorers

The forest cover of the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains was first explored and utilized by Ameritan Indians approximately 10,000 to 12,000 years ago during

the Paleo-Indian Cultural Period (Jeter and Williams

1989, Sabo and Early 1990). Archaeological and ethnographic evidente indicates that later indigenous

inhabitants named the Tom’s Brooks Culture were

present between about 5000 and 4000 B.C. (Jeter and

Williams 1989). They camped along the rivers and

streams that flowed through the region and ate fish,

hickory nuts, black walnuts, hazelnuts, chestnuts,

pecans, and beech nuts. They also mined novaculite

and used it to make spear points, knives, and tools.

These people disappeared after 3000 B.C. for unknown

reasons (McGimsey 1969).

A new native Ameritan settlement, known as the

Hopewell Civilization, appeared about 500A.D. These

1 Wilkinson, G.M. 1961. History of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. 40 p. Unpublished report (mimeographed). On file

with Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, RO. Box 1008,605 West

Main, Russellville, AR 72801.

Stephen Strausberg (now deceased) was a professor witb the Department of History, University ofArkansas,Fayetteville, AR 72701; and Walter

A. Hough is an assistant director (retired), Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA 70113 (now Southern Research Station,

Asheville, NC).
Figure l.- Location of Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests.

Indians of the Woodland Cultural Period were the

ancestors of the Caddo Tribes. It is believed these

people cleared portions of the forest with fire and stone

axes to cultivate corn and squash and to establish

settlements containing structures of oak logs

(McGimsey 1969). About 1,000 years ago, new forms

of social integration emerged with the appearance of

political and religious hierarchies (Sabo and Early

1990). The most populous native Ameritan sites were

along the Mississippi River. The Caddo Indians, who

settled in western Arkansas, traded Salt and buffalo

meat and hides to these flourishing settlements on

the Mississippi floodplain (McGimsey 1969).

The expedition of Hernando de Soto between 1539

and 1543 is reported to have traveled through Arkansas. De Soto is believed to be the first European to set

foot in what is now Arkansas near present day Helena, Arkansas, on June 131541. He led his army up

along the Arkansas River to the Little Rock area. After spending the winter somewhere South of Little

Rock, De Soto may have visited the thermal springs

at present day Hot Springs in early 1542. The expedition then followed the Ouachita River back to the Mississippi River where De Soto died on May 21, 1542

(Albornoz 1986). The account by Luis Hernandez de

Biedma of De Soto’s journey referred to crossing large

fields of maize and seeing hot springs during the

group’s meandering, indicating they may have passed

through the Ouachitas (Reynolds 1906).

It is believed that the total number of native Americans declined following the De Soto expedition, possibly as a result of contact with diseases carried by the

Europeans. Whatever the cause-climate, topography,

war between tribes, or disease-there were few Indian tribes in Arkansas when the French arrived in

the area in the 1670’s. In 1673, a small party of French

explorers was led down the Mississippi River by Father Jacques Marquette and Louis Joliet. They did

not stay in Arkansas long and returned north after a

brief visit with the Quapaw at the confluente of the

2
Arkansas and Mississippi rivers. In 1682, LaSalle and

de Tonti returned to this area because of the fur trade

they hoped to develop with these Indians (Sabo 1990).

French trappers and fur traders were probably in

western Arkansas at about this time or soon after. In

1686, the first permanent settlement in what is now

known as Arkansas was established by the French at

Arkansas Post near the juncture of the White, Arkansas, and Mississippi rivers.

Documented Descriptions of Forest Cover

between 1804 and 1839

The first reliable description of forest cover in western Arkansas was given by William Dunbar and

George Hunter as they traveled up the Ouachita River

in the fa11 of 1804. The United States acquired the

Arkansas Territory as part of the Louisiana Purchase

in 1803, and Dunbar and Hunter were to report to

President Thomas Jefferson about these newly acquired lands. As their party traveled up the river,

Dunbar’s journal indicates “the highland earth . . . is

seen on the left bank; the soil is not rich, bearing pines,

interspersed with red oak, hickory, and dogwood”

(Dunbar 1807). He also reported that beyond the valley of the “Washita” there was high land covered with

pines and noted a high rocky hill that was “crowned

with a very handsome Pine-woods.” Arriving in the

environs of the hot springs, he reported that the timber was not large and consisted chiefly of oak, pine,

cedar, holly, hawthorn, and others common to this climate. He also commented on a great variety of vines,

some said to produce black, and others, yellow grapes

(Dunbar 1807). On reaching the height of 200 feet

above the valley floor, he observed a considerable

change in the soil; the timber diminished, and the

rocks increased in size to the summit. Dunbar wrote

that “the cedar, the wax myrtle, and the cassina

yaupon, al1 evergreens, attach themselves particularly

to the calcareous region, and seem to grow and thrive

in the clefts of the solid rock” (Dunbar 1807).

During November and December, Dunbar noted that

the atmosphere had a “smokey [sic] or misty” appearante. He attributed it to “the common pracitize [sic]

of the Indians and Hunters, of firing the woods, planes

[sic] or savannah; the flames often extending themselves some hundred miles, before the fire is extinguished . . .” (Rowland 1930). Dunbar remarked about

the sparse Indian population in the Ouachita Mountains due to the rough terrain, and he also commented

on the condition of land cleared by the native Americans as follows:

“When a piece of ground has once got into this

state, in an Indian country, it can have no opportunity of re-producing timber, it being an invariable practice to set fire to the dry grass in the fall

or winter, to obtain the advantage of attracting

game when the young tender grass begins to

spring: this destroyes [sic] the young timber, and

the prairie annually gains upon the woodland. It

is probable that the immense plains known to

exist in America, may owe their origin to this custom” (Dunbar 1807).

In 1812, Louisiana became a State, and the Arkansas Territory was separated from Louisiana and becarne part of the Missouri Territory. Henry Schoolcraft

traveled through the Missouri Territory in 1818 and

described the variety of trees he saw in the valleys or

bottoms, including sycamore, cottonwood, elm, buckeye, walnut, ash, oaks, hackberry, maple, mulberry,

dogwood, sassafras, pawpaw, and persimmon. He also

noted the slopes included black walnut and many of

the species already listed. The bluffs and highland

ridges were occupied by yellow pine and “a stinted

growth of oaks, denominated post oaksn (Schoolcraft

1819). In 1819, Schoolcraft traveled through the Arkansas Territory. He went up the White River from

the Mississippi River into the Ozark Mountains and

wrote about the area indicating:

“The only inhabitants on the upper parts of the

White River . . . are hunters . . . [whol support

themselves by hunting bear, deer, buffaloe [sic],

elk, beaver, racoon, and other animals found in

great plenty in that region. . . . Its mineral products may also claim our future attention. Iron ore,

lead, zinc, and manganese have already been discovered; and among its earthy minerals may be

enumerated marble, flint, agate, hornstone, and

rock crystal” (Schoolcraft 1819).

Schoolcraft also indicates in his journal that he visited the “Hot Springs of the Ouachitta [sic], (Washitaw

[sic]).” He called the mountain with the springs issuing at its feet “Hot Mountain” and described the top

as having lots of rock and a few pine and oak trees.

The side slopes “are covered by a most luxuriant

growth of vines. . . . Haws and blackberries are also

found in great abundance.” On the other side of the

narrow valley was “Cold Mountain.” It also had some

pine trees on top but “its sides are destitute of vegetation.” In the Ouachita Mountains, large forests of pine

timber were common. He also noted that a “luxuriante of grass in the woods, and an abundance of acorns

in the fall” made it possible for the local people to raise

and fatten hogs and cattle (Schoolcraft 1819).

In 1819, Congress created the Arkansas Territory,

including what is now Oklahoma. During 1819, Thomas Nuttall traveled up the Arkansas River from Arkansas Post to Fort Smith and beyond to compile a

natural history. He described the forests along the

river in some detail but lamented that he “saw many

of the plants common to every mountainous and hilly

region in the United States . . . and though no way

peculiarly interesting, serve to show the wide extension of the same species . . .” (Nuttall 1821). Farther

3
west in the Winding Stair Mountains, he mentions

traveling through a thicket of abundant dwarf-oaks

(including dwarf chestnut oak, rock chestnut oak, and

dwarf post oak) and crossing pine ridges (Lottinville

1979). He also reported the pattern of hills with pine

trees on the South side and hardwoods on the northfacing slopes (Nuttalll821). While Nuttall was in the

Hot Springs area on his return trip during the fall, he

commented on the atmosphere being filled with smoke,

often reducing tisibility to 100 yards. He concluded,

as did Dunbar, that the smoke was a result of annual

burning of the surrounding prairies by the “savages

and whites” to improve hunting. He also believed the

Flores prepared the ground for early vegetation the succeeding spring and assisted its growth by the stimulating effects of the resulting alkaline ash (Lottinville

1979).

Also in 1819, during an expedition by U.S. Army

engineer Major Stephen H. Long, the Ouachita highlands were described as generally covered with forests of yellow or pitch pine and also supported an

exuberant growth of pines and bramble (Schwaab 1973).

In 1832, the Ozarks were surveyed in preparation

for a land sale. Using the surveyors’ notes, Phillip

Chaney (1990) of the University ofArkansas, Department of Geography, compiled a list of trees used to

witness the land corners and for sighting the survey

lines. Although only a sample, Chaney also calculated

the frequency of trees in the Ozarks from these notes

(table 1).

Perhaps the most colorful of al1 these early descriptions was given by German naturalist George Engelmann who visited Hot Springs, Arkansas, in the fa11

of 1835. He recounts: “

. . . with great pleasure our eyes light upon the

majestic foliage of the magnolia and the shiny

green Ameritan cherry laurel; between them are

stands of dwarf chestnuts and the strange looking Aralia. . . . The holly, with its dark green thick

foliage, out of which smile the red berries. . . . At

higher elevations is a mixed woods of oak and citron-yellow nut trees, overtowered [sic] by the thin,

dark-green pine; al1 with wine-red leaves vines

climb up, and fa11 flowers shine their blue and

yellow colors throughout. . . . Magnolias and

cherry laurel, the holly and the sweet-gum, myrtle

and cypress, mixed with many another strange

form of plant life, . . . with many shades of green,

gray, yellow, of rose, carmine, brown, and almost

black” (Jansma and Jansma 1991).

The Arkansas Territory became the 25th State of

the Union on June 151836. Between 1838 and 1839,

Frederick Gerstaecker (1856) lived, traveled, and

hunted extensively in western Arkansas. His descriptions give an interesting view of the landscape and

conditions in both the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains

as follows:

“

. . . we went to the source of the Washita [sic];

but the forests not having been burnt for many

years, were so thickly overgrown with underwood,

that it was impossible to find deer, or shoot game

enough to live upon.”

“

. . . we had crossed the main range of the ‘Boston

divide,’ which parts the waters of the Mulberry

from the White River. The country and vegetation differed considerably from that South of the

Arkansas. There was no trace of fir; the mountains were covered with oak, beech, and hickory,

al1 at this season without leaves, which to an eye

accustomed to green hollows, seemed rather

mournful and monotonous.”

“It struck me as extraordinary that the best and

most fertile land was on the hill tops, where, in

other places, it was generally the worst; here grow

black walnut, wild cherry, with stems sometimes

twenty inches in diameter, black locust, and sugar

maple, trees which generally grow only in the richest soils. The black locust was very frequent and

the long Sharp thorns are by no means pleasant

on a journey. Game seemed to abound. Flocks of

wild turkeys filled the forests as thick as partridges in Germany and deer were equally plentiful” (Gerstaecker 1856).

During one of his trips through Little Rock, Gerstaecker observed that north of town, with the exception of the valley of the Arkansas, there was little

except pine woods growing in stony soil. He made the

observation that “storms are frequent in Arkansas, and

occasionally hurricanes, which will sweep a distance

of a mile in width and severa1 miles in length, levelling everything in their path. After a time blackberries, thorns, and creepers, grow . . . over the heaps of

fallen trees. . . .” He also wrote that the woods of Arkansas presented a beautiful aspect in the spring of

the year when the logwood [sic] trees were in bloom.

They grew in immense numbers and gave the forest

the appearance of a garden (Gersteacker 1856).

INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT

AND LOGGING: 1686-1910

As mentioned earlier, the first permanent European

settlement in Arkansas was established by the French

in 1686 at Arkansas Post. Settlement of this area of

the State, and especially the western mountains, was

slow, and inhabitants were few in 1803 when the

United States acquired the Arkansas Territory as part

of the Louisiana Purchase. As described earlier,

Schoolcraft (1819) wrote about his travels in the

Ozarks and indicated that the only inhabitants were

4
Table 1.- General Land Office witness trees of the Middle Fork White River (adapted from Chaney

1990)

Witness tree Species No. of trees Percent

White oak

Post oak

Black oak

Red oak

Hickory

Elm

Chinquapin oak

Sugar tree

Blackjack oak

Dogwood

Black walnut

Linn tree

Black gum

Maple

Mulberry

Sycamore

Ash

Hackberry

Sweet gum

Blue ash

Sassafras

Willow

Black cherry

Wild cherry

Black locust

Overcup oak

Bur oak

Pin oak

Ironwood

Total

Quercus alba

Q. stellata

Q. velutina

Q. rubra or falcata *

;3.

muehlenbergii

t

Q. marilandica

Cornus florida

Juglans nigra

Tilia americana

Nyssa sylvatica *

Morus rubra

Platanus occidentalis *

Celtis occidentalis

Liquidambar styraciflua

Fraxinus quadrangulata

Sassafras albidum

Salix nigra

Prunus serotina

P serotina

Robinia pseudoacacia

Q. lyrata

Q . macrocarpa

Q. palustris

Ostrya virginiana

221 29.39

128 17.02

125 16.62

100 13.30

7 4 9.84

2 1 2.79

9 1.20

8 1.06

6 0.80

6 0.80

5 0.66

5 0.66

5 0.66

5 0.66

5 0.66

5 0.66

4 0.53

4 0.53

2 0.27

2 0.27

2 0.27

2 0.27

2 0.27

1 0.13

1 0.13

1 0.13

1 0.13

1 0.13

1 0.13

752 100.00

*Numerous possibilities.

TPossibly sugar maple or sugarberry.

hunters. European settlers gradually penetrated the

Ouachita and Ozark highlands ofArkansas, generally

from the Mississippi River via the Arkansas and White

rivers in search of cheap, fertile land. For the subsistence farmer, forests supplied everything-fuel, food,

and building materials. By 1821, the population in

Arkansas had reached 14,000 (Bass 1981).

Commercial Logging Begins: Condition of

Forest Resources in 1880

Commercial logging began in western Arkansas in

1879 with the westward building of railroads such as

the St. Louis, Iron Mountain, and Southern Railroadnow the Missouri Pacific-when this line was extended

from Little Rock to Fort Smith. This created both a

market for crossties and the means of transportation

for large-scale exploitation of the forest resources in

western Arkansas.2 In 1880, Sargent prepared a report on forests of North America for the Tenth Census

of the United States. He stated that:

2 See footnote 1, p. 1.

“North of the Arkansas river the forests are mostly

deciduous trees of the Mississippi basin, through

which isolated belts occur, often of considerable

extent, in which short-leaved pine, . . . is mixed

with hardwoods. The southwest part of the State

South of the Arkansas river and west of the broad,

leve1 plain of the Mississippi is covered outside

the river bottom lands with an almost continuous

forest of pine, in which short-leaved species occupies the high, dry ridges and the loblolly the moist

soil above the bottoms. The pine forests are almost intact” (Sargent 1884).

Sargent, using estimates made by Professor F. L.

Harvey of Fayetteville, showed that the amount of merchantable shortleafpine standing in Arkansas, May 31,

1880, was slightly over 41 billion board feet. The estimated cut for the year ending May 31,1880, was about

130 million board feet of shortleaf pine (Sargent 1884).

At the national level, the Division of Forestry was

established within the Department of Agriculture in

1881 (Steen 1977). This event had no immediate impact on the forests or people ofArkansas but would in

the future.

5
By 1890, the logging industry was well established

in Arkansas (Bass 1981). Demands for telephone poles,

barre1 staves, and crossties brought about frenzied

cutting (fig. 2). Companies such as Dierks, Crossett,

Fordyce, Bradley, Southern, Long-Bell, Union, and

Caddo River (hg. 3) were among the largest operators

(Smith 1986). With a few exceptions such as Dierks

and Crossett, most companies intended to cut the timber and then abandon the lands. Although most lumber companies practiced the “cut-out and get-out”

method of logging, a few used a harvesting technique

known as “highgrading.” This was a form of selective

cutting where only the trees with high value and quality were removed. The favored species included white

oak, black cherry, black walnut, and select pines. The

stands that remained were made up of trees with less

commercial value. Although commercial values

changed over time, the major problem with “high-grading” was that remaining trees were frequently of poor

genetic quality and provided an inferior seed source

for development of future stands.

Conceru Over Forest Resource Depletion

On March 3,1891, during President Harrison’s administration, Congress enacted the Forest Reserve Act

in response to scientific and public concern that the

Federal government must reduce the rapid depletion

of the nation’s forest resources (Steen 1977). The act

was limited to reserving forest lands from public domain for watershed protection. Most reserves established during the first few years after passage of this

act were in the West.

