Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Assessment

Social and Economic Conditions

REPORT

4

OF 5

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS-34
Cover photo: Hot Springs, AR, one of several communities in the Highlands that relies heavily on tourism.

Photo by A.C. Haralson, Arkansas Department of Parks and Recreation, Little Rock, AR.

Natural resource specialists and research scientists worked together to produce the five General Technical

Reports that comprise the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment:

• Summary Report

• Air Quality

• Aquatic Conditions

• Social and Economic Conditions

• Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife

For information regarding how to obtain these Assessment documents, please contact: USDA Forest Service,

P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902 or telephone 501-321-5202.

To limit publication costs, few color maps and figures were used in the Assessment reports. For color

versions of some of the Assessment figures and supplemental material, please see the Assessment’s home

page on the Internet at <http://www.fs.fed.us/oonf/ooha/welcome.htm>. The Assessment reports will be

online for about 2 years after the date on this publication; then they will be archived.

Please note: When “authors” are agency or business names, most are abbreviated to save space in the

citations of the body of the report. The “References” at the end of the report contain both the full name and

abbreviations. Because abbreviations sometimes are not in the same alphabetical order as the references, for

clarifications of abbreviations, consult the “Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.”

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the

readers. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement of any product or service by the USDA Forest

Service.

December 1999

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment:

Social and Economic Conditions

Eastern Region

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Milwaukee, WI

North Central Research Station

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

St. Paul, MN

Southern Region

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Atlanta, GA

Southern Research Station

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Asheville, NC

Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Contributors to This Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Chapter 1: Archeological and

 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Human Use and Settlement Through the

Early 20th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Early Inhabitants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

European Exploration and Settlement . . . . . . . . . 7

History and Current Status of Public Lands . . . . . . 8

Lands Managed by the

National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

National Wildlife Refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Reservoirs and Adjacent Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Military Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

National Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Areas of Special Historical and

Archeological Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Research and Interpretive Opportunities . . . . . 17

Maximizing Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Chapter 2: Social and Demographic

 Conditions and Trends . . . . . . . . . . 23

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Definitions and Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Population Distribution and Land Use Patterns . . 27

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Population Growth, 1970 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Projected Population Change, 1996 to 2010 . . . 33

Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Characteristics of the Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Page

Race and Hispanic Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Households and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Education and Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Predominant Means of Making a Living . . . . . . . . 45

Extent of Labor Market Participation, 1990 . . . 45

Types of Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Other Means of Making a Living . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Socioeconomic Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Income and Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Housing Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Changes in Socioeconomic Well-Being . . . . . . 62

Policy-Sensitive Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Individual-Level Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Characteristics of Working- and

Retirement-Aged Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Characteristics of More Highly and

Less-Educated Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Characteristics of White, Black, and

American Indian Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Chapter 3: Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . 80

Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Communities of Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Major Factors Affecting Geographic

Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Natural Resource-Dependent Communities . . . 85

Local Planning in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Land Use Planning by Local Governments . . . 87

Multijurisdictional Planning and

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Community Development Block Grant

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Empowerment Zone and Enterprise

Community (EZ/EC) Program . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Forest Service Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . 92

State Rural Development Councils . . . . . . . . . . 93

iii
Page

Community-Development Activities of the

Cooperative Extension Service . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Local Community-Initiated Efforts . . . . . . . . . . 95

Specialized State Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Communities Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Chapter 4: Economic Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Economic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . 100

Major Industrial Sectors and Selected

Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Changes in the Economy, 1977 to 1993 . . . . . 103

The Forest Products Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

The Minerals Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

The Travel Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Contributions of National Forest Programs to

the Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . 115

National Forest Programs That Affect

the Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Chapter 5: Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Economic Importance of Outdoor Recreation . . 133

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . 133

Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation . . 136

Retail Sales for Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . 136

Supply Status of Recreation Opportunities . . . . . 136

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . 136

Availability of Land for Public Recreation . . . 136

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. . . . . . . . . . 138

Scenic Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Developed Recreation Opportunities . . . . . . . 143

Dispersed Recreation Opportunities . . . . . . . . 144

Recreation Sites with National or

State Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Demand for Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . 155

Trends in Recreation Participation . . . . . . . . . 156

Page

Projections of Future Recreation Demand . . . 162

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Chapter 6: Timber Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . 168

Overview of the Timber Resource . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Market Outcomes: Prices and Production . . . . . 170

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Factors Affecting Timber Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Timberland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Volume, Growth, and Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Tree Grade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Diameter and Stand Size Class . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Physical Constraints to Harvesting . . . . . . . . . 197

Land Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Factors Affecting Timber Demand . . . . . . . . . . . 199

National Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Trends in the Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Timber Supply Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

The Southwide Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

The Highlands Region Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Chapter 7: Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . 214

Limitations of Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Economic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Contributions to National Minerals

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Lead, Quartz, Gas, and Coal Extractions . . . . . . 221

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Quartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Salaries and Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

National Forest Minerals Revenue . . . . . . . . . 223

Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Reserves and Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

iv
Page

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Public Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Imports and Recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Unique Mineral Features of the Highlands . . . . . 232

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Chapter 8: Range Resources,

Special Forest Products, and

Special Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Range Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Special Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Special Uses of National Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Chapter 9: Attitudes, Values,

and Public Opinions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

The Role of Attitudes, Values, and

Public Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Patterns and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Forest Service Values Poll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Seventh American Forest Congress and

Local Roundtables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Page

Studies That Address Timber Management

on Public Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor

Recreation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Life

in Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Social Science Research on the

Ouachita National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Northwest Arkansas Forest Values Poll . . . . . 257

Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF)

Landowner Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Public Opinions Expressed About the

Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Assessment-Specific Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Concerns Specific to National Forest

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Public Opinions Expressed Most Frequently . 260

County Land Use Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Implications and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . 287

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

v
Preface

Change is evident across the Ozark and Ouachita Highlands. Whether paying attention to State and

regional news, studying statistical patterns and trends, or driving through the Highlands, one cannot escape

signs that growth may be putting strains on the area’s natural resources and human communities. How

people regard these changes varies widely, however, as does access to reliable information that might help

them assess the significance of what is happening in the Highlands. The Assessment reports provide

windows to a wealth of such information.