In 1897, an amendment to the Sundry Civil Appropriations Act listed the purposes for which forest reserves could be established, administered, and

protected. This act is now referred to as the Organic

Act (Steen 1977).

Also in 1897, the Division of Forestry was given an

analysis of Arkansas’ forest cover by Charles Mohr.

He informed the Division, then headed by Bernard

Fernow, that north of the longleaf pine region, shortleaf pine was widely distributed between the Ouachita

River and the eastern boundary of Texas. The resources of pine timber had been removed in accessible

parts of these mixed forests of oaks, hickories, and

shortleaf pine, but off the highway, the resource had

been only slightly drawn down (Mohr and Roth 1896).

Mohr described 1 acre in the vicinity of Gurdon as

representing average conditions:

“Twenty-two shortleaf pines have been counted

from twelve to twenty-five inches in diameter,

with no pines of smaller growth, the scattered

undergrowth of dogwood, huckleberries, scrubby

oaks, blackgum, and hickories. . . . On the steep

slopes, the pines are rarely found to exceed twelve

inches in diameter and seventy-five feet in height.

The hardwoods are most Spanish oak and post oak

scattered beneath the pines and are scrubby and of

no value for their timber” (Mohr and Roth 1896).

Figure 2.-Logging crew on Ozark National Forest cutting white oak tree into stave bolts.
. . _-.. ---

Figure 3.- Caddo River Lumber Company mil1 at Glenwood, Arkansas.

In 1899, the total manufactured output of the 10

leading industries in the State of Arkansas equalled

slightly over $15 million. However, the lumber industry contributed almost $11 million of this wealth, or

more than two-thirds of the total (Jones 1979).

At the national level, another change occurred in

1901 when the Division of Forestry was expanded and

named the Bureau of Forestry (Steen 1977).

Logging Peaks in 1909

From 1906 to 1909, the last extensive virgin forest

east of the Rocky Mountains, located in Arkansas, was

opened to widespread, large-scale cutting. The year

1909 marked the climax of the lumber industry’s most

frantic period of expansion into the Ouachitas. It also

was the all-time high year for lumber production in

Arkansas, the South, and the entire United States

(Smith 1986). It was estimated that about 1.2 billion

board feet of yellow pine lumber were produced in

Arkansas that year, and about 121 million board feet

were produced in Oklahoma (Mattoon 1915b). Total

lumber manufactured in Arkansas in 1909 was 2.1

billion board feet (Smith 1986).

Impact of Cutting and Burning by Farmers

Small farmers augmented the pace of denuding Arkansas’ forest lands by cutting the original stands of

their own with no intention of replanting. When one

place played out (hg. 4), the farmer just moved to a

new one (Bass 1981). Many farmers tried to raise crops

on the land that had thin topsoil and rough terrain,

thus accelerating erosion. During slack winter seasons, subsistence farmers worked at small portable

mil1 operations to earn money. White oak was cut for

ploughs, handles, wagon parts, beams, boards, fence

rails, and fenceposts (Bass 1981).

The depredation of the virgin forests in the Ozark

and Ouachita Mountains was further aggravated by

the practice of burning the woods every year in the

fa11 or early spring to improve forage production or

create pastures. Also, there were no stock laws, so

farmers allowed their cattle and hogs to range freely

throughout the forests. Southerners accepted spring

burning as a routine, and folk wisdom also indicated

woods burning was a method of killing ticks and driving out snakes. Fred Lang, Arkansas’ second State

forester, estimated that it was not uncommon for at

7
Figure 4.-Abandoned homestead on Highway 27 in Montgomery County, Arkansas.

least one-third of the Ozark and southern pine regions

of the State to burn every year (Lang 1965). Burning,

however, also destroyed seedlings and new growth.

Samuel Record, first forest supervisor of the national

forests in Arkansas and later Dean of Yale School of

Forestry, also believed that forest lires undermined

Arkansas’ timber resources. He felt that providing

markets for pine timber would do a lot to save pine

forests from fires. Ready markets and cash for trees

would do more than any amount of preaching to secure the cooperation of owners to prevent carelessness

with tires. In his pamphlet, “The Forest Resources of

Arkansas,” he spoke of the recuperative power of nature, if it could be protected from tires, as follows:

“Blessed with abundant rainfall and other favorable conditions for forest growth, Arkansas is rapidly replacing the virgin forests with valuable

second-growth. The cutover lands now bear dense

stands of pine and hardwoods in spite of the fact

that no effort is made to protect such areas from

Ere. On the flats and rolling lowlands, the lobolly

pine seedlings quickly fil1 up old tields, cut-over

lands, and openings in the woods. The density of

the stand causes the trees to grow tal1 and straight

and clears the trunks for future supplies of lum8

ber of good grade. The same is true for shortleaf

pine on the uplands” (Record 1910).

ORIGINS OF THE ARKANSAS AND

OZARK NATIONAL FORESTS: 1907-1908

In February 1905, administration of al1 existing forest reserves was transferred from the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) to the USDA, and later

that year the Bureau of Forestry became the Forest

Service (Steen 1977). Congress passed the Forest

Homestead Act that opened agricultura1 lands for entry within forest reserves on June ll, 1906, and on

June 30, passed an act requiring 10 percent of receipts

from forest reserves to be returned to States for benefit of public roads and schools. Payments to States were

later increased to 25 percent in 1908 (Steen 1977).

In 1906, Gifford Pinchot, then Chief of the USDA

Forest Service, sent Cornell-trained forester William

Logan Hall to Arkansas to select the areas of land that

would eventually become the two designated national

forests. Fred Lang described Hall as one of Pinchot’s

“stalwart men.” “Bi11 was a good thinker and ful1 of

energy.” Hall personally took a team of horses and tra-
versed the rugged terrain to select acreage for his

mentor Gifford Pinchot. He was to remain active in

Arkansas forestry, later serving as one of the founders

of the Arkansas Forest Protection Association in October 1928.3 The local newspapers urged cooperation

with Hall in his preliminary investigation and determination of the Arkansas situation.

In March 1907, forest reserves were renamed “national forests” (Steen 1977). That same year, Gifford

Pinchot prevailed upon President Theodore Roosevelt

to withdraw large portions of the public domain from

public use in northern and western Arkansas based

on Hall’s suggestions. This was in preparation for the

creation of national forest reserves. The first withdrawal of Arkansas’ public domain was made May 10,

1907, and further withdrawals were made June 17,

1907, and November 23,1908, resulting in a total gross

acreage of 1,663,300 acres (Wootten 1917). The initial

reaction in Arkansas was favorable. The Fayetteville

newspaper, the “Arkansas Sentinel,” published an

article on how these forest reserves would serve the

people. The article discussed the new philosophy of

having the forests “. . . managed by the people in their

owninterests . . .n (Fayettmille Arkansas Sentinel1907).

A proclamation by President Roosevelt on December 18, 1907, created the Arkansas National Forest

on reserved public domain lands South of the Arkansas River (U.S. Government Printing Office 1907).

Pinchot remarked that this forest was the only major

shortleaf pine forest under Federal government protection. In January 1908, the “Arkansas Sentinel” reprinted an article from “Forestry and Irrigation

Magazine” that praised the hearty spirit of cooperation manifested by the Arkansas people and spoke of

benefits to be gained by the conservation of timber

supplies (Fayetteville Arkansas Sentinel 1908).

By another Presidential proclamation, March 6,

1908, those reserved public domain lands north of the

Arkansas River were designated the Ozark National

Forest. On March 8, 1908, the highly influential “Arkansas Gazette” published a favorable report on the

newly created national forest (Little Rock Arkansas

Gazette 1908). The Ozark NF was the only major hardwood timberland under governmental protection at

that time (Bass 1981). The forest would assist the furniture industry in Fort Smith and be a renewable

source of valuable hardwood. Just before leaving office, President Roosevelt added lands from the public

domain to the gross area of the Ozark NF on February 25 and to the Ouachita NF on February 27,1909

(USDA FS 1966).

3 Lang, Fred H. 1961. Twenty years of razorback forestry. Hot

Springs, AR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Ouachita National Forest. 13 p. Unpublished report. On file with:

Ouachita National Forest, Box 1270, Federal Bldg., Hot Springs

National Park, AR 71902.

EARLY FOREST SERVICE

ACTMTIES: 1998-1925

First Forest Supervisors and Rangers

In January 1908, Samual J. Record was appointed

forest supervisor of the Arkansas NF. He was responsible for both the Arkansas and Ozark NF’s until late

in 1908 when David Fitton became supervisor of the

Ozark NF. The first supervisor’s Office for the Arkansas NF was established in January 1908 in Fort Smith,

Arkansas. This also served as headquarters for the

Ozark NF after it was established in March 1908.

However, on July 10, 1908, Record moved the headquarters to Mena, Arkansas. Forest Supervisor Fitton

set up the Ozark NF headquarters in Harrison, Arkansas, on December 31,1908, where it remained until

moved to Russellville, Arkansas, in 1918 (Bass 1981).

In October 1909, Francis Kiefer replaced Fitton.

Record resigned as supervisor of the Arkansas NF on

July 1, 1910, to join the Yale University Forestry

School. Daniel Adams replaced him and moved the

supervisor% Office to Womble for a short time and then

to Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1910.

Record believed that the rapid growth of trees and

natural advantage of climate would enhance the position of the national forest as a region of rich timber

resources supplying industrial needs. He foresaw future prosperity based on a timber industry that would

be lasting. Anaturalist, Record published a pamphlet

in 1910 that discussed the state of Arkansas’ timber

resources. He indicated that 129 species of native trees

had been identifíed in Arkansas of which 60 were of

commercial importance. His paper included the names

of trees of commercial importance found in the “Ozark

Region” (appendix, table 1). This region of Arkansas

included the Ozark Mountains north of the Arkansas

River and the mountains South of the river commonly

known as the Fourche and Ouachita ranges. He reported a great variation in the composition and quality of the forest due to elevation, exposure, and soil

conditions as follows:

“The crests of the ridges and some of the poorer

knolls and foothills are stony and broken. . . . The

trees are small, short, scrubby, and defective. The

prevailing species are black jack oak, red oak,

black locust, chinquapin, chestnut, winged elm,

and hickory, with some shortleaf pine.”

“The slopes and foothills are usually well wooded

with commercial timber. . . . The north slopes bear

the best hardwood timber. South of the Arkansas

River, the shortleaf pine is a very important tree

[fig. 51 and is especially abundant on South slopes.

. . . Trees in mixture are red, white and.post oaks;

chinquapin chestnut, basswood, and cherry. White

9
Figure 5.- Forest stand, mainly shortleaf pine, on Powell Mountain !bail, Jessieville-Umpheres Ranger District, Arkansas

National Forest.

oak is the principal tree on the north slopes. . . .

North of the Arkansas River the shortleaf pine

occurs sparingly. The most important trees are

the oaks, gum, black walnut, ash, and red cedar.”

“The river bottoms of the Ozark region are usually narrow, and much of their ground has been

cleared for farming. The prevailing tree species

are sycamore, black and red gum; white, red, willow and bur oak; black walnut, basswood, holly,

red maple, beech, elm, hackberry, silver birch,

mulberry, cherry, butternut, coffeetree, and

hickory” (Record 1910).

The Forest Service and Supervisor Record faced a

formidable task considering the scant resources that

were available to patrol the vast and difficult terrain

of western Arkansas. He advertised for eight rangers.

The Forest Service demanded that these offrcers be

professionally competen& physically fit, and morally

above reproach (Bass 1981). For a wage of $900 per

year, one of the first tasks of the rangers would be to

delineate the boundaries of the national forests. This

would not be an easy task because of previous inexact

surveys.

10

The local forest guards and rangers were selected

after passing the U.S. Civil Service examination. They

had a difficult and demanding assignment and were

on duty almost al1 the time (hg. 6). They not only protected against tire and land or timber grabbing, but

they were also game wardens. They maintained miles

of telephone lines on foot or on horseback. They

checked homesteading, mining claims, timber cutting,

and watched for timber poachers (Bass 1981). The

work took its toll, as reported by the “Fort Smith

Times” in 1908: “Numerous changes have been made

in the administrative forte of the Arkansas National

Forest. Two guards have been dismissed . . . [forl conduct unbecoming a forest offlcer. Three others have

resigned for various reasons. There are now twelve

men in the Ozark Reserve” (Fort Smith Times 1908).

Administrative Structure

By 1909, the Forest Service’s administrative structure was in place. The operating principie was decentralization, dividing the Arkansas and Ozark NF’s into

units under district rangers. A forest supervisor was

responsible for each forest, and the supervisor’s Office
included a deputy supervisor, forest examiners, forest

assistants, and timber scalers (fig. 7). Al1 positions

were under the U.S. Civil Service System-a provision that exempted appointments from political patronage and made the Forest Service a citadel of

professional pride.

The district rangers were given major responsibilities in districts that averaged about 160,000 acres.4

They were charged with management of timber sales,

fire protection, and any other activities mandated by

the Federal government. The ranger’s salary of $900

per year in 1908 was finally increased to $1,200 in

1920. Rangers were expected to have a working relationship with locals in order to facilitate smooth operations. The “Use Book” of Forest Service regulations

and instructions took effect in July 1905. It stated that

4 See footnote 1, p. 1.

Forest Service personnel were “agents of the people,

with whom they come into close relations as fellow

citizens” (USDA FS 1905). Rangers often had long tenure in the same district in order to foster good relations with the public.

Public Attitudes Change

The public attitude towards the Forest Service

changed as the new rangers uncovered illegal use of

the public domain. The Forest Service believed that

the 2,500 families who lived within the national forest boundaries (fig. 8) when the public domain was

withdrawn from entry had used the land for many

years as a sort of commons. Their stock ran at large,

timber was cut without regar-d to ownership, the woods

were burned at will, and timber speculators operated

Figure 6.- Start of another day as Ozark Natioml Forest ranger prepares to

saddle his horse.

l l
with little regard for legal land titles.5 Record found

that illegal timber cutting continued for years in open

defiance of the law.6

After President Roosevelt made another addition of

thousands of acres of public domain lands to the two

national forests in Arkansas in February 1909, and,

with the realization that the Forest Service was going

5 See footnote 1, p. 1.

6U.S. Department OfAgriculture, Forest Service. 1957. Ouachita

National Forest celebrates 50th anniversary. [Not pagedl [17 p.].

Unpublished report. On file with: Ouachita National Forest, Box

1270, Federal Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR 71902.

to interfere with long standing local practices, a backlash developed. In May 1909, little more than 1 year

after supporting the Federal forest reserves, the “Arkansas Gazette” printed a letter from a Polk County

reader who complained that Supervisor Record was

not sympathetic towards homesteading. The writer

also noted: “

. . . when the forest people refuse to grant them

[Forest Servicel deeds to their homes, the people

are sore-claim bad faith with them as with the

Indians-forest fires are set to annoy the officers;

printed notices torn down, threats made . . . for

Figure 7.-Forest oficer David A. Younger scaling logs, Hodges 5-12-24 sale, Cold Springs

Ranger District, Arkansas National Forest.

12
Figure 8.- Typical farm family in the Ozark Mountains.

these mountain people when aroused are as mean

to combat as so many devils” (Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 1909b).

Forest Supervisor Record’s reply to the letter was

printed in the same article.

The Arkansas Legislature approved a resolution on

May 6, 1909, asking the Arkansas congressional delegation to take such steps as necessary to abolish the

national forests in Arkansas (Little Rock Arkansas

Gazette 1909a). In February 1910, a meeting of 600

homesteaders in Mount Ida established an organization known as the “Homesteaders’ Protection League

of Montgomery County.” They adopted a resolution

petitioning the U.S. Congress to entirely eliminate the

reserves in the county. The Committee on Public Lands

of the House of Representatives held hearings for several days in May 1910 to gather public input on two

bills: H.R. 20683, “ToAbolish the Ozark National Forest,” and H.R. 21894, “To Exclude from the Arkansas

National Forest al1 lands within the County of Montgomery and restore the same to the public domain”

(Committee on Public Lands 1910).

Ranger William Wootten was charged with the task

of inventorying and classifying lands within the Arkansas NF that were chiefly valuable for agricultura1

purposes, as required under the Forest Homestead Act

of 1906. After almost a decade of effort, Wootten noted,

‘Were agricultura1 land here bottled up, as some seem

to think, it would have passed to patent long before

the creation of the Arkansas NF. 1 repeat-the people

have classified this land” (Wootten 1917). In western

Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, lumber companies

had taken advantage of some individuals’ fraudulent

use of the Forest Homestead Act by buying land from

these “farmers” (fig. 9). Ranger Wootten felt these itinerant farmers had abused the act by acquiring choice

timber stands with no intention of living on the land

and then selling these lands to logging companies

(Wootten 1917).

The reaction against the Forest Service in Arkansas was also occurring in other parts of the country

and at the national level. Congress had already passed

the Forest Homestead Act in 1906 that allowed selection of 160 acres of agricultura1 land within the confines of the national forests (Steen 1977). Under the

Forest Homestead Act, President William Howard Taft

signed a proclamation on December 28, 1910, that

shrank the Ozark NF by some 562,981 acres (Bass

13
1981). Also, a major change in Forest Service leadership occurred in January 1910, when President Taft

fired Chief Gifford Pinchot for publicly critícízíng the

Secretary of the USDI over the processíng of Alaskan

coa1 claíms (Steen 1977).

Fire Protection-the Most Important Job

Duríng the early days on the natíonal forests ín

Arkansas, the single most important responsíbílíty of

the forest rangers was fire protectíon. This was an

especíally difficult task due to local attitudes. Beginning with the 1910 fire season, the Forest Service made

an effort to detect and suppress al1 forest fires (fig.

10). They also began to employ local people to assíst

ín putting out these fires (fig. ll). Thís practice proved

counter-productíve, as hard-pressed subsistence farmers who needed money actually lít the fires and then

offered theír servíces to help extínguísh them. In the

Ozarks, some 52,452 acres were set ablaze in 1913.7

As a result of the faílure to reduce acres burned usíng

local píckup crews and the lack of adequate permanent employees, the Forest Service abandoned forestwíde protection along wíth the practíce of enlisting

local aíd to fight forest fires in 1913 (Bass 1981).

Also in 1910, the Forest Servíce started the systematic erectíon of guard towers. The constructíon of these

towers proved to be difficult due to límíted materials

and poor roads. Efforts were also made to ínítíate an

educatíonal program to change the attítudes of the

publíc toward the forests. Henry Koen, one of the original forest rangers and, later, forest supervisor of the

Ozark NF, had been brought up in the Ozarks. He tried

to convínce locals of the necessíty of fire protectíon.

As Fred Lan$ recalled, “Henry would ríde a mule

through the Ozark Mountains, staying overníght wíth

the nesters, samplíng theír mountain dew and preaching forest fire protectíon.” By 1925, Ranger James

Maurice Waít conducted a much-expanded program

of fire educatíon usíng a government truck painted

with the slogan, “When the forests burn, you and your

children lose” (Bass 1981). Traveling over poor roads

and across creeks, he covered more than 5,000 miles

duríng hís fírst ful1 year, giving talks, enhanced by

films and slíde shows, that íllustrated the advantages

of fire protection. People were attracted to these meetíngs by the opportunity to view slides and motion píctures, some for the first time (Bass 1981).

Weeks Law

In 1911, Congress passed the Weeks Law that authorized Federal purchase of forest lands ín the east7 See footnote 1, p. 1.

8 See footnote 3 , p. 9 .

ern part of the United States. Although the original

ímpetus was from groups ín the southern Appalachíans and the Whíte Mountaíns of New Hampshire,

Congress wrote the law to ínclude any lands ín watersheds of navigable streams. Each acre purchased had

to contribute to the protectíon of navigatíon (Steen

1977). The Weeks Law also authorized creatíon of a

National Forest Reservatíon Commissíon charged with

the responsibílíty of overseeíng purchases of these

lands. William Hall served as an advisor to the commissíon ín the selectíon ofArkansas lands to be acquired.

The original wíthdrawals from the publíc domaín

ín 1907 and 1908 totaled 1,663,300 acres, but thís gross

area íncluded both publíc and private lands wíthín

the natíonal forest boundaries (Wootten 1917). Thís

area changed severa1 times as a result of additíons by

Presídent Roosevelt ín 1909 and exclusíons by Presídent Taft ín 1910 and Presídent Wilson ín 1914,1916,

1918, and 1919. By 1919, the boundaries had been

pulled ín so that the gross area equaled 1,469,906 acres

of whích 915,650 acres were Federal lands (USDA FS

1966).

The first Arkansas lands purchased for the national

forests under the 1911 Weeks Law were bought ín.1919

from the Missouri Pacific Raílroad on the recommendatíon of Hall (Bass 1981). By 1925, Forest Service

ownershíp had íncreased to 963,287 acres (USDA FS

1966). The largest íncreases ín natíonal forest ownership occurred during the period from 1933 to 1941.

Most of the lands purchased wíthín the proclaímed

forest boundaries had been cutover. Eventually, the

natíonal forests ín Arkansas would expand to slíghtly

more than 2.5 míllion acres and, ín Oklahoma, to a

líttle more than 300,000 acres, making the total over

2.8 míllíon acres (USDA FS 1994). However, a majority of the purchased acreage was west of the original

forest reserve that had been created from the publíc

domaín. Most of these addítíonal acres consísted of

submarginal cutover and burned land often acquíred

from tímber companies (Bass 1981).

Condition of Forest Resources in 1913

In the Ouachita Mountaíns, pine forests were consídered the most valuable resource. Wílbur R. Mattoon

(1915a), a Forest Servíce examíner, publíshed a bulletín on shortleaf píne. He reported that mature shortleaf occurred over a large region centering in western

Arkansas and northern Louisiana. He índícated that

thís was the last extensive region of virgin shortleaf

forest left in the path of the lumber índustry as ít

moved southward and westward. Mattoon found shortleaf well adapted for growth ín pure stands: “In the

hígher mountaínous regions, íncludíng . . . the Arkansas and Ozark Natíonal Forests, the warm south-facing slopes are generally covered wíth píne ín pure

14
Figure 9.-Settler’s dugout, Womble Ranger District, Arkansas National Forest.

Figure lo.-Early fire fighting on the Arkansas National Forest.

1 5
Figure ll.- Fire fighters starting to a forest fire from the Powell Mountain cabin, Jessieville-Umphers Ranger District, Arkansas

National Forest.

stands, and the northerly slopes with little else than

hardwoods, chiefly oaks and hickories” (Mattoon

1915a). Prevailing associates of shortleaf pine west of

the Mississippi River were yellow [now blackl oak and

bitternut and pignut hickories; on dry ridges, post and

black-jack oaks; and on fresher soils, white and red

oaks, mocker-nut [sic] hickory, and red gum. He felt

that the commercial importance of al1 hardwoods typically associated with shortleaf was comparatively

small except white oak in areas of its better development (Mattoon 1915a).

Forest Service estimates for 1913 showed 1.5 billion board feet of standing shortleaf pine timber on

the Arkansas NF and 108.9 million board feet on the

Ozark NF (Mattoon 1915a). Based on estimates made

for 1913 by the lumber industry, Mattoon calculated

that there were about 12.5 billion board feet of standing shortleaf pine on privately owned lands in Arkansas (Mattoon 1915b). Thus, the estimated total

standing volume of shortleaf pine in Arkansas in 1913

was 14.1 billion board feet-greatly reduced from the

1880 estimate of 41.3 billion board feet (Sargent 1884).

The most recent measurements of shortleaf pine

sawtimber volume for Arkansas were made in 1988

by the USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. The report (Beltz and others 1992) gives

the statewide total volume of 15.4 billion board feet.

Detailed estimates for the Arkansas portion of the

Ouachita NF show a shortleaf volume of 5.58 billion

board feet and 1.45 billion board feet for the Ozark

NF.g These figures cannot be compared directly with

the older estimates because of different acreages under national forest administration as well as different

log scales used to calculate volumes. However, it does

give the general impression that current standing

volume of shortleaf pine in Arkansas appears to be

similar to that remaining in 1913 after the major impact on forest resources of lumbering between 1879

and 1912.

g Personal communication, Joanne L. Faulkner, USDA Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Inventory and

Analysis Research Unit, Starkville, MS 39759.

16
Early Shortleaf Pine Management

Mattoon (1915b) also published a bulletin on shortleaf pine management. He indicated that the aim of

the Federal government on the national forests of Arkansas was to produce the sort of material most needed

by the people-namely medium-sized saw timber. He

estimated that a rotation of 90 to 100 years in fully

stocked stands would give the greatest annual yields.

He calculated that the average tree at this age would

be 74 feet tal1 and have a diameter of 16.6 inches

(Mattoon 1915b). Mattoon proposed that management

of pure shortleaf stands should be under some form of

clearcutting system. In mixed stands where shortleaf

competed with various hardwoods, it was more profitable to encourage the pine, thus bringing about a

gradual change in forest type. Mattoon (1915b) found

that in the mixed stands in the national forests of

western Arkansas, “the ranging of hogs in large numbers for many years greatly reduced the natural seeding of associated nut-bearing oaks and hickories, and

by preparing a good seed bed, has greatly increased

that of shortleaf pine.“According to Mattoon: “On the

two National Forests of Arkansas, where the mixed

type prevail, the ultimate aim in the silvicultura1

management of shortleafpine is to convert the present

more or less uneven-aged forest into even-aged

stands.”

FOREST SERVICE ACTMTIES: 1925-1939

On June 7, 1924, Congress passed the ClarkeMcNary Act that expanded many Weeks Law programs. One of the more significant stated that the

purchase of forest lands was no longer restricted to

watersheds of navigable streams (Steen 1977). This act

authorized the Forest Service to acquire large tracts of

cutover timberlands as well as submarginal farm lands

that were uneconomical for row crep production.

Proposed Change from National Forest to

National Park

At the end of World War 1, despite the initial efforts

of the Forest Service, the timber resource in Arkansas, as well as the rest of the South, continued to deteriorate. Pressured by ruthless competition, taxes,

and predatory lumber operators, Arkansas timber resources declined (Mena Weekly Star 1957). In the early

192O’s, with the advent of automobile travel, the Mena

Chamber of Commerce wanted Congress to transfer

the control of the Arkansas NF from the USDA Forest

Service to the USDI National Park Service (Mena

Weekly Star 1926d, St. John 1926). In 1926, Vincent

St. John, publisher of the “Mena Star” and secretarytreasurer of “The Ouachita National Park Foundation

Society,” worked with the Oklahoma Forestry Commission and Eastern Oklahoma Playgrounds to request the designation of 160,000 acres ofArkansas NF

as a national park. Both the Arkansas and Oklahoma

governors endorsed the concept of a large nature preserve located within a day’s driving distance of 40

million people (Ouachita National Park Foundation

Society 1926). However, the Federal government’s

Outdoor Recreation Commission and the Forest Service opposed the idea (Greeley 1926). Congress enacted

the legislation for the transfer, but President Calvin

Coolidge pocket-vetoed the bill.

Arkansas NF Renamed Ouachita; Hunting

Refuges Established on Ozark NF

On April 29, 1926, by Executive order (U.S. Government Printing Office 19261, President Coolidge

changed the name of the Arkansas NF to the Ouachita

NF. He also proposed extending the national forest

into eastern Oklahoma. In addition, he announced the

creation of four Federal hunting refuges within the

Ozark NF (Mena Weekly Star 1926c). Arkansas had

been a game-hunting paradise in the 19th century,

with an abundance of deer, elk, bear, mountain lion,

fox, and wild turkey. However, the effects of overkilling, overcutting, and changing habitat had contributed to the virtual elimination of al1 game by the

mid-1920’s. The refuges were established in response

to criticism of the lack of hunting opportunities on the

national forest. The Forest Service was to work with

State agencies to begin the laborious task of restoring

wildlife to western Arkansas.

In the wake of the Coolidge veto, Chief Forester

William Greeley traveled to Mena, Arkansas, (Mena

Weekly Star 1926b) where he met with Vincent St.

John and the Chamber of Commerce to talk about the

Forest Service’s vision for the Ouachita NF. Leading

citizens were assured that their complaints had been

heard and were being acknowledged. Greeley also visited the Ozark NF and, after inspecting the forest,

said he was impressed with the future hardwood timber supply and recreation possibilities (Mena Weekly

Star 1926a).

Growing Pine Timber as a Crop and Better

Fire Protection Proposed

Even as politicians were advancing the benefits of

a national park’s recreational potential, forest experts

were writing about the opportunities for growing commercially valuable pine timber as a crep in the

Ouachita Mountains and the good sense of protecting

the trees from fire (Lang 1965). As early as 1925, William Hall saw the potential of good forestry practices

17
in Arkansas. “Pass along a road today,” he’d say, “and

there is a field in cotton. Come along two or three years

laten and that field will be fully set with pine trees.“lO

Others who were just as foresighted included: A.E.

Wackerman, with Crossett Lumber Company, Charles

Evans and H.N. Wheeler, of the Forest Service, Charles

Gillett, of the Arkansas Extension Service, and Henry

R. Koen, supervisor of the Ozark NF (Lang 1965).

In 1928, the Forest Service started a pine nursery

on the Pleasant Hill Ranger District in the Ozark NF.

The site proved to have inadequate moisture, so a plot

was started the following year at a site on the campus

of Arkansas Polytechnic College in Russellville. This

attempt failed at first due to a devastating drought in

the summer of 1930. Nevertheless, after the installation of an irrigation system, the site proved to be suitable for the production of pine seedlings for the Ozark

NF (Bass 1981).

With the new interest in growing trees as a crep,

there was a need for improved forest flre protection.

The Forest Service continued to have problems with

wildfires. In the summer of 1929, due to proionged

drought in western Arkansas, the Ouachita NF experienced 37 major tires (fig. 121, with the largest covering more than 12,000 acres. William Hall, Secretar-y

of the Arkansas Forest Protection Association, estimated the tires cost the State about $100,000 a day in

timber losses (Mena Weekly Star 1957).

In 1930, Congress passed the Knutson-Vandenberg

Act that authorized funds for reforestation of national

forests and also created a revolving fund for reforestation or timber stand improvement (Steen 1977). The

Forest Service was allowed to calculate reforestation

costs and deduct these from the receipts of each sale.

These funds could be used to reforest the site; to improve the quality of remaining stands through thinning, pruning, fertilizing, or release cutting; and to

produce seedlings in Forest Service nurseries (Frome

1984).

Ouachita National Forest Extended into

Oklahoma

On December 3,1930, President Hoover fulfilled the

proposal of President Coolidge and extended the

Ouachita NF into Le Flore County, Oklahoma. This

became possible when the National Forest Reservation Commission approved for purchase more than

53,000 acres of cutover and burned timberland from

the Buschow Lumber Company (Stuart 1931). Ranger

Wally Prater predicted that it would take 60 years

before the forests would ever produce marketable

pines. In 1931, additional acreage was secured to protect watersheds on the Canadian and Poteau Rivers.

Forest Service officials believed that governmental

protection was needed more than immediate exploitation. Certainly this was the case on the Ouachita

NF because land being acquired was from lumber companies that already had harvested al1 merchantable

shortleaf pine timber. Of the 113 commercial sales of

timber in the national forest in 1939, only 5 transactions were for more than $500 (USDA FS 1939).

Arkansas Forestry Commission Established

Interest in timber as a crep was increasing in southern pine areas of Arkansas, and, in 1929, a bill proposing the establishment of a State forestry department

was introduced in the State legislature but failed to

pass. In 1931, the legislature passed an act authorizing the Arkansas State Forestry Commission, but no

funds were voted for its operation (Lang 1965). The

Forestry Commission did start operating in 1933 after the governor appealed to the public for donations.

This request was necessary because the legislature

again failed to provide any funds (Lang 1965).

THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND

THE NEW DEAL: 1939-1942

Between 1922 and 1929, there was feverish economic activity in the United States. The prosperity of

the 1920’s was accompanied by a stock market boom

until the crash in the fa11 of 1929. With the coming of

the Great Depression of the 193O’s, business stagnated,

labor was unemployed, and politics was in a state of

confusion. This economic depression was at its worst

when Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President on

March 4,1933. Under his “New Deal,” 30 emergency

agencies were set up within a few months for the purpose of coping with the Depression. Under authority

of an emergency employment act of March 31, 1933,

President Roosevelt established the Office of Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) by Executive order

on April 5, 1933. The Civilian Conservation Corps

(CCC) was actually created by an act of Congress on

June 28,1937, as successor to the ECW. However, the

name Civilian Conservation Corps or CCC was used

during the entire period from 1933 until the authority expired on June 30,1948 (Helms 1980). The EWC

and, later, the CCC were established to provide relief

for young, unemployed men.

Forest Service, CCC, and Land Utilization

Projects

The CCC presented an unforeseen opportunity for

lo See footnote 3, p. 9. the Forest Service to employ some of the out-of-work

18
Figure 12.-Forest stand killed by Crane’s Nest fire, Ouachita National Forest.

labor forte to perform desperately needed labor-intensive activities on the Ouachita and Ozark NF’s. The

Forest Service initially set up 16 camps on the

Ouachita NF ( 13 in Arkansas and 3 in Oklahoma) and

9 on the Ozark NF, each with 200 men. One forester

recalled that most of these men had never seen the

woods. They had been idle and undernourished as a

result of previous conditions and were incapable of

normal, sustained, physical effort. They were discouraged, and morale was low (McCarty 1977). However,

the Forest Service provided a healthy work ethic for

these victims of the Depression by directing their labors toward rehabilitation of lands acquired under the

Weeks Law (hg. 13). And, for the first time, the national forests had ample tire protection. At first, corpsmen from al1 over Missouri were brought to the

Arkansas camps. John Black, forest engineer, recounted that enrollees “fresh from St. Louis” didn’t

know a mattock from a potato fork.il They complained

about ticks, chiggers, and the hard work. However,

resentment toward outsiders resulted in many fires

being deliberately set by the local folks, “just to keep

l1 See footnote 6, p. 12.

the Yankees busy.“12 After 1934, enrollment preferente

was given toArkansas natives. At one time there were

37 CCC camps in Arkansas, and, eventually, 69,038

youths served in Arkansas (McCarty 1977).