The Social and Economic Conditions report is one of five that document the results of the OzarkOuachita Highlands Assessment. Federal and State natural resource agency employees and university and

other cooperators worked together to produce the four technical reports that examine air quality; aquatic

conditions; terrestrial vegetation and wildlife; and social and economic conditions. Dozens of experts in

various fields provided technical reviews. Other citizens were involved in working meetings and supplied

valuable ideas and information throughout the process. The Summary Report provides an overview of the

key findings presented in the four technical reports. Data sources, methods of analysis, findings, discussion

of implications, and links to dozens of additional sources of information are included in the four technical

reports.

The USDA Forest Service initiated the Assessment and worked with other agencies to develop a

synthesis of the best information available on conditions and trends in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Assessment reports emphasize those conditions and trends most likely to have some bearing on the future

management of the region’s three national forests—the Mark Twain, Ouachita, and Ozark-St. Francis.

People who are interested in the future of the region’s other public lands and waters or of this remarkable

region as a whole should also find the reports valuable.

No specific statutory requirement led to the Assessment. However, data and findings assembled in the

reports will provide some of the information relevant for an evaluation of possible changes in the land and

resource management plans of the Highland’s three national forests. The National Forest Management

Act directs the Forest Service to revise such management plans every 10 to 15 years, which means that

the national forests of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma should have revised plans in the year 2001. Due

to restrictions in the appropriations bills that provide funding for the Forest Service, it is uncertain when

these revisions can begin.

The charter for the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment established a team structure and listed

tentative questions that the teams would address. Assembled in mid-1996, the Terrestrial, Aquatic and

Atmospheric, and Human Dimensions (Social-Economic) Teams soon refined and condensed these

questions and then gathered and evaluated vast quantities of information. They drafted their key findings in

late 1997 and refined them several times through mid-1999. In addition to offering relevant data and key

findings in the reports, the authors discuss some of the possible implications of their findings for future

public land management in the Highlands and for related research. The Assessment reports, however, stop

well short of making decisions concerning management of any lands in the Highlands or about future

research. In no way do the reports represent “plans” or land management decisions. Instead, the findings

and conclusions offered in the Assessment reports are intended to stimulate discussion and further study.

vi
Contributors to This Report

Assessment Team Leader

William F. Pell, Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Hot Springs, AR

Social and Economic Team Leader

Daniel J. Nolan, Jr., Team Leader for Planning and Recreation, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot

Springs, AR

Authors

Chapter 1: Archeological and Historical Background

G. Meeks Etchieson, Enid Erickson, Michael A. Pfeiffer, Roger E. Coleman, Larry D. Haikey,

William F. Pell, Daniel J. Nolan, Jr.

Chapter 2: Social and Demographic Conditions and Trends

Molly K. Sizer, Molly Longstreth, Zola K. Moon

Chapter 3: Communities

Donald E. Voth, Martin Jardon, William F. Pell

Chapter 4: Economic Profile

Rodney L. Busby, Karen Lee Abt, Clair Redmond

Chapter 5: Recreation

Darrel L. Schwilling, Daniel J. Nolan, Jr., Richard Bowie, Laura J. Watts, Kenneth W. Guston, John L.

Greene

Chapter 6: Timber Resources

Karen Lee Abt, John L. Greene, Robert C. Abt

Chapter 7: Mineral Resources

John C. Nichols

vii
Chapter 8: Range Resources, Special Forest Products, and Special Uses

Daniel J. Nolan, Jr.

Chapter 9: Attitudes, Values, and Public Opinions

Donald E. Voth, Martin Jardon, William F. Pell

Author Information

Karen Lee Abt, Research Economist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research

Triangle Park, NC.

Robert C. Abt, Associate Professor, North Carolina State University, College of Forest Resources,

Raleigh, NC.

Richard Bowie, Forest Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests,

Russellville, AR.

Rodney L. Busby, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, New Orleans,

LA.

Roger E. Coleman, Zone Archeologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Caddo and

Womble Ranger Districts, Hot Springs, AR.

Enid Erickson, Forest Archeologist, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.

G. Meeks Etchieson, Forest Archeologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs,

AR.

John L. Greene, Research Economist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, New Orleans,

LA.

Kenneth W. Guston, Outdoor Recreation Planner, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests, Russellville, AR.

Larry D. Haikey, Zone Archeologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Oklahoma Ranger

Districts, Talihina, OK.

Martin Jardon, Research Specialist, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville, School of Human Environmental

Sciences, Department of Rural Sociology, Fayetteville, AR.

Molly Longstreth, Associate Professor of Consumer Economics, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville,

School of Human Environmental Sciences, Fayetteville, AR.

Zola K. Moon, Research Specialist, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville, School of Human Environmental

Sciences, Fayetteville, AR.

John C. Nichols, Forest Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs,

AR.

Daniel J. Nolan, Jr., Team Leader for Planning and Recreation, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National

Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

William F. Pell, Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

Michael Pfeiffer, Archeologist, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville,

AR.

Clair Redmond, Economist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.

Darrel L. Schwilling, Forest Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot

Springs, AR.

viii
Molly K. Sizer, Associate Professor, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville, School of Human Environmental

Sciences, Department of Rural Sociology, Fayetteville, AR.

Donald E. Voth, Professor, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville, School of Human Environmental Sciences,

Department of Rural Sociology, Fayetteville, AR.

Laura J. Watts, Land Use Planner, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.

Other Contributors

Carter Betz, Outdoor Recreation Planner, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens,

GA—assistance with data acquisition for Chapter 5.

Judith L. Binns, Project Secretary, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Triangle

Park, NC—editing of tables in Chapters 4 and 6.