By 1935, the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

also administered CCC camps. “Boys working on soil

conservation projects hauled and planted sod, built

check dams on small creeks, filled gullies, crushed and

hauled limestone for fields, and planted trees”

(McCarty 1977). Many of these projects were on Soil

Conservation Districts that had been created from

submarginal farm land. In addition, the Works

Progress Administration (WPA), established in 1935,

was involved on national forest lands. Dee Thomas, a

bulldozer operator, told of the progression of WPA roadwork: “The first event was clearing the right of way.

They were dragging every log, every piece of brush

and every bit of rock completely outright. The second

event was sloping banks with picks, shovels, and other

hand tools” (McCarty 1977).

As existing roads were improved and new ones built,

recreational opportunities on the national forests were

l2 See footnote 3, p. 9.

19
Figure 13.-Planting a tree with a dibble-bar in an old field on the

Ozark National Forest.

greatly expanded (fig. 14). The public could enjoy

Shady Lake, Lake Sylvia, Bard Springs, Jack Creek,

and the Charlton and Ouachita campgrounds on the

Ouachita NF. Long Pool, Bayou Bluff, White Rock

Mountain, Devil’s Den, Barkshed, and Gunner Po01

were some of the recreation developments on the

Ozark NF.

The large contributions of money and manpower

made available by these Depression era programs provided administrative improvements such as building

roads and bridges, permanent recreation facilities,

equipment depots, lookout towers, and ranger stations

(Bass 1981).

In 1937, Congress passed the Bankhead-Jones Farm

Tenant Act to provide for the relocation of poor farmers from submarginal lands. The program was managed by the SCS. One of the options under this act

was reforestation of the lands. The Forest Service,

working with the SCS, established the Magazine

Mountain, Boston Mountain, and Lake Wedington

Land Utilization Projects and transformed them from

poor farmlands to forest cover. In 1938 and 1940, lands

in the Magazine Mountain Project were transferred

to the Ouachita NF by President Franklin Roosevelt.

Ashort time later, in 1941, the project was transferred

to the Ozark NF, making ít the only unit of this forest

South of the Arkansas River. Also in 1937 and 1940,

President Roosevelt transferred the Boston Mountain

Land Utilization Project to the Ozark National Forest (USDA FS 1966). Eventually, ín 1954, the Lake

Wedington and four other land utilization projects

were transferred from the SCS to the Ozark NF to

20

administer until the Secretar-y of Agriculture could

dispose of these lands (Bass 1981). That same year,

the Tiak Project was transferred to the Ouachita NF

for administrative purposes until the lands could be

sold.

The Ouachita and Ozark NF’s recovery efforts involving the CCC, SCS, and WPAwere considered longterm projects. Some of the accomplishments of the

CCC program in Arkansas are shown in table 2.

Public Attitudes

Montgomery County continued to be a center of

strong feelings for and against control of the land by

the Forest Service. Severa1 events occurred in 1934

and 1935 in the county that were reminiscent of activities back in 1910. On March 23,1934, the Ouachita

NF received numerous petitions, signed by a relatively

large number of county residents, requesting that the

Forest Service resume the purchase of lands in their

county. They felt it was unfair to owners of poor land

to pay taxes when the land was only good for growing

trees (USDA FS 1934a). However, a conflicting view

was presented on April 12, 1934, when U.S. Senator

Hattie W. Caraway sent the forest supervisor a resolution, adopted on April3 by the Montgomery County

Quorum Court, against any extension of the present

boundaries of the Ouachita NF (USDAFS 1934b). And,

finally, on August 15, í935, severa1 Montgomery

County offrcials sent a signed document sanctioning

the Forest Service to purchase all non-agricultura1
Figure 14.-Civilian Conservation Corps construction work on Cedar Creek Dam near Stapp, Ouachita National Forest.

lands in the county that were offered for sale by the

owners (USDA FS 1935). During this period of conflicting public views, some lands were purchased in

Montgomery County.

Game Sanctuaries Established on Ouachita

National Forest

On March 8,1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt

issued a proclamation (U.S. Government Printing Office 1935) establishing four game sanctuaries and refuges on the Ouachita NF. They were the Pigeon Creek

Refuge on 8,440 acres, the Oak Mountain Refuge on

8,500 acres, the Muddy Creek Refuge on 10,030 acres,

and the Caney Creek Refuge on 8,300 acres.

THE FOREST SERVICE’S ROLE DURING

AND AFTER WORLD WAR II: 1942-1963

End of CCC; War Production Demands

The outbreak of World War II reversed some of the

progress that the Forest Service, with the help of the

CCC, had achieved. An appropriation act of July 2,

1942, provided for the total liquidation of the CCC by

June 30, 1943 (Helms 1980). The CCC camps in Arkansas were gradually abolished in 1940 and 1941.13

Many State and Federal nurseries had shut down, and

replanting had practically ended. State and Federal

l3 See footnote 1, p. 1.

Table 2.- Civilian Conservation Corps accomplishments by activities between 1933 and 1942

(adapted fiom McCarty 1977)

Activity

Fighting forest fires

Watchtowers and other buildings

Telephone lines

‘R-uck trails and other roads

Vehicle bridges

Planting tree seedlings

Other emergency work

Unit Accomplishment

Man days 167,227

Number 133

Miles 6,205

Miles 2,713

Number 4,956

Number 19,463,745

Man days 20,900

21
fire protection had been drastically reduced, and recreational areas and other improvements constructed

by the CCC deteriorated during the war years.14

The Federal government demanded increased timber production to support the war effort. Hickory was

used for skis and white oak, for ship beams and barrels (Bass 1981). The military draft and the lack of

skilled foresters caused production to decline by 1942.

In 1943, the War Manpower Commission mandated a

4%hour work week for the lumber industry, as well as

allowing German prisoners of war to supplement the

labor forte. War priorities placed an intense demand

on the national forests for timber resources. Managing other resources took a back seat to logging activities (Bass 1981).

The end of the CCC program left Arkansas’ forests

extremely vulnerable to fire. Until 1943, Arkansas

escaped major fire incidents. Lang15 said that the draft

had removed the men who usually “set the woods on

fire.” In the summer of 1943, carelessness and arson

combined to cause the burning of over 93,000 acres of

private forest lands in south Arkansas in only 35 days.

At the same time, in the Malvern and Fordyce areas,

sparks from trains fe11 on parched grass and exploded

into raging fires. Not even five tractors, moving abreast

to plow firebreaks, could stop the conflagration.16

Need to Restore Forest Productivity

By the conclusion of World War II, Arkansas’ national forests had a large backlog of work, including

the need for major replanting. The Ouachita NF had

experienced a 60-percent decline in inventory of shortleaf pine. The Forest Service estimated that only 17

percent of the timber in the Ozark NF was commercially valuable and one-third of the trees could be considered “cull” (USDA FS 1947).

To restore the commercial value of the forests, Forest Service Research, in cooperation with Crossett

Lumber Company and the Arkansas Agricultura1 Experiment Station, experimented with planting loblolly

and shortleaf pines. These species were prolific seedproducers, vigorous, and disease resistant (USDA FS

1947). The concept was to remove “cull” trees from

existing natural stands to make the stand more valuable for the timber market and to plant cutover areas

with pines to create new stands as quickly as possible.

This research was conducted on the Ouachita NF and

at the Crossett Experimental Forest (CEF). The CEF

was established on cutover land leased from the

Crossett Lumber Company in 1934 by the Southern

Forest Experiment Station. Researchers, especially

Russ Reynolds, had studied ways of improving and

rebuilding second-growth pine stands since 1934

(Reynolds 1980). The CEF lands became Federal property at the end of the 50-year lease and are now under

the administration of the Ouachita NF (Baker and

Bishop 1986). The Koen Experimental Forest, created

for research purposes in 1948, was placed under the

administration of the Ozark NF in 1950 (Bass 1981).

Other Southern Forest Experiment Station experimental forests in Arkansas include: Sylamore, established in 1934 and administered by the Ozark NF; and

Alum Creek, established in 1959 and administered by

the Ouachita NF.

The Forest Service realized that much work had to

be done in the Ouachita NF. State cooperation was

not seen as “producing much value” (USDA FS 1947).

For example, Arkansas did not maintain a game warden system due to local opposition. And there had been

serious and widespread vandalism in recreation areas, as well as total abandonment of some areas developed by the CCC (USDA FS 1947).

Despite the deteriorated nature of the forests, the

post-war building boom created additional pressure

for more logging (Steen 1977). In order to limit erosion, as well as to improve commercial timber quality

of the forests, the Forest Service resisted increased

cutting. Instead, the thrust of timber management was

to eliminate “inferior” trees with the realization that

the maturation of the CCC plantings, fire protection,

and improved silviculture would result in eventual

recovery.

Watershed Protection

Congress passed the Watershed Protection and

Flood Prevention Act in 1954 with a mandate that the

Forest Service cooperate with State and other Federal agencies on flood control. The Forest Service

worked on water systems, flood control, and municipal and recreational water management (Steen 1977).

In western Arkansas, the Forest Service played a critical role in the maintenance of high-quality water.

Eventually, the Forest Service would protect the quality of Little Rock% water supply. These new demands

further promoted the doctrine that would later emerge

as the multiple-use concept of the national forests

(Frome 1984).

Land Utilization Projects Become Part of the

National Forests

l4 See footnote 1, p. 1.

l5 See footnote 3 , p. 9 .

l6 See footnote 3 , p. 9 .

In 1954 during the Eisenhower administration, the

SCS transferred administrative control of its remain22
ing land utilization projects to other Federal agencies,

the Forest Service, or the States. The Secretary of

Agriculture proposed to dispose of these lands, and

the Forest Service adopted the same practice. After

no other Federal agency made a request for any of the

projects, the State ofArkansas was advised that these

lands were available for purchase. Severa1 of the

projects were obtained by various State agencies (Bass

1981). The remaining projects became part of the National Forest System. On November 27,1959, the Tiak

Project in southeastern Oklahoma, an area with broad,

nearly level, upland flats and low, gently rolling hills

in the Gulf Coastal Plain, was added to the Ouachita

NF. This area outside of Idabel, Oklahoma, has both

shortleaf-loblolly pine and bottomland hardwoods forest types. On November 81960, the Lake Wedington

Project in northwest Arkansas was added to the Ozark

NF. The Mariana-Helena Project in the hilly Crowley’s

Ridge section of Arkansas, also became national forest lands at this time and was designated the St.

Francis NF. This forest is made up of white and red

oaks, hickories, beech, and yellow-poplar growing on

loess bluffs and with some low and flat lands along

the rivers (Bass 1981). The St. Francis NF was placed

under the administration of the Ozark NF, and the

name of the entire administrative unit was changed

to Ozark-St. Francis NF’s on January 15, 1961.17

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act

In 1960, Congress enacted the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act under the leadership of Senator

Hubert Humphrey. The purpose of this legislation was

to direct the Forest Service to give equal consideration

to outdoor recreation, range, timber, water, and wildlife and fish (Frome 1984, Steen 1977). The concept of

multiple use was already incorporated into practice

in most Forest Service actions, both nationally and

locally. On both the Ouachita and Ozark NF’s, the

numerous user groups could, at least in theory, embrace this overa11 concept. Nevertheless, attempts to

deal with a multitude of interest groups proved to be

increasingly difficult and litigious. Ironically, the Forest Service was perceived by many native Arkansans

as being too stringent in its application of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, especially as related to

the control of grazing.

Following passage of the Multiple Use-Sustained

Yield Act, the Forest Service began to employ various

specialists to assist with multiple-use planning on each

forest. The first soil scientists began work on the Ozark

NF in 1961, and the first hydrologists were hired in

l7 See footn0t.e l,p. 1.

1963. At about the same time, an expanded use of specialists also occurred on the Ouachita NF.

THE GREAT SOCIEXY YEARS: 1960’s

After the assassination of President John F.

Kennedy on November 22, 1963, Vice President

Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as President. He was

able to get Congress to pass much of the legislation

that had been proposed by President Kennedy. In May

1964, President Johnson first talked about building a

“Great Society” and foresaw the United States as a

place where there would be “. . . abundance and liberty for all. . . .” He was elected President in his own

right and took Office in January 1965. He immediately

pushed forward with his Great Society programs, the

most ambitious and far-reaching since the days of

Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Congress passed into

law a variety of his proposals dealing with social and

economic problems.

Outdoor Recreation

In 1962, President Kennedy initiated an accelerated

public works program to assist in promoting economic

growth. The new program allowed the Forest Service

to construct work centers and offices on ranger districts and to expand or develop recreational opportunities (Bass 1981). One major Forest Service activity

in Arkansas was the development of the cave complex

at Blanchard Springs. The caves had been first entered by Forest Service personnel in 1934. In 1963,

Blanchard Springs Caverns was classified as a unique

natural area and set aside specifically for recreational

use. In 1966, the Forest Service received an appropriation for construction and land acquisition at the

caverns. Over a period of time, 1,771 acres of the surrounding area were acquired to preserve the caverns.

Part of this land carne from willing sellers, but some

carne through condemnation proceedings. Blanchard

Springs Caverns was dedicated July 7,1973, with the

opening of one underground trail (fig. 15). Another trail

opened in 1977 to provide the public with a glimpse of

these underground wonders (Bass 1981).

The public’s interest in upgrading access to the national forests resulted in Congress passing the National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act in 1964.

As part of this program, the Federal government began work on the Talimena Scenic Drive through the

Ouachita NF and Queen Wilhehnina State Park. One

end of the drive is located near Mena, Arkansas, and

the other near Talihina, Oklahoma. This breathtaking scenic drive, envisioned as a tourist attraction as

early as the 192O’s, was opened in 1970 by Luci

Johnson Nugent.

23
Figure 15.- Ozark-St. Francis National Forests guide takes tour group through Blanehard Springs Caverns.

Wilderness Act

In response to the national interest in preserving

undisturbed and wild areas for their natural beauty,

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Wilderness Act

on September 3, 1964. This act created the National

Wilderness Preservation System (Steen 1977). The

Federal government land management agencies, in

coordination with the public, were to nominate areas

as wildernesses, and then these nominations were to

be acted on by Congress. The goal of the Wilderness

Act was much more restrictive than the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act since it called for preservation,

not use, of resources on the land.

In order to identify and nominate appropriate areas as wildernesses, the Forest Service started a process known as the Roadless Area Review and

Evaluation or “RARE-1.” This led to the designation

of Wilderness Areas with the single purpose of preservation, which frightened some residents dependent

upon logging. Other landowners were concerned about

possible restrictions on the use of their lands and met

with Forest Service representatives to convey their

unhappiness over the possibility of creating the Caney

Creek Wilderness Area in the Ouachita NF. The dispute in Arkansas was similar to controversies in other

States (Frome 1984). On January 3, 1975, Congress

passed the Eastern Wilderness Act that designated

16 areas as wildernesses and 17 other areas as wilderness study areas. The Upper Buffalo Wilderness

24

Area was established on 10,542 acres of the Ozark-St.

Francis NF’s, as was the Richland Creek Wilderness

Study Area (Bass 1981). On the Ouachita NF, 14,433

acres were designated as the Caney Creek Wilderness

Area.

During the period from 1974 to 1980, the Forest

Service initiated a review of “RARE-1” findings in an

effort to complete the Wilderness System. The process included public meetings and was called “RAREII.” By 1978, the proposed areas within the Ozark-St.

Francis NF’s totaled 13 and covered more than 125,000

acres (Bass 1981). Five areas were proposed on the

Ouachita NF, and severa1 other areas were listed as

being worthy of further study.

The wilderness issue was largely resolved on the

Ouachita NF by passage of the Arkansas Wilderness

Act of 1984 and the Winding Stair Mountain National

Recreation Area and Wilderness Act of October 1988.

The 1984 act designated Dry Creek (6,310 acres),

Poteau Mountain (10,884 acres), Black Fork Mountain (7,568 acres), and Flatside (10,105 acres> as wilderness areas. The 1988 act designated Black Fork

Mountain (4,583 acres) and Upper Kiamichi River

(9,371 acres) as wilderness areas in Oklahoma (USDA

FS 1990a). The Arkansas Wilderness Act also established four new wilderness areas on the Ozark-St.

Francis NF’s and added 1,500 acres to the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area. The newly established wilderness areas were Hurricane Creek (15,200 acres),

Richland Creek (11,800 acres>, East Fork (10,800
acres), and Leatherwood (17,000 acres) (USDA FS

1986a).

Job Corps

As part of the effort to develop the Great Society,

the Johnson administration tried to replicate some of

the successes of the CCC by establishing a Job Corps

program in 1965. The goal of the program was to develop the work skills of disadvantaged youths. The

Forest Service maintained Job Corps Centers on the

Ouachita and Ozark NF’s to provide job training and

help promote a work ethic. Although at a much lower

leve1 than the CCC program, some needed work on

national forests was completed.

Even-Aged Timber Management Practices

Initiated

In a continuing effort to increase the commercial

viability of the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s, the Forest

Service started to experiment with even-aged management of pine stands on the Magazine Ranger District in 1962. In 1965, the Forest Service amended the

existing timber management plans and placed the

Ozark portion of the forest on an even-aged management system (Bass 1981). The St. Francis part of the

forest began even-aged management in 1968. At first,

the size of regeneration areas was not restricted, but

in the late 196O’s, a 200-acre limit was applied (Bass

1981). The Forest Service was also determined to upgrade the commercial timber value of the Ouachita

NF and, in the mid-1960’s, converted from unevenaged selection cutting to an even-aged management

plan using clearcutting and planting of improved

shortleaf pine seedlings. This approach was based

upon research by the Southern Forest Experiment

Station and others on genetic improvement of planting stock; ways to optimize establishment of improved

stock through use of intensive site preparation, including herbicides; and even-aged pine silviculture.

The Forest Service made these changes in part because of national economic forecasts of timber shortfalls by the turn of the century. For example, supply

limitations were seen as more likely to be a barrier to

meeting projected demand for forest products than for

any other major category of resource materials

(Landsberg and others 1963). Because it was felt that

additional acres could not be shifted to forest production, the solution to increasing supply would have to

be through improvements on existing forest lands. One

scenario proposed a greater concentration of cutting

the mature stands in the West along with efforts to

improve and upgrade the more rapidly growing stands

in the East. This would be in combination with reducing losses to insects, diseases, fires, and other causes

(Landsberg and others 1963).

A review of the Forest Service publication, “Timber

Trends in the United States,” also indicates that consumption of al1 sources of roundwood were projected

to increase 81 percent by the year 2000. By 2000, softwood supply and hardwood growth were expected to

fa11 short of the projected cut by 10 to 20 percent. These

projections were based on the continuation of current

levels of forest management. One of the report’s suggestions for meeting the projected deficits was to raise

forest management practices on al1 forest lands to the

leve1 used on the best managed lands (Sullivan 1965).

Aster severa1 years of negative feedback from the

public on the use of intensive forest management practices, the Forest Service initiated a policy of gradually reducing the size of clearcuts to make them less

obtrusive, eventually ranging from 10 acres for hardwoods to 40 acres for pine types (fig. 16) in the

Ouachita NF (USDA FS 1978a) and from 10 to 70 acres

on the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s (USDA FS 197813).

By the mid-to-late 196O’s, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act had become a target for court battles

over the management of the national forests. The demand for softwoods for building material increased,

coinciding with a decline in hardwood demand. Consequently, the economic logic was to continue the practice of planting and harvesting softwoods (Frome

1984). By the late 196O’s, logging techniques had improved, and specially equipped trucks, improved loading equipment, and articulated skidders were being

used. The heavier logging equipment meant that logging roads had to be broadened and strengthened to

carry more weight. More attention had to be focused

on preventing soil erosion, road damage, and tree root

damage (Bass 1981). It was thought to be more efficient to concentrate harvesting by clearcutting a tract

than to build many additional roads and selectively

cut mature trees throughout the forest. However,

clearcuts, initially those in western national forests,

were seen by the public as esthetically displeasing.

Consequently, the entire practice of even-aged management as practiced by the Forest Service was to come

under increasing public scrutiny and protest.

Control of Open Grazing

In 1965, the Forest Service started to restrict grazing of free-ranging cattle and hogs in the national forests. In the Ouachita NF, district rangers complained

about cattle grazing on wildlife food plots installed by

the State Game and Fish Commission. These food plots

had been planted to fiunish winter forage for deer and

turkeys. The Forest Service tried to initiate a discussion between cattlemen and the Arkansas Game and

Fish Commission, but to no avail. Hunters also complained that livestock were carriers of parasites that

could cause diseases in wildlife. The final solution was

25
Figure 16.-A clearcut in 1971 on Oden Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest; new pine plantation to follow site preparation.

to shorten the grazing time permitted on national forest lands so that cattle and hogs would not interfere

with wildlife.

The restriction of grazing also led to a confrontation on the Ozark NF. The Forest Service estimated

that some 6,000 hogs and 8,000 head of cattle were

grazing illegally (Bass 1981). For centuries, southerners had regarded allowing domestic animals to

graze in the forests as a birthright (fig. 17). With private farmsteads intermixed with Forest Service holdings, southern farmers had always allowed their cattle

and hogs to range freely, even if they destroyed pine

seedlings. In 1966, the Forest Service started to trap

hogs and se11 them at public auction. The offending

farmers were very upset and threatened physical retaliation. It was no surprise when the number of incendiary fires increased. After this extremely tense

period, the Forest Service eventually got the range

situation under control (Bass 1981).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Consonant with increasing interest in maintaining

America’s natural heritage, Congress enacted the Wild

26

and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. The act provides for the

preservation of selected rivers in their natural state.

These rivers are to be kept natural and free-flowing,

without dams or other obstructions, and with water quality maintained. Certain rivers that flowed at least partly

through national forests were to be classified as “wild,

scenic, or recreation” rivers. The “wild” segments would

be kept nearly primitive, restrictedto nonmotorized cr&,

the “scenic” sections would be developed modestly at

most; and the “recreation” sections would provide somewhat more intensive use (Frome 1984).

Since passage of the act, many segments of creeks,

streams, and rivers on national forest lands have been

added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

There are two on the Ouachita NF-the Cossatot River

and the Little Missouri River (USDA FS 1990a). Congress amended the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act of 1968 on April 23, 1992, and designated six

streams on the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s-Hurricane

Creek, Richland Creek, North Sylamore Creek, Buffalo River, Mulberry River, and Big Piney Creek

(USDA FS 1993).

Although not part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers

System, the Buffalo National River in northern Ar-
Figure 17.-Landowners considered the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests

“open range” for their cattle.

kansas was established by Congress in 1968. Before

the classification of the Buffalo River as a National

River, the Ozark Society, a group of concerned citizens, had managed a successful legislative lobbying

effort to block the Army Corps of Engineers from damming the river. Ozark Society members remained active in environmental issues and became involved in

questions touching on the management of national

forests in Arkansas. They worked closely with the

Ozark-St. Francis NF’s to obtain the Wild and Scenic

Rivers legislatíon passed by Congress in 1968.

THE ENVIRONMEN’IIL MOVEBIENT

STRENGTHEINS: 1970’s

National Environmental Policy Act

In January 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed

into law a major new policy initiated by Congress in

1969 with passage of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). This act established a Council on

Environmental Quality, which laid out utopian goals

of creating “harmony between man and his environment,” promoting efforts that “prevent or eliminate

damage to the environment,” and enriching the “understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation.” With NEPA, public

participation was mandated as part of al1 public agency

decision-making processes. Agencies were required to

issue an “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS)

before taking actions that would significantly impact

the environment (Frome 1984).

Following passage of NEPA, the Forest Service increased the employment of soil scientists and hydrologists to strengthen its use of scientific and professional

knowledge in land and water management planning

and design such as for site preparation and stand rehabilitation projects. The Forest Service also employed

other resource specialists to provide additional input

into planning, inventory, and monitoring efforts

throughout the forests. These specialists served on

interdisciplinary teams that might include foresters,

wildlife biologists, landscape architects, soil scientists,

archaeologists, hydrologists, engineers, recreation

specialists, geologists, and others. In addition, wildlife

biologists worked with the Arkansas Game and Fish

Commission to develop and manage wildlife resources.

Threatened and Endangered Species Act

The Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 1973

was passed by Congress to establish a national policy

to protect species of native flsh and wildlife threatened by extinction and to protect their habitat as well.

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service was charged with

the responsibility of protecting any threatened or endangered species (Frome 1984). The national forests

have a major role in this area because many threatened or endangered species are found on land managed by the Forest Service.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act

Congressional direction governing the use of the

national forests was to undergo a major modification

in 1974 with the passage of the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act or RPA. The RPA

27
originated in an ongoing debate over timber sales on

the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska.

The Sierra Club sued the Forest Service in 1970 and

maintained that wildlife, rather than timber harvesting, was the optima1 use ofAlaska’s national forests.

The argument was expanded in 1973 when the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club

went to court on behalf of the Izaak Walton League of

West Virginia against clearcutting by the Forest Service on the Monongehela National Forest. The litigants

not only won this case, but also got the courts to question the authority of the Forest Service to engage in

clearcutting under the 1897 Organic Act (Frome 1984).

In an effort to satisfy hunters, conservationists, and

timber interests, Congress passed the RPA and directed the Secretary of Agriculture to assess the renewable resources on al1 the nation’s forests and

rangelands every 10 years. This assessment was to

include an analysis of present and future demand-andsupply situations and would provide basic data for the

Forest Service to develop both lo-year plans and longrange programs for the next 50 years (Steen 1977).

The first RPA assessment was used to prepare a plan

based on six “resource” systems: outdoor recreation,

wilderness, human and community development, wildlife and fish, timber and range, and land and water.

National Forest Management Act

While the first RPA assessment was being assembled, Congress plunged into a new debate between

those who favored restrictions on clearcutting and

those who favored greater latitude on actual practices

in the national forests. The result was additional Congressional direction to the Forest Service through the

National Forest Management Act of 1976. This act

made each national forest the basis for regulating

harvest practices and called for public input in the

RPA planning process. Moreover, the management

policy would embrace an analysis based on “costs and

returns” that was most easily calculated for the resources of timber and range (Steen 1977).

OTHER ISSUES AFFECTING

FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT

Minerals Exploration and Development

The Forest Service has had to grapple with a very

liberal Federal policy on mining operations on public

lands. The General Mining Act of 1872 and Mineral

Leasing Act of 1920 provide easy access to those who

desire to search for hard rock minerals, gas, and oil.

Arkansas has been a gas- and oil-producing State since

the 1920’s. However, the first well drilled on the Ozark

NF in 1954 was dry. Between 1954 and 1970,22 Wells

were drilled, but only 2 were producers. After the energy crisis of 1973, Arkansas Western Gas Company

stepped up its exploratory operations on the OzarkSt.Francis NF’s and had drilled 22 more Wells by 1977

(Bass 1981). In June 1982, there were 27 producing

gas Wells located on the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s (USDA

FS 1986a). On the Ouachita NF, five oil and gas Wells

have been drilled, but none was productive (USDA FS

1990a).

Quartz crystal mining is the most prevalent mining operation on the Ouachita NF. In addition, the

Forest Service permits limited digging of shale used

for fieldstone and sand and grave1 used for road surfacing. In the late 198O’s, a craze for crystal collecting

resulted in unauthorized mineral searches in the

Ouachita Mountains.

The mining industry has been operating for a long

time in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains, predating the creation of the national forests. Some environmentalists charge that many of these activities result

in the degradation of water quality and the contamination of ground water. In 1989, Senator Dale Bumpers

proposed legislation to overhaul the 117-year-old law

governing mining on Federal lands and said: “Obviously, the reasons for the 1872 mining law no longer

exist. People have begun to take advantage of this law”

(Henson 1989).

Revenues Returned to Counties

The Forest Service returns 25 percent of the annual

revenues derived from timber harvests and renta1 receipts to the States and counties in which the national

forests are located. These funds are allocated for

schools and roads. Counties that are sparsely populated and have a low tax base have long counted on

this 25-percent turnback. Local people have a vested

interest in both a sustained leve1 of timber production and local lumber mills that provide jobs in processing the timber. The loss of timber production would

result in revenue and job losses, thereby reinforcing

the local residents’ propensity to support the Forest

Service policy of providing sustained yields of timber.

Also, 50 percent of any receipts received by the Forest Service from mineral resource activities on public

domain lands and 25 percent of receipts from these

activities on acquired lands are returned to the States.

These funds are not required to go toward support of

county schools and roads but are allocated by the State.

In October 1976, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act

was passed by Congress to dampen the effects of market fluctuations on local governments. This act guaranteed a minimum payment of 75 cents per acre to

counties.

28
In the 1980’s the Forest Service returned about $5

million a year to Arkansas counties. During that decade, the lowest annual payment was $2.4 million in

1982, and the highest was $8.3 million in 1989 (appendix, table 2). Asimilar trend occurred in Oklahoma

with a low of $280 thousand in 1982, a high of $1.2

million in 1989, and an annual average of $680 thousand during the decade (appendix, table 2). However,

in 1991, payments to Arkansas counties had dropped

to $4.4 million, in 1992 to $2.1 million, and then increased to $3.4 million dollars in 1993. This trend also

occurred in Oklahoma (USDA FS 1994).

CONFLICT BETWEEN INTEREST GROUPS

AND THE FOREST SERVICE

The plethora of congressional mandates was to have

unanticipated consequences on the operation of the

Forest Service, both nationally and in Arkansas and

Oklahoma. The original Forest Service challenge in

Arkansas had been to protect and nurture the forests

back to productivity. To accomplish this task, Forest

Service employees had been prodigious in their expenditure of time and effort while making decisions

based on their own knowledge, training, and experience (Frome 1984). But in the 197O’s, the Forest

Service’s image as a protector of the forests against

predators, both natural and human, was to be increasingly challenged. Saddled with a multiplicity of legislative mandates and public demands, the Forest

Service, once perceived as the model agency of the Federal bureaucracy, found itself embroiled in controversy.

Aerial Application of Herbicides

The first major conflict in Arkansas between the new

environmentalism and the national forest practices

began in 1975 over the question of aerial applications

of herbicides (Frome 1984). As an integral part of evenaged management, the Forest Service began using the

herbicide 2,4,5-T in 1971. The herbicide contained the

impurity dioxin, which was later suspected of being a

carcinogen. An organization of “back-to-the-landers”

living in Newton County formed the Newton County

Wildlife Association and filed a lawsuit to stop the use

of the herbicide in the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s (Bass

1981). The Forest Service considered the use of herbicides essential for site preparation and for the elimination of poor-quality hardwoods competing with

planted pines. The Forest Service preferred the use of

herbicides to the use of hand tools and heavy equipment for site preparation and stand improvement; it

was much cheaper, more effective, and improved the

cost/benefit ratio of even-aged management.

In deferente to the lawsuit, the Forest Service halted

the use of herbicides on the Ouachita NF until the

Ozark-St. Francis case was decided. The Forest Service held public meetings to hear comments on the

policy (Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 1977). In 1978,

the Forest Service issued its lo-year timber management plans that forbade the use of any herbicides containing dioxin, as well as the use of aerial spraying,

until the safety of using specific herbicides was assessed in a separate EIS (USDA FS 1978a, 1978b).

Consequently, Federal Judge Thomas Eisele dismissed

the civil action against the Forest Service because it

had met the criteria set by the Newton County Wild1ifeAssociation (Bass 1981). Nevertheless, the struggle

over the use of herbicides and clearcutting was merely

the prelude to increasingly harsh disagreements by

the public with both policies and philosophies of the

Forest Service (Frome 1984).

In January 1986, the Newton County WildlifeAssociation and the Arkansas Chapter of the Sierra Club

alleged that the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s had illegally

designated diverse hardwood stands for conversion to

pine timber production. These groups tiled an injunction to stop the conversion based on the alleged willful violation of the 1979 Federal court agreement

(Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 1986b). The court sent

the case back to the plaintiffs, but it was never refiled.

Land and Resource Management Plans

In 1986, the Ouachita NF and Ozark-St. Francis

NF’s released their separate comprehensive lo-year

land and resource management plans. Both plans were

appealed by various citizen and interest groups (Little

Rock Arkansas Gazette 1986a, 1986c, 1986d; Richards

1990) and went through various modifications and

amendments.

The Ozark-St. Francis NF’s Plan-The OzarkSt. Francis NF’s plan (USDAFS 1986a) was approved

by the regional forester in final form on July 29,1986.

This plan contained uneven-aged silvicultura1 systems

of management in portions of the forest where hardwoods predominated. The plan was appealed by the

Sierra Club, Newton County Wildlife Association, and

others. Severa1 appeals were resolved in a relatively

short time, and the remaining were consolidated. The

points of concern were many, but vegetation manipulation, herbicide use, roads, water quality, and wildlife management predominated. The Forest Service,

appellants, and others negotiated for nearly 3 years

on a wide range of concerns in considerable detail.

On June 7,1990, an agreement was reached in Appeal 1748 (Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 1990b), and

the terms of this agreement were incorporated into

the forest plan through Amendment No. 5 (USDA FS

1991a). The agreement represented an amicable settle29
ment of issues about which appellants and other members of the general public had deep convictions.

Changes to the plan included: a road program that

would not increase total road miles; increased water

quality monitoring of at least one harvest site each

year; specified vegetative filter strips along streams;

minimal use of herbicides; less intensive management

techniques, including trial uneven-aged management

in some pine stands and modified even-aged harvest

cutting methods; reduced size of regeneration openings; reduced acres of clearcutting in pine and hardwood stands; and making public involvement an

integral part of any planning program or project

(USDA FS 1991a).