J. Michael Bowker, Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens,

GA—assistance with data for Chapter 5.

John Cleeves, Forest Planner, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR—

assistance with information needs assessments.

H. Ken Cordell, Supervisory Research Forester and Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, Athens, GA—assistance with data acquisition and analysis for Chapter 5.

Jack Davis, Forest Timber Planner, USDA Forest Service, Ozark National Forest, Hector, AR—information on “Range Resources” for Chapter 8.

Kenneth Eastin, State Trails Coordinator, State of Arkansas, Department of Parks and Tourism, Little

Rock, AR—information on trails and recreational activities.

Edward Fite, Administrator, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, Oklahoma City, OK—information

about the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers.

Cary Frost, Recreation Assistant, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville,

AR—information and assistance for Chapters 5 and 8.

Rich Hall, Planning Staff Officer, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest—coordination and

assistance with public meetings and coordination of data input from Mark Twain National Forest.

Doug Hawthorne, Chief of Research, State of Oklahoma, Department of Tourism and Recreation—

information about tourism in Oklahoma.

Carol Horn, Realty Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville,

AR—information on “Special Uses of National Forests” for Chapter 8.

J. Michael Howard, Geology Supervisor, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock,

AR—technical report on the minerals in the Assessment portion of Arkansas.

Chris LeDoux, Supervisory Industrial Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station,

Morgantown, WV—ran ECOST model.

Charles McLemore, Director of Research and Information Services, State of Arkansas, Department of

Parks and Tourism, Little Rock, AR—information on recreation and tourism.

Delayne Meyer, Research Assistant, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX—analysis of semiprimitive motorized areas.

Lea Moore, Civil Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR—data

analysis for Chapter 5.

John C. Nichols, Forest Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR—

coordinated data acquisition for Chapter 8.

Dave Purser, Forest Planner, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, Russellville, AR—

assistance with information needs assessments and coordination of input from Ozark-St. Francis

National Forest.

ix
Jane Jones Schulz, Watershed Coordinator, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR—

information regarding rivers with State designations.

Darrel L. Schwilling, Forest Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot

Springs, AR—final figure refinement.

Ray Sebren, Chief of Fiscal Service Division, State of Arkansas, Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock,

AR—information on hunting and fishing license sales in Arkansas.

Cheryl M. Seeger, Staff Geologist, State of Missouri, Department of Natural Resources, Division of

Geology and Land Survey, Rolla, MO—technical report on the minerals in the Assessment portion of

Missouri.

Neil H. Suneson, Staff Geologist, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, OK—

technical report on the minerals in the Assessment portion of Oklahoma.

Jeff Teasley, University of Georgia, Athens, GA—assistance with data acquisition for Chapter 5.

Peter Trenchi, Natural Resource Research Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR—GIS data management and analysis.

Salvo J. Verruchi, Land Use Forester, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs,

AR—information about “Special Uses of National Forests” for Chapter 8.

Daniel J. Witter, Policy Coordination Chief, State of Missouri, Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,

MO—data on hunting and fishing license sales in Missouri.

Norma Woods, Tourist Center Supervisor, State of Missouri, Division of Tourism, Jefferson City, MO—

information about tourism in Missouri.

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment Steering Team

G. Samuel Foster, Assistant Station Director of Research Programs–West, USDA Forest Service,

Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Randy Moore, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.

Lynn C. Neff, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville,

AR.

Alan G. Newman, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

Editorial Team

Donna M. Paananen, Technical Publications Writer-Editor, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research

Station, East Lansing, MI.

Mary Beth Blackmon, Contract Writer-Editor, Monticello, AR.

Zachariah M. DeYoung, Editorial Assistant, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, East

Lansing, MI.

Ariana M. Mikulski, Editorial Assistant, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, East

Lansing, MI.

Louise A. Wilde, Production Editor, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

x
Acknowledgments

The Social-Economic Team would like to thank members of the public who attended meetings and/or

provided written or oral input during the Assessment process. The team also wishes to thank the

previously named organizations and individuals who contributed information used to write this report.

In addition, the Social-Economic Team appreciates the help of the many individuals who reviewed various

sections of this resource bulletin. Their comments and suggestions contributed to the preparation of this

final document; information about them follows.

Reviewers

Geraldine L. Bower, Collaborative Planning Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management

Coordination Staff, Washington, DC—Chapter 3.

J. Michael Bowker, Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens,

GA—Chapter 5.

Angela Braden, Geologist, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock, AR—

Chapter 7.

Robert Brooks, State Archeologist, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman, OK—

Chapter 1.

George A. Bukenhofer, Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Heavener,

OK—Chapter 8.

Deborah S. Carr, Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, East

Lansing, MI—Chapter 9.

H. Ken Cordell, Supervisory Research Forester and Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, Athens, GA—Chapter 5.

Fred Cubbage, Department Head and Professor, North Carolina State University, College of Forest

Resources, Department of Forestry, Raleigh, NC—Chapter 6.

Dee Ann Ducote, Executive Director, Missouri Rural Development Council, Jefferson City, MO—Chapter

3.

Donald B.K. English, Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Athens, GA—Chapter 5.

Anne Hoover, National Coordinator for Human Dimensions, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Development, Washington, DC—Chapter 3.

J. Michael Howard, Geology Supervisor, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock,

AR—Chapter 7.

Bryan Kellar, Director, Outdoor Recreation Grants, State of Arkansas, Department of Parks and Tourism,

Little Rock, AR—Chapter 5.

Stephen W. Kline, Research Scientist, Arkansas Technological University, Russellville, AR—Chapter 7.

Richard Kluender, Professor of Forest Economics, University of Arkansas—Monticello, School of Forest

Resources, Monticello, AR—Chapters 4 and 6.

William B. Kurtz, Professor, University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources, Department

of Forestry, Columbia, MO—Chapter 6.