Since Congress amended the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act in 1992, and included six streams

on the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s, the forest plan was

modilied again by establishing Management Area 9-

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Forest management direction

for Management Area 9 was spelled out in Amendment No. 7 to the plan (USDA FS 1993). Also in 1992,

the Arkansas Attorney General and severa1 Newton

County individuals sued the Forest Service, alleging

excessive clearcutting of the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s

(Rhodes 1992). In late 1995, at the plaintiff’s request,

the court dismissed the suit and ruled that the plaintiffs could not bring the issue before the court again

unless they paid the Forest Service attorney fees.

Even though the amended Ozark-St. Francis NF’s

Land and Resource Management Plan allowed some

clearcutting, by 1995 there was no clearcutting occurring on the forest. Although considerable change had

occurred in the management of the forest, the public’s

view of how to manage the forest remained polarized.

There is now growing pressure to stop al1 harvesting on

public land, as well as counter pressure to increase harvesting by opening areas that are closed to harvesting.

The disagreement continues as the Newton County

Wildlife Association, Arkansas Attorney General, and

the Sierra Club filed suit in 1995 against the OzarkSt. Francis NF’s to stop seven timber sales in Newton

County.

The Ouachita NF PZan-The 1986 Ouachita NF

document (USDA FS 198613) called for continuation of

the emphasis on timber production and the use of

clearcutting as the predominant method of harvesting (Wilson and Guldin 1991). It also proposed the use

of even-aged management on some 900,000 of the 1.6

million acres in the forest (USDA FS 1986b). On August 5, 1986, the Arkansas Conservation Coalitionmore than 20 conservation and environmental

organizations-appealed the Ouachita NF Land and

Resource Management Plan in an attempt to stop

clearcutting (Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 1986a,

1986c). A different approach was taken in 1987 when

the Oklahoma Congressional delegation, led by U.S.

Representative Wes Watkins, engineered the passage

of a bill declaring 98,000 acres of the Ouachita NF in

Oklahoma a National Recreation Area (NRA). Regulations covering this NRA preclude clearcutting as a

forest management option (Wilson and Guldin 1991).

In consideration of the criticism, the Forest Service

conducted a supplemental analysis of the environmental impacts of the forest management practices in the

plan and developed a number of alternatives (Wilson

and Guldin 1991). Nevertheless, Chief Dale Robertson

made it clear that, on a national basis, the Forest Service would continue to use clearcutting in a responsible manner when conditions were favorable. On

March 15, 1989, the Ouachita NF announced to the

media that “clearcutting was on the way out, and selection logging was on the way in” (Curran 1994). The

Forest Service would increase the use of shelterwood

and seed tree methods of harvesting that were considered to have less visual impact to the forest visitor

than clearcutting while allowing the employment of

large-scale logging equipment in order to add to the

efflciency of timber harvesting. On the heels of this

announcement, the Forest Service increased its efforts

on the Ouachita NF that began about 1975 to protect

the habitat of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker-a small bird that nests in mature southern

pines with heart rot. This was done by establishing

an area around each woodpecker colony where al1

types of timber harvesting except thinning would be

prohibited.

A draft of the amended Ouachita NF management

plan was released on May 1,1989. This amended plan

reduced the projected acreage where clearcutting

would be used annually from 15,000 acres to 5,280

acres. The amended plan included the implementation of even-aged natural regeneration methods using seed tree systems (fig. 18) and shelterwood systems

on 2,600 acres annually. These systems left between

15 and 40 pine trees per acre. The plan also projected

the use of uneven-aged reproduction cutting methods,

such as single-tree selection and group selection, on

14,063 acres per year (USDA FS 1990a).

The amended plan unleashed a wave of responses,

numbering over 7,000, that were split among those

supporting a total shift to uneven-aged management

with no herbicides, those advocating only even-aged

management, and those who supported immediate

implementation of the recommended alternative and

its proposed harvest schedule (Little Rock Arkansas

Gazette 198913, Wilson and Guldin 1991). The

Ouachita Watch League opposed the amended plan,

and the organization or its individual members began

the appeals process for every proposed timber sale

(Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 1989a). They labeled

the alternative methods of timber harvesting, seed

tree, and shelterwood as “two-step clearcutting and

three-step clearcutting.” On March 10,1990, five tribes

calling themselves the Revived Ouachita Indians,

30
joined the Ouachita Watch League in opposing

clearcutting in Arkansas (Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 199Oc). The appeals process dramatically slowed

timber harvesting in the Ouachita NF from about 200

million board feet in 1985 to less than 100 million

board feet in 1989 (Wilson and Guldin 1991). However, oil and gas lease sales held in 1989 raised more

than $28 million from bonus bids and prevented payments that were turned back to counties from plummeting in 1990 (USDA FS 1990a). Payments did drop

drastically in 1992 to a third of what they were in

1989, as mentioned earlier.

Pressure from loggers and timber interests within

Arkansas mounted, and, in August 1989, Governor Bi11

Clinton switched his position on the Ouachita NF

management plan. Although originally critica1 of the

1986 plan, he now praised the draft 1989 amended

plan for achieving a better balance between environmental and economic benefits since timber harvesting created jobs and helped pay for schools (Little Rock

Arkansas Democrat 1990). However, environmentalists still perceived clearcutting and logging road construction as degrading water quality and causing

forest fragmentation. They also felt forest ecosystems

and the value of the wilderness experience were being endangered.

On March 14,1990, the Forest Service released its

Yinal” Ouachita NF Amended Land and Resource

Management Plan. The Forest Service proposed to

continue, albeit on a reduced basis, clearcutting on

5,280 acres each year (Rafinski 1990a, USDA FS

1990a). The Ouachita Watch League and the Sierra

Club indicated they probably would appeal the approved plan. The thrust of their complaint was against

the continuation of clearcutting. The plan also carne

under attack from members of the timber industry who

wanted to see more of the forest used for timber production (Rafínski 1990a).

The polarization of the clearcutting controversy resulted in a widened discussion and involvement of

politicians who became associated with constituencies

for various reasons. On April 23, 1990, U.S. Representative Tommy Robinson formally announced that

he would introduce into Congress the following day

legislation forcing the Forest Service to stop clearcutting in the Ouachita NF by designating the entire

Figure 18.-A seed tree cut in April 1989 on Winona Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest; reproduction cutting methods that leave

residual trees and rely on natural regeneration have replaced clearcutting.

31
national forest in Arkansas as a National Recreation

Area (Little Rock Arkansas Gazette 1990a).

The Ouachita Watch League, on June 9,1990, also

fíled an appeal to stop the Forest Service from using

herbicides for hardwood control in the Ouachita and

Ozark-St. Francis NF’s. The appeal was based on the

claim that the EIS covering use of herbicides, required

under the National Environmental Policy Act, was

inadequate. The strategy was that banning the use of

herbicides would make it very difficult for the Forest

Service to carry out site preparation and hardwood

control on timber sales areas. Thus, blocking herbicide use would also block implementation of even-aged

management as called for in both forest plans

(Richards 1990).

Both sides employed heightened rhetoric. On June

27, 1990, the Sierra Club protested that the Forest

Service was not cutting enough trees on the Ouachita

NF. They argued that the Forest Service had used the

individual project appeals to prevent thousands of

acres from being cut using selection logging (Rafinski

1990b). Finally, on July 14,1990, the Sierra Club filed

a Federal lawsuit to stop the Forest Service from

clearcutting on the Ouachita NF. They contended that

only over-mature trees should be harvested by singletree selection cutting (Hill and Wells 1990). In addition to the Sierra Club lawsuit, over 80 appeals of cutting

practices were registered by concerned individuals.

Senatorial Involvement-The Walk in the

Woods-In an effort to expedite an equitable agreement of the impasse between the Forest Service and

conservationists, U.S. Senator David Pryor and Forest Service Chief Dale Robertson met on the Ouachita

NF on August 9, 1990. After reviewing past and current harvesting activities on the forest during their

“walk in the woods,” they jointly announced a tentative agreement that would virtually eliminate

clearcutting in the Ouachita NF (Ridlehoover 1990).

Senator Dale Bumpers said, “Anything that will do

away with clear cutting will meet with my approval,”

and Representative Tommy Robinson extended partial support for the new plan by saying, “The Forest

Service appears to have made a move in the right direction. Hopefully, Congressional and public pressure

is about to end the rape of the Ouachita Mountains”

(Barton and Parker 1990).

On August 24,1990, Regional Forester John Alcock

formalized the agreement as Amendment No. 7 of the

Ouachita NF Land and Resource Management Plan.

The Forest Service advocated environmentally acceptable management practices that included eliminating

clearcutting, experimenting with uneven-aged harvesting systems, and enhancing biological diversity.

The final wording of the document was that clearcutting could only be used where needed to rehabilitate lands with insect or disease infestations, or after

natural disasters such as fire and tornadoes, to rehabilitate newly acquired lands, or when required as a

habitat management tool to aid in the recovery of

threatened or endangered species (USDA FS 1990b).

However, Forest Plan Amendment No. 7 did not

satisfy either the environmental groups or the timber

industry. The Ouachita Watch League was unalterably opposed to any techniques associated with evenaged management. To the timber interests, the Forest

Service was now adopting a position that was unduly

restrictive and would result in a massive reduction in

future timber supplies (Ridlehoover 1990). Also, many

local operators had bought expensive equipment used

for clearcutting timber. Most large skidders were not

necessarily conducive to skidding through a forest to

remove single trees (Thompson 1990). The “Ye11

County Record” reported that Chris Barneycastle,

executive vice president of the Arkansas Forestry Association, said, “We are extremely disappointed in the

agreement between the Chief and Senator Pryor primarily because they have abandoned the Ouachita

forest plan developed over 14 years at a cost of $20

million to the taxpayers” (Ye11 County Record 1990).

The effect of the clearcutting ban on Federal funds to

counties was also a concern, and some felt it would be

up to the State to provide the missing funds, not the

schools (Thompson 1990).

In reply to the efforts of various individuals and

groups to block the implementation of this amended

plan, James Bibler, president of Bibler Bros. Lumber

Co. in Russellville, maintained that because of the

Sierra Clubs appeals, Ouachita NF timber was snared

in legalities and could not be sold. The lack of supply

was what would put Dale Rogers Lumber Co. of Mena

out of business and threatened the continued operations of other sawmills and their adjacent communities (Powers and Gotlieb 1991).

The Arkansas Forestry Association, Ouachita National Forest Timber Purchaser’s Group, and Region

8 Forest Service Timber Purchaser’s Council appealed

Amendment No. 7 and claimed that the amendment

violated the Forest Service’s own guidelines because

it had not been subject to the necessary EIS and public comment period (Rafinski 1991). To some timber

companies, clearcutting was the most efficient and

profitable method of logging. Chris Barneycastle,

again representing the Arkansas Forestry Association,

saw a very troubling aspect to the agreement between

Senator Pryor and the Forest Service: “. . . But we’ve

prevented this sort of thing happening on other national forests where two people can take a walk in the

woods and shake hands and change the plan overnight” (Rafinski 1991).

Chief Robertson’s February 12,1991, decision on the

appeal of Amendment No. 7 affrmed the regional

forester’s decision in al1 the issues raised. However,

on March 26,1991, Amendment No. 7 was vacated by

U.S. Department ofAgriculture Deputy Assistant Sec32
retary John H. Beuter on the grounds that the plan

was already flexible enough to accommodate the

changes contained in the amendment. He also stated

that the Forest Service had not provided sufficient

information to determine if the change was significant or not (Rafinski 1991; USDA, Office of the Secretary 1991). Even though the ruling overturned the ban

on clearcutting, the Chief of the Forest Service felt

that there would be little or no future clearcutting on

the Ouachita NF (Barton and Rafinski 1991).

The decision by the deputy assistant secretary

sparked activity at the State level. On April30,1991,

Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant made an

attempt to intervene in the lawsuit by the Sierra Club

and others to block the 1986 Ouachita NF management plan from being implemented. The Federal court

barred the action but allowed the State to request that

it participate as a “friend of the court” (Little Rock

Arkansas Democrat 1991). The attorney general even

filed an administrative appeal in June to block an individual timber sale ín the Ouachita NF. The Forest

Service expressed surprise since there had been no

involvement by the attorney general’s Office prior to

the appeal (Decker 1991). Also at the State level, Governor Bi11 Clinton claimed that he had been criticized

by the timber industry and environmentalists for his

stand on clearcutting (Thompson 1991).

On October 22, 1992, U.S. District Judge Morris

Arnold in Fort Smith dismissed al1 counts in the lawsuit challenging the use of clearcutting in the Ouachita

NF (Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 1992).

The Sierra Club appealed this decision to the 8th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri, on

November ll. Arguments by the Sierra Club, the State

of Arkansas, the Arkansas Forestry Association, and

the Justice Department were presented to the Court

of Appeals in May 1993 (Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 1993a).

The Ouachita NF began operating under the

amended plan and even made additional modifications

to some of the harvesting practices. It was proposed

that a mixed overstory be retained indetinitely to

maintain structural diversity in stands to be logged

using seed tree and shelterwood methods. Tbis would

leave 5 to 10 mature hardwood trees and 15 to 25

mature pines per acre (Thompson 1993).

In January 1995, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

upheld Judge Arnold’s decision. The Appeals Court

went even further, ruling that the Sierra Club,

Ouachita Watch League, and the Arkansas Attorney

General had no standing to sue in this case. This decision differs from the ruling in the Pacific Northwest

where the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that

appellants do have standing to sue. Thus, two of the

Nation’s Circuit Courts have rulings that are in opposition to each other. The Sierra Club, at the national

level, made the decision not to appeal the Arkansas

case to the Supreme Court because of concern that an

unfavorable legal precedent might be established.

A major part of the national forest planning effort

during the period from 1986 to the present concerned

public involvement. A survey was conducted by Gregory Holthoff (1993) on this subject in 1991-92 to see

if increased efforts by the Forest Service to inform and

involve the public had made any difference in the planning process. He collected information from people who

had been involved in both the initial and supplemental plan for the Ouachita NF. Additional analyses of

these data were made by the University of Arkansas,

College ofAgriculture, Department ofAgriculture Economics and Rural Sociology (Voth and others 1994) to

look at determinants of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

with public involvement programs and the resulting

plans in the Ouachita NF. Their preliminary findings

showed: (1) environmental interests were, generally,

more dissatisfied, but (2) there was a minor overa11

reduction in dissatisfaction during the period, (3) there

was a slight narrowing of the difference in the leve1 of

dissatisfaction between the selected interest groups,

and, fínally, (4) there was a balancing of differences

between the selected interest groups. This meant that

as the apparent dissatisfaction of those affiliated with

environmental interests decreased, the dissatisfaction

of those affiliated with timber interests tended to increase, resulting in an almost equal leve1 of satisfaction/

dissatisfaction for the two groups cvoth and others 1994).

NEW APPROACH BY THE

FOREST SERVICE: 1990’s

New PerspectivedEcosystem Management

As the legal confrontation between the Forest Service and preservation or environmental groups continued, a new approach towards forest management

was being proposed. The concept was based on a fundamental reexamination of silvicultura1 practices and

the application of holistic or ecosystem approaches.

This would include adaptive management using new

scientific knowledge garnered from test sites and experiments. This program was first named “New Perspectives” because of the need to look at national forest

management with new ideas and a new perspective.

The effort is currently known as “Ecosystem Management” and makes use of public advisory committees,

enhanced research partnerships, ecological classification, and other tools.

In August 1990, as part of the agreement between

Senator Pryor and Chief Robertson, the Ouachita NF

was designated a “New Perspectives Lead Forest” for

extensive experiments and monitoring of these modified and new approaches to forest management. Ha1

Salwasser, StatTDirector of the New Perspectives Pro3 3
gram in Washington, D.C., defined New Perspectives

as a “pathway for dealing with natural resource issues such as biological diversity, sensitive species,

stream protection, old growth forests, ecological restoration, long-term productivity, and timber harvesting practices” (Gregory 1990). The Forest Service

sought to improve harmony between land and people

by taking into consideration a wide range of social,

biological, political, and physical sciences factors. The

views and input of the public were considered essential for ecosystem management to work, and one way

public input was obtained was through the New Perspectives Advisory Committee-later renamed the

Ecosystem Management Advisory Committee (Little

Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 1993b).

Earlier in 1990, a symposium, “Restoration of Old

Growth Forests in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma,,, was cosponsored by the Ouachita

and Ozark-St. Francis NF’s. As a follow-up to this symposium, Ouachita NF personnel engaged in an ongoing dialogue about old growth forests with ecologists,

conservationists, and other scientists and interested

parties. In 1993, a policy paper on “Old Growth Restoration on the Ouachita National Forest” was disseminated widely. The following year, the Ouachita

NF Land and Resource Management Plan was

amended to clarify direction for old growth reestablishment within most management areas on the forest and

to establish a new (fire-maintained) management area

for old growth pine.18

The Forest Service also began work on the Ouachita

NF under New Perspectives to establish a landscapescale restoration of shortleaf pine-bluestem communities and the long-term recovery of the red-cockaded

woodpecker in the Ouachita Mountains. These efforts

continue under ecosystem management.