Thomas Kuzmic, Associate Professor, Oklahoma State University, Department of Forestry, Stillwater,

OK—Chapters 5 and 9.

David K. Lewis, Associate Professor of Forestry and Adjunct Associate Professor of Agricultural

Economics, Oklahoma State University, Department of Forestry, Stillwater, OK—Chapters 4 and 6.

xi
Charles McLemore, Director of Research and Information Services, State of Arkansas, Department of

Parks and Tourism, Little Rock, AR—Chapter 5.

Wayne P. Miller, Extension Economist, University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Economic and Community Advancement, Little Rock, AR—Chapter 2.

John Nordin, Natural Resource Planner, USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, Washington, DC—

Chapter 3.

Wayne Owen, Forest Botanist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR—

Chapter 8.

Jeffrey P. Prestemon, Economist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Triangle

Park, NC—Chapter 6.

William L. Prior, Geologist, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock, AR—

Chapter 7.

Ardel Rueff, Geologist, State of Missouri, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and

Land Survey, Rolla, MO—Chapter 7.

Jane Jones Schulz, Watershed Coordinator, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR—

Chapter 5.

Cheryl M. Seeger, Geologist, State of Missouri, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology

and Land Survey, Rolla, MO—Chapter 7.

Nattie Silva; Deputy Director, Civil Rights Staff; USDA Forest Service; Washington, DC—Chapter 3.

Charles G. Stone, Geological Supervisor, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Survey, Little Rock,

AR—Chapter 7.

Neil H. Suneson, Staff Geologist, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, OK—

Chapter 7.

John Wagner, Assistant Professor of Forestry Economics, State University of New York, College of

Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY—Chapter 4.

Tamara Walkingstick, Cooperative Extension Specialist—Forester, University of Arkansas—Cooperative

Extension Service, Little Rock, AR—Chapters 3 and 9.

Laura J. Watts, Land Use Planner, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO—

Chapter 8.

Daniel J. Witter, Policy Coordination Chief, State of Missouri, Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,

MO—Chapter 5.

xii
Executive Summary

This Assessment of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

area began in May of 1996. It was designed as an

interagency effort led by the USDA Forest Service to

collect and analyze ecological, social, and economic data

concerning the Highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and

Oklahoma. The information compiled will facilitate an

ecosystem approach to management of the natural

resources on public lands within the Ozark Highlands, the

Boston Mountains, the Arkansas Valley, and the Ouachita

Mountains. The Social-Economic Team studied a variety

of topics related to the people who live in the Highlands

and who use, have an interest in, or otherwise are

affected by the area’s public lands.

The Social-Economic Team, with input from scientists,

forest planners, and concerned citizens, identified 16

questions that needed to be addressed in order to understand the social and economic conditions and trends in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Following is a summary of

the team’s findings.

Chapter 1: Archeological and Historical

Background

What is the historical background of the OzarkOuachita Highlands?

What are the area’s archeological resources and

their characteristics?

What are the history and current status of public

lands in the Highlands?

• People have lived in the Highlands for over 11,000

years; the earliest known inhabitants were the PaleoIndians.

• The principal prehistoric cultural periods that characterize human occupation of the Highlands prior to

European exploration are as follows: Paleo-Indian

(11,500 B.P. [years before the present date] to 10,500

B.P.), Archaic (9,900 B.P. to 2,000 B.P.), Woodland

(2,000 B.P. to 1,150 B.P.), and Mississippian (1,150

B.P. to A.D. 1650).

• The Spanish expedition of Hernando de Soto (1539 to

1543) marked the first European exploration of the

Highlands. French explorers and fur traders came to

the region in the late 1600’s.

• The people who moved into the Highlands in the late

18th and early 19th centuries were attracted by opportunities to acquire timberland and by the availability of

free open range on unclaimed public land. Land acquisition records indicate that many of the rough upland

areas were settled between the 1880’s and the 1930’s.

• Federal lands within the Highlands include over

164,000 acres (ac) of lands managed by the National

Park Service, over 66,000 ac of national wildlife

refuges, about 673,000 ac of lakes managed by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, two military bases,

and 4.4 million ac of national forests.

• State lands include 65 State parks, 32 wildlife management areas, 5 State historic sites, 5 conservation areas,

and 2 National Guard areas.

• Approximately 14,000 archeological sites have been

documented on the three national forests in the Highlands.

Chapter 2: Social and Demographic Conditions

and Trends

What are the social trends and changes taking

place in the Highlands area that will affect or be

affected by national forest (or other public land)

management?

What is the social profile (e.g., age, education, and

racial-ethnic characteristics) of individuals who

live in the Assessment area?

• The Assessment area has grown rapidly in recent

decades, and continues to do so. Between 1970 and

1996, its population increased 48 percent, while

Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the Nation as a

whole grew by 15, 29, 31, and 31 percent, respectively.

• Recent (1990 to 1996) population growth seems to be

most strongly associated with metropolitan status,

presence of national forest lands, and high rates of inmigration. In-migration of new residents contributed

nearly 80 percent of the estimated population growth in

the Assessment area as a whole and 83 to 98 percent

of the estimated growth in groups of nonmetropolitan

counties containing lands of one or more of the Highlands’ national forests.

xiii
• Retirement-aged adults make up a significant segment

of the population of the Assessment area. Retirement

pensions and Social Security income provide a slightly

larger portion of total income in the Assessment area

than in the three States; these sources of income are

most important in nonmetropolitan counties with

national forest lands.

• The racial and ethnic composition of the Assessment

area changed little between 1970 and 1990, remaining

predominantly (91 percent) White. One special census

showed that the Hispanic-American population of

Washington County, AR, grew 435 percent between

1990 and 1996.

• Overall, educational levels are relatively low in the

Assessment area. In nonmetropolitan counties in 1990,

37 percent of adults 25 years and older had not

completed high school (or its equivalent), and 13

percent of teenagers (ages 16 to 19) were high school

dropouts. In 14 nonmetropolitan Assessment area

counties clustered mainly on the eastern side of the

Highlands, at least 45 percent of the adult population

had less than a high school diploma.

• Assessment area workers, especially those living in

nonmetropolitan counties with national forest lands,

face higher unemployment rates than the Nation as a

whole. Workers living in nonmetropolitan counties with

Mark Twain National Forest lands face the highest

incidence of full-time, but seasonal (i.e., part-year)

work.

• The overall level of socioeconomic well-being in the

Assessment area is relatively low. Median household

incomes in the area were $19,208 in 1989, compared

to $20,360 in Oklahoma, $20,832 in Missouri, and

$30,056 in the Nation.

• Thirty-seven counties in the Assessment area experience “persistent poverty” (47 percent of the 49

nonmetropolitan “national forest counties” and 33

percent of the 42 nonmetropolitan counties with no

national forest lands). Persistent poverty in

nonmetropolitan counties appears most common in

southeastern Missouri (15 counties), north-central

Arkansas (9 counties), and southeastern Oklahoma

(6 counties). The 24 “persistent poverty” counties in

southeastern Missouri and north-central Arkansas

include 12 of the 14 counties in which 45 percent or

more of the adult population have less than a high

school education; 19 of these 24 “persistent poverty”

counties include national forest lands.

• As of 1990, 16 Assessment area counties were termed

“retirement destinations.” Most of these counties are

in the heart of the Assessment area—9 of the 16

retirement-destination counties have national forest

lands and 8 include large lakes.

Chapter 3: Communities

What kinds of community planning take place in

the Assessment area, and how is such planning

related to national forest planning?

• The communities of the Highlands include 695 municipalities plus numerous unincorporated communities

and neighborhoods. These communities range from

rapidly developing metropolitan areas and associated

suburban communities to small, rural, natural resourcedependent communities. In 1990, 97 percent of the

municipalities had populations of 10,000 or fewer.

• More than half of the population of the Assessment

area lives in the open country and relies principally upon

county governments for essential services; about 23

percent live in municipalities of less than 10,000 people.

• The Assessment area had major population increases

in the 1970’s and grew again in the 1990’s; however,

the ongoing loss of the most highly educated young

people from the area’s rural communities is a concern.

• The Federal assistance available to counties and

municipalities has declined greatly since the middle

1970’s; local governments have obligations to provide

services that previously were not required of them.

• Arkansas communities of the Highlands that depend

upon the timber industry show no clear pattern of

disadvantage in levels of poverty or investment in

human capital through education.

• Annual 25 percent reimbursements from national

forest gross revenues to Arkansas counties and school

districts apparently compensate for most effects of the

reduced tax base attributable to the presence of

significant amounts of Federal land.

• Many municipalities engage in land use planning and

zoning. While a few counties plan for land use, they

seldom use zoning. States are beginning to require

various forms of local planning, including planning for

capital improvements and public health. Some counties

are becoming more involved in public land management

planning; the recent passage in the Highlands of at least

nine “county land use plans” may be an important trend.

xiv
• At the local level, the following planning groups are

available in the Assessment area: Planning and

Development Districts, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Resource Conservation and Development

councils. There are also community development

specialists in the three States’ Extension Services,

utility companies, and other institutions.

• National forest planning efforts have had little connection with local planning activities. Generally, neither

long-range national forest planning, more immediate

project planning, nor forest management issues are

included in the agendas of community planning efforts.

• National forest ranger districts help sustain a wide

variety of partnerships with local communities. Some

of the most important ones result from the Rural

Community Assistance program, but many relate to

other aspects of the stewardship responsibilities of the

ranger districts.

Chapter 4: Economic Profile

What are the principal industrial sectors of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, and how do they

influence the Highlands’ economy?

What contributions do national forest programs

make to the Highlands’ economy?

• Compared to the other major economic sectors, manufacturing accounts for the largest share (approximately

one third) of the Assessment area’s total output and

also leads other sectors in total employee compensation.

• The service and trade sectors employ more people

than other sectors, but the jobs tend to be lower paying

than the average job in the Assessment area or in the

manufacturing sector.

• The Assessment area economy accounts for about

one-fourth of the total industrial output and one-third of

the employment and employee compensation of the tristate area (Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma).

• Between 1977 and 1993, the total industrial output in

the Assessment area grew (after adjusting for inflation) 53 percent, and employee compensation grew 40

percent. The construction sector had the greatest

increase in total industrial output.

• The number of jobs in the Assessment area increased

44.3 percent between 1977 and 1993, which parallels

the 48 percent increase in population over approximately the same time period.

• The Assessment area accounts for approximately 2.4

percent of the total U.S. output of forest products and

1 percent of the U.S. industrial output generated by the

minerals industry.

• In the Assessment area, 5.1 percent of the industrial

output, 2.9 percent of the employment, and 3.4 percent

of the employee compensation are directly attributable

to the forest products industry. The minerals industry

accounts for 5.0 percent, 2.2 percent, and 3.7 percent

of the Assessment area’s output, employment, and

employee compensation, respectively. The travel

industry supports 5.7 percent of the output, 7.0 percent

of the employment, and 4.6 percent of the employee

compensation in the Arkansas and Missouri sections of

the Assessment area. (Equivalent travel industry data

for Oklahoma were not available.)

• Thirty-five of the 107 Assessment area counties had at

least double the Assessment area average percentage

output, employment, and/or employee compensation

from the forest products industry. These counties

derived an average 15.7 percent of their output, 8.0

percent of their employment, and 11.0 percent of their

employee compensation from the forest products

industry.

• Twenty-one counties in the Assessment area had at

least double the Assessment area average percent of

output, employment, and/or employee compensation in

the minerals industry. These counties had an average

14.4 percent of their output, 6.0 percent of their

employment, and 12.1 percent of their employee

compensation provided by the minerals industry.