As part of the research partnership on the Ouachita

and Ozark-St. Francis NF’s, scientists from the Forest Service, other Federal agencies, universities, and

industry, headed by Research Forester James Baker

of the USDA Forest Service’s Southern Forest Experiment Station, made up the New Perspectives research

team. The team of researchers and land managers

established 22 demonstration stands on the Ouachita

NF to study various harvesting techniques. In 1992,

the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s also initiated severa1 demonstration projects to explore alternative silvicultura1

techniques, including single-tree and group selection

practices, in upland hardwoods on the Bayou, Buffalo,

and Pleasant Hill Ranger Districts. This work was

done in cooperation with researchers from the Southern Forest Experiment Station.lg An even larger scale

project initiated by the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s was

the 29,000-acre Sandy Springs Project in the Buffalo

Ranger District. As described by Thomas Foti, chief of

research for the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, “Sandy Springs carne along before ecosystem

management. It is not a full-blown ecosystem management plan. . . . 1 would say they’re doing a very

good job. They’ve made substantial progress in changing business as usual’ (Kern 1993a).

The environmental groups remained unconvinced

that changes would take place. Sherry Balkenhol, cochair of the Ouachita Watch League, told the “Arkansas Democrat-Gazette”:

“If the Forest Service is actually going to modify

its daily operations based on this new information and research, then the researchers delinitely

deserve an award. Whether the Forest Service

actually makes a good-faith effort to change based

on the research remains to be seen. If they don’t

change, then we’ll know it was al1 just a public

relations trick. We sincerely hope the research

project will someday help change their businessas-usual, clearcut, poison and burn methods

around the rest of the Ouachita” (Kern 1993b).

Expanded Research

While public controversies swirled around past and

present harvesting techniques, the Forest Service was

expanding its research studies of ecosystems and how

they function. Even before the present debate, as early

as 1927, the Forest Service began to establish Research

Natural Areas (RNA’s) to protect lands that represented a wide range of native ecosystems and species.

In 1969, an RNA was established on 330 acres in the

Roaring Branch portion of the Caddo Ranger District

of the Ouachita NF. In 1977, 240 acres near Lake

Winona were designated as the Lake Winona RNA.

The Turkey Ridge RNA was established on 400 acres

of the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s in 1988. In 1990, several RNA’S were established including Gap Creek

(1,125 acres) and Tiak (199 acres) on the Ouachita

National Forest and Dismal Hollow (2,077 acres) on

the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s (Devall and Ramp 1992).

There are two other proposed RNA%on each forest,

and establishment records are being reviewed (Devall

1992).

As part of the increased interest in old growth forests in 1990, the Southern Region and Southern and

Southeastern Forest Experiment Stations of the Forest Service formed a committee on old growth forests.

Members of this committee, other Forest Service scils Personal communication, William F. Pell, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs National Park, AR

71902.

lgPersonal communication, David Graney,USDAForest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station, Fayetteville, AR 72701.

3 4
entists, and employees of The Nature Conservancy

were working to define the characteristics of old

growth stands for 27 southern forest community types

(Devall and Ramp 1992). The ultimate goal of this effort was to develop methods to manage existing old

growth stands and to reestablish such stands. The

Lake Winona RNA contains shortleaf pines that are

200 to 300 years old and shows little evidente of human disturbance. Scientific examination of this and

other RNA% will help provide a baseline from which it

may be possible to revea1 how human intervention has

shaped the forest ecosystem.

On the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis NF’s, the

ecosystem management research program now consists of three phases: Phase 1-an unreplicated, standlevel, demonstration project; Phase II-a scientifícally

based, replicated, stand-leve1 study; and Phase III-a

large-scale, watershed or landscape-leve1 study. The

objective of Phase II research is to impose traditional

and nontraditional reproduction cutting methods on

52 operational stands, each with a minimum of 35

acres, in a fully randomized and replicated research

study on both the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis

NF’s. Nontraditional cutting methods include leaving

both pines and hardwoods for extended periods of time

in the stand overstory. Treatments al1 consist of evenaged and uneven-aged partial cuttings, with varying

levels and patterns of pine and hardwood retention in

the overstory after harvesting. Controls are at the two

extremes of management intensity: one is an

unmanaged control and the other is a clearcut control. These last clearcuts on the Ouachita NF were

included in the experiment to allow comparison of innovative methods with past systems, linking where

the forest has been with where it is going.

After the Phase II stands were selected in 1990,

pretreatment monitor-mg of ecosystem variables was

begun by a research team of more than 50 scientists

and resource managers from several Federal and State

agencies and universities. Research groups measured

plant diversity, wildlife habitat and populations, silvicultural factors, water, soils, cultural resources, visual quality, arthropod and microbial communities,

and harvesting and management economics. This is

one of the most comprehensive reproduction cutting

method studies in the Nation. A symposium was held

in Hot Springs, Arkansas, on October 26-27,1993, to

present the pretreatment data and preliminar-y findings (Baker 1994). Harvesting treatments assigned to

Phase II stands were installed during the summer of

1993.

Outlook for the Future

The quandary in which the U.S. Forest Service finds

itself was highlighted by the Forest Conference in

Portland, Oregon, hosted by President Bi11 Clinton in

April 1993. Meeting participants struggled with different views of how to manage the national forests.

The President sought to balance ecological concerns,

centered on an endangered species, with economic and

social issues. This is the same balance the Forest Service has been seeking in the Ouachita and Ozark-St.

Francis NF’s. This is obviously not a new issue. When

the Forest Service was still in its formative years, Chief

Gifford Pinchot and his utilitarian philosophy of “the

greatest good for greatest number in the long run”

clashed with the views of John Muir, founder of the

Sierra Club, who saw the preservation of natural wildernesses as essential for the perpetuation of the soul

of man.

Today the Forest Service and its critics are trying

to frame the resolution of this conflict in ways that

better satisfy a vociferous public who demands that

its views be followed. The Forest Service, in managing the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis NF’s, is attempting to achieve the standard of excellence

expected by the citizens of Arkansas-whose motto is

“The Natural State.” Management standards will continue to change in light of increasing population pressures and other societal needs for which the national

forests exist. The land base is finite, and the area available for consumptive as well as nonconsumptive activities associated with forest lands continues to

decrease because of population growth and urban expansion. There is no free lunch!

Perhaps the public does not know or has forgotten

that the cutover, devastated lands purchased by the

Federal government and managed as national forests

in Arkansas and Oklahoma were restored to health

by the efforts of the Forest Service starting in the early

1900’s. It remains to be seen if “ecosystem management,” now in the initial stages of development and

application, can satisfy al1 interested constituents and

users of the national forests.

TIMELINE

In order to give the reader a clear idea of important

dates and activities associated with the history of the

Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis NI%, the following

timeline is presented:

Date Activity

B.C. First native Americans inhabited western

10,000 Arkansas.

A.D.

500

1542

1680

1686

Some forest clearing in small patches by native Americans.

Hernando de Soto expedition crossed Arkansas from east to west and may have passed

through the Ouachita Mountains.

French trappers in western Arkansas.

First permanent settlement by French at Arkansas Post.

35
1803

1804

1819

1836

1879

1881

1891

1897

1901

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1919

1924

1926

1930

36

Louisiana Territory purchased from France- land; Knutson-Vandenberg Act passed by Conincluding Arkansas. gress.

Dunbar and Hunter traveled through Arkansas, described the forests.

Arkansas Territory created by Congress-including Oklahoma; Naturalist Thomas Nuttall

traveled through Arkansas and Oklahoma and

described forests.

1931

1933

Arkansas became 25th State of the Union.

Commercial logging began in Arkansas.

Division of Forestry established in U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Forest Reserve Act passed by Congress.

Amendment to Sundry Civil Appropriations

Act specified purposes for forest reserves, now

referred to as Organic Act.

Division of Forestry expanded and named

Bureau of Forestry.

Bureau of Forestry became Forest Service;

existing forest reserves transferred from Department of the Interior to Department of

Agriculture.

Forest Homestead Act passed by Congress;

also an act that required 10 percent of receipts

from forest reserves be returned to States for

public roads and schools passed by Congress.

Forest reserves renamed “national forests”;

President Theodore Roosevelt created the Arkansas NF from public domain lands South of

the Arkansas River.

1934

1935

1937

1940

Arkansas Forestry Commission established by

State Legislature.

Civilian Conservation Corps created by President Franklin Roosevelt (originally established as Office of Emergency Conservation

Work).

Crossett Experimental Forest established.

President Roosevelt established four game

refuges on Ouachita NF.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act passed by

Congress.

Boston Mountain Land Use Project added to

the Ozark NF; Magazine Mountain Project

added to Ouachita NF.

1941

1943

Magazine District transferred from Ouachita

NF to Ozark NF.

War Manpower Commission mandated a 48-

hour work week for lumber industry; German

prisoners of war allowed to work on national

forests.

1948

1954

1959

1960

Ozark NF designated on public domain lands

north of the Arkansas River; payments to

States for roads and schools increased to 25

percent of national forest receipts.

Arkansas Legislature endorsed a resolution to

abolish the national forests; logging peaked

and began to decline.

President Taft used the Forest Homestead Act

to reduce Ozark NF lands by 562,981 acres;

fired Chief Pinchot.

1961

1964

1965

Weeks Law passed by Congress.

First lands purchased under Weeks Law added

to national forests in Arkansas.

1968

1970

Congress passed Clarke-McNary Act allowing

the purchase of forest lands for purposes other

than protection of watersheds of navigable

streams.

Koen Experimental Forest established.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention

Act passed by Congress; SCS transferred remaining land use projects to the Forest Service for administration and disposal.

Tiak Land Use Project added to Ouachita NF.

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act passed by

Congress; Lake Wedington Land Use Project

added to Ozark NF; Mariana-Helena Land Use

Project designated St. Francis NF and placed

under Ozark NF administration.

Ozark NF renamed Ozark-St. Francis NF’s.

Wilderness Act and National Forest Roads and

Trails Act passed by Congress; work on

Talimena Scenic Drive began.

Even-aged management using clearcutting

initiated on both forests; grazing of cattle and

hogs restricted on forests.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passed by Congress.

National Environmental Policy Act passed by

Congress in 1969 and signed into law by President Nixon.

Mena Chamber of Commerce asked Congress

to transfer Arkansas NF to Department of the

Interior, National Park Service; Congress

passed transfer bill, but it was pocket-vetoed

by President Coolidge who established four

hunting refuges on the Ozark NF and changed

the name of the Arkansas NF to the Ouachita

NF.

Ouachita NF extended into Oklahoma by purchase of 50,000 acres of cutover and burned

1973

1974

1975

1976

1978

Threatened and Endangered Species Act

passed by Congress.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act passed by Congress.

Congress established Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area on the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s and

Caney Creek Wilderness Area on the Ouachita

NF; Newton County Wildlife Association appealed use of aerial application of herbicides

on Ozark-St. Francis NF’s.

National Forest Management Act; Payment in

Lieu of Taxes Act passed by Congress.

Ozark-St. Francis NF’s Timber Management
1984

1986

1987

1989

1990

1992

1993

1995

Plan issued that forbade use of herbicides containing dioxin and use of aerial spraying.

Arkansas Wilderness Act passed by Congress;

designated four new wilderness areas on the

Ouachita NF and four on the Ozark-St.

Francis NF’s.

Ouachita NF and Ozark-St. Francis NF’s Land

and Resource Management Plans released;

both plans appealed by various interest groups

and individuals.

Congress passed bill making 98,000 acres of

Ouachita NF in Oklahoma a national recreation area.

Ouachita NF released drafi amended management plan that reduced clearcutting and increased uneven-aged cutting methods; Ouachita

Watch League appealed every timber sale.

Ozark-St. Francis NF’s reached an agreement

with appellants by modifying their management practices and amending the forest management plan; Ouachita NF released “final”

amended management plan; Ouachita Watch

League and Sierra Club appealed it and also

filed a lawsuit to stop clearcutting and use of

herbicides; Senator Pryor and Chief Robertson

toured Ouachita NF and agreed to virtually

eliminate clearcutting; Ouachita NF designated New Perspectives Lead Forest, and research on the forest was greatly expanded.

Forest Service recommended and Congress

established eight wild and scenic rivers in Arkansas; Federal District Judge Morris Arnold

ruled in favor of implementation of the

Ouachita NF’s amended management plan;

Ouachita Watch League and Sierra Club appealed the decision; Arkansas Attorney General and Newton County Wildlife Association

filed suit against the Ozark-St. Francis NF’s

management plan; New Perspectives efforts

incorporated in ecosystem management approach to forest management on al1 national

forests.

Ecosystem Management Research Symposium

held to present pretreatment data and preliminary fmdings.

Eighth Circuit Court ofAppeals upheld Judge

Arnold’s decision; also ruled the Sierra Club,

Ouachita Watch League, and the Arkansas

Attorney General had no standing to sue; district court dismissed 1992 suit against the

Ozark-St. Francis NF’s; Newton County Wildlife Association, Arkansas Attorney General,

and Sierra Club filed suit against the OzarkSt. Francis NF’s to stop seven timber sales in

Newton County.

LITERA- CITED

Albornoz, Miguel. 1986. Hernando de Soto: knight of

the Americas. New York: Franklin Watts. 389 p.

Baker, James B., comp. 1994. Proceedings of the symposium on ecosystem management research in the

Ouachita Mountains: pretreatment conditions and

preliminary findings; 1993 October 26-27; Hot

Springs, AR. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-112. New Orleans,

LA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 259 p.

Baker, James B.; Bishop, Larry M. 1986. Crossett

Demonstration Forest guide. Gen. Rep. RB-GR 6.

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 55 p.

Barton, Paul; Parker, Max. 1990. Clear-cutting ban

could cost state, not schools: Robinson joins Bumpers

to back forestry plan. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat. August 14; Sect. B: 1 (col. 11, 7 (col. 4).

Barton, Paul; Rafinski, Karen. 1991. Forest Service

head doubts future of clear-cutting. Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. March 29; Sect. A: ll (col. 3).

Bass, Sharon M.W. 1981. For the trees: an illustrated

history of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests

1908-1978. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 171 p.

Beltz, Roy C.; Bertelson, Daniel F.; Faulkner, Joanne

L.; May, Dennis M. 1992. Forest resources ofArkansas. Resour. Bull. SO-169. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 48 p.

Chaney, Phillip L. 1990. Geographic analysis of the

presettlement vegetation of the Middle Fork of the

White River, Arkansas: a GIS approach. Fayetteville,

AR: University ofArkansas. 275 p. M.A. thesis.

Committee on Public Lands. 1910. House of Representatives Hearings May 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 1910,

on H.R. 20683 “To abolish the Ozark National Forest”

and H.R. 21894 “To exclude from the Arkansas National Forest all lands within the County of Montgomery and restore same to public domain.” Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 194 p.

Curran, Mike. 1994. Evolution of ecosystem management and research on the Ouachita and Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests. In: Proceedings of a symposium on ecosystem management in the Ouachita

Mountains: pretreatment conditions and preliminary findings; 1993 October 26-27; Hot Springs, AR.

Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-112. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: l-4.

Decker, Caroline. 1991. Bryant trying to stop Ouachita

timber sale. Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. July 4;

Sect. B: 6 (col. 2).

Devall, Margaret S. 1992. Research Natural Areas

strategy for the Southern Station. 8 p. Office report.

On file with: M.S. Devall, Southern Forest Experi37
ment Station, 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA

70113

Devall, Margaret S.; Ramp, Paul F. 1992. U.S. Forest

Service Research Natural Areas and protection of

old growth in the South. Natural Areas Journal.

12(2): 75-85.

Dunbar, William. 1807. Travels in the interior parts

of America; communicating discoveries made in exploring the Missouri, Red River and Washita, by

Captains Lewis and Clark, Doctor Sibley, and Mr.

Dunbar; with a statistical account of the countries

adjacent. As laid before the Senate, by the President of the United States. In February, 1806, and

never before published in Great Britain. London:

Printed for Richard Phillips . . . by J.G. Barnard.

116 p.

Fayetteville Arkansas Sentinel. 1907. How the national forests serve the people. July 10: 1 (col. 3).

Fayetteville Arkansas Sentinel. 1908. Arkansas forest resources. January 23: 7 (col. 3).

Fort Smith [AR] Times. 1908. Forest notes. April20:

4 (col. 5).

Frome, Michael. 1984. The Forest Service. 2d ed., rev.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 364 p.

Gerstaecker, Frederick. 1856. Wild sports in the far

west (Translated from the German). London, New

York: Geo. Routledge & Co. 314 p.

Greeley, William B. 1926. Report of the Forester. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest

Service. 47 p.

Gregory, Mark. 1990. ONF gets New Perspectives;

Changes mark transition. The Sentinel-Record [Hot

Springs, AR]. August 13; Sect A: 1 (col. unknown), 5

(col. unknown).

Helms, Douglas., comp. 1980. Preliminar-y inventory

of the records of the Civilian Conservation Corps:

Record Group 35. Washington, DC: General Services

Administration, National Archives and Records Service. 23 p.

Henson, Maria. 1989. Overhaul proposed: Bumpers

wants change in old mining law. Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. June 7; Sect. C: 2 (col. 1).