• Twenty three of the 93 counties in the Arkansas and

Missouri portion of the Assessment area were identified as having at least double the average percent of

output, employment, and/or employee compensation in

travel-related business. In these counties, travel-related

business accounted for an average of 25.5 percent of

their output, 28.9 percent of their employment, and

24.7 percent of their employee compensation.

• In 1996, the Gross Regional Product (GRP) for the

Highlands was $61,601 million. National forest programs, payments to counties, and expenditures accounted for less than 1 percent ($572.9 million) of the

area’s GRP.

• The national forests influence nearly 17,000 jobs, about

0.9 percent of the Highlands’ overall employment (1.9

million jobs).

xv
• Of the three principal national forest programs affecting the Highlands’ economy (timber, minerals, and

recreation), timber has the greatest overall influence

on employment, employee compensation, and total

income when all three forests are considered together.

However, the relative economic importance of each

resource program varies significantly among the three

forests. For the economic sectors affected by the

national forests, the minerals program has the highest

average annual income per job and the recreation

program has the lowest.

Chapter 5: Recreation

What are the current supply of and projected

demands for outdoor recreation in the OzarkOuachita Highlands, and what is the economic

importance of recreation?

• Approximately 58 million people (21 percent of the U.S.

population) live within a 1-day drive of outdoor recreation opportunities in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

• In 1996, travel expenditures in the Assessment area

counties of Arkansas and Missouri totaled over $9

billion and accounted for nearly 167,000 jobs. A 1995

study for Oklahoma indicated that statewide, travelrelated expenditures totaled over $3 billion. Public

lands, by providing many of the settings for outdoor

recreation, are important to maintaining and enhancing

a strong tourism industry. Private lands that dominate

the forested landscape and influence scenic quality in a

large part of the Highlands are also important to the

region’s tourism industry.

• State and national parks, national forests, national

wildlife refuges, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer

lands and waters account for 13 percent of the Highlands’ area and provide the principal settings for many

kinds of outdoor recreational activities that are based

on natural resources. National forests total 4.4 million

ac, more than any other public land category.

• The three national forests provide recreation opportunities principally in roaded-natural (75 percent) and

semi-primitive (20 percent) settings. There is very little

national forest land in the primitive setting class.

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides 51

percent and State parks provide 30 percent of the

developed campsites in the Assessment area. National

forests account for only 6 percent of the area’s campsites, while the private sector makes up 12 percent.

• Among the public land-managing agencies, the USDA

Forest Service is the principal provider of dispersed

recreation opportunities (e.g., primitive camping, hunting,

trails). Approximately 63 percent of the trail miles in the

Assessment area are located in the national forests.

• Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands dominate the

forested landscape of the Highlands. These lands

account for between 65 and 85 percent of the forests

(timberland) in three of the Highlands’ four ecological

sections—the Ozark Highlands, Boston Mountains,

and Arkansas Valley. In the Ouachita Mountains,

forest ownership is almost evenly split among industrial

forest lands, national forests, and NIPF lands.

• There are 238,012 ac of federally designated wilderness in the Highlands that represent 5 percent of the

land area managed by the Forest Service, USDI

National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Wilderness accounts for 4.4 percent of all

national forest lands. Wilderness areas occur in all four

ecological sections of the Highlands.

• Approximately 523 miles (mi) of rivers in the Highlands

have received Federal designations based on their

exceptional scenic and recreational value. More than

2,000 additional mi of rivers may merit a special

designation for their recreational values but lack either

complete studies to determine their suitability for

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

or legislative action to formalize State designation.

• Annually, more than 7 million people travel over the 9

national forest and State scenic byways in the Assessment area.

• Residents of the Highlands’ “draw area” exceed the

national average in percent of population participating

in every major category of outdoor recreation available

in the Highlands. More than 90 percent of the draw

area population participates in activities associated

with viewing and learning about nature and human

history, such as sightseeing, bird watching, and visiting

historic sites. Approximately 40 percent participate in

fishing, 41 percent participate in outdoor adventure

activities (such as hiking or off-road driving), about 35

percent participate in boating, 31 percent participate in

camping, and 14 percent participate in hunting.

• Nationally, demand for nearly all categories of recreational activities is expected to increase in the next

xvi
decade. For the southern Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) region, participation in most recreational

activities is projected to increase significantly more than

the Nation as a whole and/or the northern RPA region.

• Because of their age and heavy use, many public

recreational facilities are deteriorating. Lack of funds to

maintain and repair these facilities is a widespread

concern among land managers in the Assessment area.

• Recreation overuse, particularly off-road vehicle

driving, dispersed (primitive) camping, and river use, is

occurring in some areas, resulting in resource damage

and conflicts among users.

Chapter 6: Timber Resources

What are the supply and demand conditions for

timber in the Highlands?

• The Highlands Assessment area contains 12 percent

of the South’s timberland, but only 5 percent of southern softwood volume and 9 percent of southern

hardwood volume. However, relatively low removals

rates (3 percent of southern softwood and 6 percent of

southern hardwood removals) will continue to attract

new and expanded wood-using industries to the area.

• Largely due to the decline in timber harvests from

western forests, national forest timber sold in the Highlands represents an increasing percentage of total U.S.

national forest timber sales. Between 1991 and 1995, the

Highlands’ share of total national forest “green” timber

sales increased from 3 percent to 10 percent.

• In general, inflation-adjusted prices for Highlands’

timber rose between 1988 and 1994, implying an

increasing scarcity of timber resources.

• National forests account for 41 percent of softwood

sawtimber inventory but only 20 percent of sawtimber

removals in the Assessment area. In contrast, forest

industry accounts for 20 percent of softwood sawtimber inventory but 40 percent of removals.

• Average annual timber sale volume per suitable acre

varies by national forest ranger district, with Ouachita

districts generally higher than the districts on the Ozark

and Mark Twain National Forests.

• Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners hold

69 percent of the timberland in the Highlands. National

forests account for nearly 15 percent, forest industry

holds almost 12 percent, and 5 percent of the timberland is located on other public lands.

• In terms of timber volume, the forests of the Highlands

are predominantly hardwoods (over 14 billion cubic

feet of growing stock and over 38 billion board feet of

sawtimber), although softwood volumes are substantial

(about 7 billion of growing stock and over 24 billion

board feet of sawtimber). More than two-thirds of the

hardwood volume occurs on NIPF lands, while softwood volume is fairly evenly distributed among timber

industry, national forest, and NIPF lands.

• Both growing stock and sawtimber inventories have

increased in the Arkansas and Oklahoma portions of

the Highlands over the last decade. (Comparable data

for Missouri were not available.)

• Across all subregions of the Assessment area except

Oklahoma, NIPF lands have the largest proportion of

higher grade hardwoods relative to the other ownership categories while the national forests have the

greatest share of the higher grade softwood sawtimber

volume in comparison to other ownership categories.

• Sawtimber-size stands account for 58 percent of

national forest timberlands in the Assessment area and

from 28 to 48 percent of timberlands in other ownership categories.

• The majority (64 percent) of large diameter (greater

than 20 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.))

hardwood volume occurs on NIPF lands. Most of the

large diameter softwood volume occurs on NIPF (42

percent) and national forest (38 percent) lands.

• Up to 15 percent of the potentially harvestable volume

of timber on private land may be unavailable due to

physical constraints such as wet sites, steep slopes,

and low volumes.

• On the three national forests, from 59 to 79 percent of

the land is classified as suitable for timber production

based on current suitability definitions, which exclude

acres for wilderness, administrative sites, areas of low

productivity, and areas allocated to other resource

management categories.

• The three Highlands’ States increased their share

of total U.S. lumber production from 5.5 percent to 6.8

percent between 1992 and 1995. Since 1988, these

three States also claimed an increasing proportion of

U.S. investments in the furniture and lumber industries.

• New hardwood chip mills have recently led to increased

hardwood pulpwood removals—a 135 percent increase

between 1994 and 1995—particularly in Arkansas. Due

to fluctuating demand over the preceding decade, the

overall percentage increase in average annual removals

xvii
since 1988 was 65 percent. These increases should lead

to higher prices, providing income to local landowners,

but possibly forcing other competing industries to pay

more or seek alternate input sources.

• Favorable growth to removal ratios indicate that

softwood inventory in the Highlands is increasing.

Projections to 2020 show increasing softwood harvest

on private lands in the Highlands—more than double

the rate experienced in 1990. Total softwood harvests

in the Highlands are projected to increase at rates

greater than the South as a whole.

• The currently favorable growth-to-removal ratio for

hardwoods in the Highlands is projected to narrow and

be about equal by 2020 as growth remains stable and

removals increase. Nonetheless, by 2020 hardwood

inventory is still projected to be greater than current

levels.

Chapter 7: Minerals Resources

Historically, which Highlands minerals have been

important to whom and why?

In Assessment area communities, what are the

current reliance on and projected demands for

Highlands minerals and mining?

What are current national and global uses of and

reliance on the mineral resources in the Assessment area, and what are the projected demands for

them?

What are the current and projected recreational

and educational uses for Highlands minerals?

• Sixty percent of the mineral resource extraction

operations (mining and processing plants) within

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma occurs within the

Assessment area, accounting for approximately $1.2

billion in mineral value in 1996.

• Of 76 known minerals and mineral materials within the

Assessment area, 33 are currently being mined.

• In terms of United States production volume, the

Assessment area contains the top 10 production sites

for 14 of the numerous mineral commodities produced

throughout the United States.

• The portion of Missouri within the Assessment area

contains the largest concentration of lead mineralization in the world. Mines located in the Assessment

area are the number one producers of lead in the

United States and until recently were also the world’s

major lead producers. Between 75 and 80 percent of

U.S. lead production comes from the Mark Twain

National Forest—it is a primary source of the world’s

lead production.

• The Assessment area contains three world-class lead

and zinc producing districts (in Missouri) and was a

past world leader in zinc (Oklahoma) and barite

(Arkansas and Missouri) production.

• The Ouachita Mountains are the only source for

electronic grade, high quality quartz in North America.

All of the U.S. production is from the Ouachita

National Forest in Arkansas.

• The Ouachita Mountains and the Ouachita National

Forest are a major world producer and the leading

U.S. producers of quartz crystal for aesthetic and

jewelry uses.

• Missouri is the leading U.S. producer of fire clay, much

of which is mined from within the Assessment area.

• Coal from the Oklahoma portion of the Assessment

area is used to generate power for 150,000 homes in

eastern Oklahoma.

• The Ozark National Forest has 66 producing gas wells

in areas that have a high potential for additional

exploration and development.

• In 1996 alone, extraction of mineral resources from the

three national forests within the Assessment area

generated almost $6 million in Federal revenue.

• The national forests within the Assessment area have

a high potential for discovery of additional reserves of

the minerals currently being mined on them and in

some cases those mined in the past as well. The

demand to access the national forests for mineral

exploration is expected to continue and increase.

• The Assessment area and the three national forests

within the Assessment area have unique geologic

features that attract people from across the United

States and throughout the world for research, education, rockhounding, and mineral collecting.

Chapter 8: Range Resources, Special Forest

Products, and Special Uses

What are the nature and magnitude of the range

resources, special forest products, and special uses

programs on the national forests of the OzarkOuachita Highlands?

xviii
• There are approximately 13,600,000 ac of non-Federal

grazing land in the Highlands; the national forests

provide an additional 743,000 ac of grazing land. More

than 90 percent of the national forest range is grazed

woodlands (principally on the Ouachita National Forest)

that have low forage value.

• In the decade 1987 through 1996, the number of

individuals holding permits to use the national forest

range in the Highlands declined 67 percent, and the

number of animal unit months (AUM’s) of range use

dropped 63 percent.