Hill, Toya; Wells, George. 1990. Diamond mining;

environmentalists after clear-cuts, too. Little Rock

Arkansas Gazette. July 14; Sect. B: 1 (col. S), 7 (col. 1).

Holthoff, M. Gregory. 1993. Public involvement in

national forest planning: the Ouachita experience.

Pulmann, WA: Washington State University. 199 p.

M.S. thesis.

Jansma, Jerome; Jansma, Harriet H. 1991. George

Englemann in the Arkansas Territory. Arkansas

Historical Quarterly. 50(3): 225-248.

Jeter, Marvin D.; Williams, G. Ishmeal, Jr. 1989. Lithic

horizons and early culture. In: Archeology and

bioarcheology of the lower Mississippi Valley and

Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Society;

Research Series No. 37: 71-110. Chapter 5.

Jones, Donald R. 1979. The national forests and Arkansas, 1907-1933. Ozark Historical Review.

Fayetteville, AR: University ofArkansas; 7(Spring):

1-13.

Kern, David F. 1993a. Forestry proposal put under

microscope. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. March 29; Sect. B: 8 (col. 5).

Kern, David F. 1993b. New approach set for managing forests. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

March 29; Sect. B: 1 (col. l), 8 (col. 1).

Landsberg, Hans H.; Fischman, Leonard L.; Fisher,

Joseph L. 1963. Resources in America’s future: patterns of requirements and availabilities 1960-2000.

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press. 1017 p.

Lang, Fred H. 1965. Two decades of State eorestry [sic]

in Arkansas. Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 24(3):

208-219.

Little Rock Arkansas Democrat. 1990. Clear cutting

ban could cost State, not schools: chronology. August 14; Sect. B: 7 (col. 5).

Little Rock Arkansas Democrat. 1991. State to appeal

forest suit exclusion; Bryant says ‘battle has just

begun’in clear-cutting case. June 19; Sect. B: 2 (col.

1). Fort Smith.

Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. 1992. Judge

throws out suit, allows clear-cutting in Ouachita

Forest. October 24; Sect. B: 3 (col. 2).

Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. 1993a. Clearcutting case renewal argued in St. Louis court. May

13; Sect. A: 12 (col. 1).

Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. 1993b. Ecosystem panel, Forest Service discuss Ouachita management. May 21; Sect. B: 9 (col. 5).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1908. Ozark National

Forest created. March 8: 1 (co1.7), 2 (col. 1). Washington, March 7.

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1909a. Ask abolition of

forest reserves: House adopts concurrent resolution

by Senator Logan, which asks government to withdraw its supervision in Arkansas. May 7: [page unknownl (col. 1).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1909b. Forest reserve

and its workings: Polk County man roasts it and

charges graft-Mr. Record courts a thorough investigation. May 24: 10 (col. 5).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1977. Proposal to manage Ouachita timber released. September 15; Sect.

A: 22 (col. 1).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1986a. Coalition to fight

plan for forests. August 5; Sect. C: 2 (col. 6).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1986b. Groups cal1 designation of forest tracts illegal. January 31; Sect. A:

7 (col. 1).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1986c. Groups to appeal forest plan. May 13; Sect. A: 3 (col. 1).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1986d. Plan for Ozark38
St. Francis not in appeal, group says. August 6; Sect.

c: 3 (col. 5).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1989a. OWL opposes

forest management plan. June 25; Sect. B: 1 (col. 2).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 198913. 7,000 comment

on forest. August 27; Sect. K: 2 (col. 4). Hot Springs.

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1990a. Clear-cut bill

proposed: Robinson urges curb on clear-cutting in

Ouachita. April24; Sect. B: 6 (col. 4).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 1990b. Ozark National

Forest agrees to reduce clear cutting, herbicides.

June 7; Sect. B: 4 (col. 1).

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. 199Oc. 5 tribes oppose

tree cuts: sign treaty with OWL. March 11; Sect. B:

2 (col. 5). Photo Sect. B: 1.

Lottinville, Savoie, ed. 1979. Thomas Nuttall: a journal of travels into the Arkansas Territory during the

year 1819. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma

Press. The Ameritan exploration and travel series,

vol. 66. First published: Philadelphia: Thos. H.

Palmer, 1821. 361 p.

Mattoon, Wilbur R. 1915a. Life history of shortleaf

pine. Bull. 244. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture. 46 p.

Mattoon, Wilbur R. 1915b. Shortleafpine: its economic

importance and forest management. Bull. 308.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

67 p.

McCarty, Joey. 1977. Civilian Conservation Corps in

Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: University ofilrkansas.

103 p. M.A. thesis.

McGimsey, Charles R., III. 1969. Indians of Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 70 p.

Mena [AR] Weekly Star. 1926a. Arkansas timber future is good. May 27: 1 (col. 6). Russellville, May 19.

Mena [AR] Weekly Star. 1926b. Chief forester of U.S.

coming. May 6: 1 (col. 4).

Mena [AR] Weekly Star. 1926c. Game preserve in

Ozark Forest. May 13: 1 (col. 5). Little Rock, May ll.

Mena [AR] Weekly Star. 1926d. Park is needed by

people of South. May 13: 1 (col. 7).

Mena [AR] Weekly Star. 1957.5Oth anniversary of the

Ouachita National Forest: Forest Service rangers

carne to Polk Co. early in 1908. November 21; Sect.

A: 1 (col. l), 2 (col. 1), 3 (col. 1), 4 (col. 1), 5 (col. 1), 6

(col.1).

Mohr, Charles T.; Roth, Filibert. 1896. The timber

pines of the Southern United States by Charles

Mohr, Ph.D., together with a discussion of the structure of their wood by Filibert Roth. Prepared under

the direction of B.E. Fernow, Chief of the Division

of Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. Bull. 13. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 160 p.

Nuttall, Thomas. 1821. A journal of travels into the

Arkansas Territory, during the year 1819 with occasional observations on the manners of the aborigines. Philadelphia, PA: Thos. H. Palmer. 296 p.

The Ouachita National Park Foundation Society. 1926.

Views from the proposed Ouachita National Park.

Mena, AR: Starko Print. 12 p. On file with: Ouachita

National Forest, Box 1270, Federal Bldg., Hot

Springs National Park, AR 71902.

Powers, Libby; Gotlieb, Andy. 1991. Lumber industry

says Sierra Club creating logjam. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat. July 17; Sect. A: 13 (col. 1).

Rafinski, Karen. 1990a. Ouachita clear-cutting plan

approved. Little RockArkansas Gazette. March 14;

Sect. A: 1, 10 (col. 2).

Rafinski, Karen. 1990b. Sierra Club to protest lack of

logging. Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. June 27; Sect.

B: 5 (col. 2).

Rafmski, Karen. 1991. USDA lifts clear-cutting ban

on Ouachita Forest. Little Rock Arkansas Gazette.

March 29; Sect. A: 1 (col. 2), 11 (col. 1).

Record, Samuel J. 1910. The forest resources of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: Central Printing Co. 38 p.

Reynolds, John H., ed. 1906. Original accounts of de

Soto’s journey through Arkansas. Arkansas Historical Publications 1. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Historical Association. 481 p.

Reynolds, R.R. 1980. The Crossett story: the beginning of forestry in southern Arkansas and northern

Louisiana. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-32. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 40 p.

Rhodes, Larry. 1992. Arkansas sues U.S., calls Ozark

clear-cutting excessive. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. July 17; Sect. B: 1 (col. l), 10 (col. 1).

Richards, Toya. 1990. OWL moves to halt herbicides.

Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. June 9; Sect. B: 5

(col. 2).

Ridlehoover, Bobbi. 1990. Pact halts clear cutting in

Ouachita forest. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat.

August 14; Sect. A: 1 (col. 2), 3 (col. 1).

Rowland, Mrs. Dunbar (Eron), ed. 1930. Life, letters

and papers of William Dunbar of Elgin, Morayshier,

Scotland, and Natchez, Mississippi, pioneer scientist of the Southern United States. Jackson, MS:

Press of the Mississippi Historical Society. 410 p.

Sabo, George, III. 1990. Historie Europeans and Americans. In: Human adaption in the Ozark and

Ouachita Mountains. Fayettetille: Arkansas Archeological Society; Research Series No. 31: 135-170.

Chapter 6.

Sabo, George, III; Early, Ann M. 1990. Prehistoric culture history. In: Human adaption in the Ozark and

Ouachita Mountains. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas

Archeological Society; Research Series No. 31: 34-

120. Chapter 4.

Sargent, Charles S. 1884. Report on the forests of

North America (exclusive of Mexico). In: Tenth Census of the United States, 1880. Washington, DC:

39
Government Printing Office. Department of the Interior, Census Office. 612 p.

Schoolcraft, Henry R. 1819. A view of the lead mines

of Missouri: including some observations on the

mineralogy, geology, geography, antiquities, soil, climate, population, and productions in Missouri and

Arkansaw [sic], and other sections of the western

country. New York: Charles Wiley & Co. 299 p.

Schwaab, Eugene L., comp. ed. 1973. Travels in the Old

South, selected from periodicals of the times. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky 133 p. Vol. 1.

Smith, Kenneth L. 1986. Sawmill: the story of cutting

the last great virgin forest east of the Rockies.

Fayetteville, AR: The University ofArkansas Press.

246 p.

Steen, Harold K. 1977. The U.S. Forest Service: a history. 2d ed. Seattle, WA: University of Washington

Press. 356 p.

St. John, VW. 1926. Mena men attend park conference. Mena [AR] Weekly Star. May 27: 1 (col. 1).

Stuart, Robert Y. 1931. Report of the Forester. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest

Service. 82 p.

Sullivan, E.T. 1965. Timber trends in the United States

[Book reviewl. Journal of Forestry. 63(g): 708.

Thompson, Doug. 1990. Clear-cutting ban could cost

State, not schools: 13 counties would lose timber

industry reverme. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat.

August 14; Sect. B: 1 (col. 51, 7 (col. 1).

Thompson, Doug. 1991. Clinton hit on both sides for

clear-cutting stance. Little Rock Arkansas Democrat. July 17; Sect. A: 13 (col. 1).

Thompson, Doug. 1993. Forest Service plans would

spare some timber in Ouachita Forest. Little Rock

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. March 25; Sect. D: 1

(col. 2), 6 (col. 2).

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1905.

The use of the National Forest Reserves: regulations

and instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 142 p.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1934a.

Montgomery County citizen’s petitions. [Not pagedl.

On flle with: Ouachita National Forest, Box 1270,

Federal Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR 71902.

U.S. Department OfAgriculture, Forest Service. 193413.

Montgomery County Quorum Court resolution. 2 p.

On file with: Ouachita National Forest, Box 1270,

Federal Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR 71902.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1935.

Document from Montgomery County officials. 1 p.

On file with: Ouachita National Forest, Box 1270,

Federal Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR 71902.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1939.

Report of the Chief of the Forest Service 1939. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 48 p.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1947.

Report of the inspection of Ozark and Ouachita

National Forests. 14 p. Records of the Forest Service, Record Group 95, National Archives Repository; Suitland, MD.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1966.

National Forests, Purchase Units, National Grasslands, and Land Utilization Projects: a chronological record of actions and area changes 1911-1966.

54 p. On file with: Lands Branch, Div. of Recreation

and Lands, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree Road,

N.W., Atlanta, GA 30367.

U.S. Department OfAgriculture, Forest Service. 1978a.

Timber management plan final environmental statement, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas-Oklahoma. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Region. (USDA-FSR8 FES

Admin 77-11.) 114 p.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 197813.

Timber management plan final environmental statement, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Arkansas. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Region. (USDA-FS-R8 FES

Admin 77-07.) 113 p.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1986a.

Land and resource management plan, Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests, Arkansas. Atlanta, GA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Region. 97 p. + appendix and maps.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1986b.

Proposed land and resource management plan,

Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas-Oklahoma. Atlanta GA: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 65 p. + appendices and maps.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1990a.

Amended land and resource management plan,

Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas-Oklahoma. Atlanta GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Region. 239 p. + appendices and

maps. Vol. 1.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 199Ob.

Decision Notice and Amendment #7 to the Ouachita

land and resource management plan. 3 p. On file

with: Ouachita National Forest, Box 1270, Federal

Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR 71902.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1991a.

Amendment 5, Ozark-St. Francis land and resource

management plan. 10 p. On file with: Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests, P.O. Box 1008, 605 West

Main, Russellville, AR 72801.

U.S. Department OfAgriculture, Forest Service. 1991b.

Report of the Forest Service: fiscal year 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest

Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 1993.

Amendment #7,Ozark-St.Francis land and resource

management plan. [13 p.1 On file with: Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests, P.O. Box 1008,605 West

Main, Russellville, AR 72801.

40
U.S. Department OfAgriculture, Forest Service. 1994.

Report of the Forest Service: fiscal year 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest

Service. 191 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary. 1991. USDA decision on review of administrative decision by Chief of the Forest Service on

the appeal of the Ouachita National Forest land and

resource management plan amendment no. 7.10 p.

On file with: Ouachita National Forest, Box

1270, Federal Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR

71902.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1907. Presidential

Proclamation: Arkansas National Forest-Arkansas. No. 786. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 2 p. + map.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1926. Presidential

Executive Order: Ouachita National Forest-Arkansas. No. 4436. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 1 p.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1935. Presidential

Proclamation: Ouachita National Forest National

Game Refuges-Arkansas. No. 2119. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2 p.

Voth, Donald E.; Fendley, Rim; Holthoff, M. Greg.

1994. Determinants of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

with the public involvement programs and the resulting plans the initial and supplemental forest

plans in the Ouachita National Forest: a brief summary of results focusing upon differences among

those affiliated with selected interests. 9 p. On file

with: Ouachita National Forest, Box 1270, Federal

Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR 71902.

Wilson, David W.; Guldin, James M. 1991. The Ouachita

National Forest story-new forestry, southern style.

In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., comps., eds.

Proceedings of the 6th biennial southern silvicultural

research conference; 1990 October 30-November 1;

Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC:

U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 6-12.

Wootten, William E. 1917. Extensive and intensive land

classification of the Arkansas National Forest. 129 p.

Vol. 1. On lilewith Ouachita National Forest, Box 1270,

Federal Bldg., Hot Springs National Park, AR 71902.

Ye11 County [Danville, AR] Record. 1990. Clear-cutting halted in Ouachita Forest: Sen. Pryor, Forest

Service agree on plan. August 15: 1 (col. 1>,13 (col. 3).

41

APPENDIX

Table l.- Dees of commercial value found in the “Ozark Region” in 1905 (information taken

fiom Record 1910)

Common name Scientific name

Ash

Basswood

Beech

Blackjack oak

Black gum

Black locust

Black walnut

Bur oak

Butternut

Cherry

Chinquapin chestnut

Chinquapin oak

Coffeetree

Elm

Hackberry

Hickory

Holly

Mulberry

Post oak

Red cedar

Red gum

Red maple

Red oak

Shortleaf pine

Silver birch

Sycamore

White oak

Willow oak

*

Tilia americana

Quercus marilandica

Nyssa sylvatica

Robinia pseudoacacia [sic]

Juglans nigra

Q. macrocarpa *

*

Q. acuminata

*

Celtis occidentalis

Hicoriaf *

;. minor

Liquidambar styraciflua

Q. rubra

Pinus echinata *

Platanus occidentalis

Q. alba

Q. phellos

‘No scientific name given in publication.

No species names listed for “Ozark Region.”

Table 2.- National Forest payments in lieu of taxes in 1980’s”

Year Payments to Arkansas Payments to Oklahoma

1980 $4,271,838 $ 605,037

1981 $3,727,691 $ 506,463

1982 $2,413,838 $ 280,025

1983 $5,302,970 $ 700,137

1984 $5,782,480 $ 775,175

1985 $5,233,490 $ 716,942

1986 $5,607,905 $ 754,539

1987 $5,316,158 $ 745,444

1988 $3,888,444 $ 516,554

1989 $8,330,793 $1,200,795

*Lo, Anthony. Personal communication. USDA Forest Service, Fiscal and Accounting Services

Staff, Washington, DC 20250.

45

Strausberg, Stephen; Hough, Walter A. 1997. The Ouachita and OzarkSt. Francis National Forests: a history of the lands and USDA Forest Service tenure. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-121. Asheville, NC: U.S.

+, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 45 p.

A brief history of the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests

shows that many factors influenced the land, vegetation, wildhfe,

and other resources that have been under USDA Forest Service administration for almost 90 years. This history indicates that laws,

acts, and regulations not only created the national forests in Arkansas and Oklahoma but continue to give more specific direction for

their use and management. The effects of political and judicial decisions on these forests have been tremendous.

Keywords: History, Ouachita National Forest, Ozark-St. Francis

National Forest, land management, public lands.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agricuhure, is dedicated to the principie of multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and

recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States

and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives-as directed by Congress-to

provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or

familia1 status. (Not al1 prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require altemative means for

communication of program information (braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) sh8uld contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (Voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or cal1 l-800-

245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-l 127 (TDD). USDA is an equal

employment opportunity employer.