• There is a large and increasing demand for forest plants

used for herbal dietary supplements and medicines.

Arkansas accounts for 2 percent and Missouri accounts

for 3 percent of total U.S. production of wild ginseng.

The Ozark National Forest permits the limited harvesting of ginseng; otherwise, the three national forests have

not been a significant source for these forest products.

• Firewood is in demand on all Highlands’ national

forests. While the national forests have traditionally

been a source of firewood, its availability on the

Ouachita National Forest has declined by 62 percent

since 1992.

• The total revenue generated by the sale of all special

forest products on the three national forests in 1996

was approximately $32,000.

• Many varied special uses are permitted on the Highlands’ national forests to accommodate community

needs, including economic development. In 1996, there

were more than 2,000 special uses under permit,

generating fee revenues of nearly $330,000.

Chapter 9: Attitudes, Values, and Public Opinions

What are the attitudes, values, and opinions of

people in the Highlands (including interest groups

and forest inholders) regarding national forests

and the Forest Service?

• There is a high level of public support for maintaining

healthy forests and environmental quality, although the

concept of a healthy forest is subject to a variety of

interpretations.

• Generally, the public accepts the idea that forests fulfill

a variety of roles—from pristine wilderness to intensive

tree farms—and that forest management objectives

will differ among and within landowner categories.

• Most respondents in public opinion surveys support the

following: (1) forests should be managed for multiple

uses; (2) forests should provide a range of goods,

services, experiences, and values; and (3) public forests

should not provide goods and services at the expense of

long-term forest health and environmental quality.

• There is widespread agreement that different uses of

national forests should be balanced (e.g., among

recreation, timber management, mining, wilderness,

wildlife); however, there is no consensus about what

that balance should be.

• In various surveys, 40 to 50 percent of the respondents

disapproved of timber cutting for wood products on

public lands; if environmental protection measures

were listed as conditions or the management objective

included benefits to wildlife and/or scenery, as many as

70 percent of the respondents tended to be in favor of

such timber harvests.

• The public expects the USDA Forest Service to take a

scientific approach to management of the national

forests, but they also want the agency to encourage

public participation in decisionmaking and monitoring.

• Although some segments of the public have a strong

interest in environmental issues and public land management, few people have a good grasp of land management principles and practices or even know which

agencies are responsible for managing public land.

• Results of an Arkansas survey indicated that NIPF

landowners have strong interests in a variety of

environmental issues. Their stated reasons for owning

forest lands seem heavily weighted in favor of esthetic

and environmental values.

• Although it is difficult to estimate how many people in

the Highlands believe private property owners face

imminent threats of “takeovers” by United Nationssponsored groups and/or government entities, those who

hold such beliefs do so with great conviction. The public

opinions voiced most often during Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Assessment Team working meetings in 1996

and 1997 were those having to do with perceived

threats to private property and U.S. sovereignty.

xix
Figure 1.1—Counties included in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area.

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Henry Benton

Morgan

Cole

Osage

Gasconade

Franklin Jefferson

St. Clair Hickory Camden

Miller Maries

Phelps Crawford

Washington

St.

Francois

Ste.

Genevieve

Cedar

Polk

Dallas

Laclede

Pulaski

Dent IronReynolds

Madison

Bollinger

Barton Dade

Greene

Webster

Wright Texas

Shannon Wayne Jasper Lawrence

Christian

Douglas

Howell Oregon

Carter

Ripley Butler

Newton

McDonald Barry

Stone

Taney Ozark Ottawa

Mayes Delaware

Benton Carroll Boone

Marion

Baxter

Cherokee

Adair

Washington

Madison Newton Searcy Stone

Fulton

Izard Sharp

Randolph

Lawrence

Independence

Jackson

Muskogee

Sequoyah Crawford

Franklin Johnson

Pope

Van Buren Cleburne

Pittsburg

Haskell

Latimer Le Flore

Sebastian

Logan Conway

Faulkner

White

Atoka Pushmataha

McCurtain

Scott

Yell Perry

Pulaski

Lonoke

Polk Montgomery

Garland

Saline

Hot Spring

Clark

Pike

Sevier

Howard

xx
Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

< 500

501 to 1,000

1,001 to 1,500

1,501 to 2,000

Chapter 1: Archaeological and Historical Background

Question 1.1: What is the historical background of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands?

Question 1.2: What are the area’s archeological

resources and their characteristics?

Question 1.3: What are the history and current

status of public lands in the Highlands?

Archeological sites and historic records attest to the

rich, 12,000 year history of human activity in the OzarkOuachita Highlands. From the early nomadic hunters at

the end of the Ice Age (12,000 to 15,000 years ago) to

the homesteaders of the early 20th century and up to the

present, humans have continuously adapted to and shaped

the landscapes of the Highlands (Harmon and others

1996).

Information about the history of the human occupation

of the Highlands lies, in large part, in the archeological

record. Within the Assessment area (fig. 1.1), archeological surveys have located thousands of historic and

prehistoric sites (fig. 1.2). Public lands, in particular, serve

as storehouses of the evidence of human activity—

evidence that speaks to us from the distant past about the

lives and cultures of those living in the Highlands. In

general, more is known about the presence of archeological sites on public lands because of laws and agency

policies that call for their protection.

This chapter begins with a brief description of the

prehistoric cultural groups that occupied the Highlands.

Following is a discussion of the movement of Native

American groups from the northern and eastern portions

of North America into the Highlands region. The chapter

continues with brief descriptions of historic European and

Anglo-American settlement in the region and the early

Figure 1.2—Number of documented archeological sites in the Assessment area,

by county.
exploitation of the area’s rich timber, agricultural, and

mineral resources. A following section tabulates the

Federal and State lands that are present within the

Highlands Assessment area. The final sections of this

chapter describe interpretive and research opportunities

as well as management implications and opportunities.

 Key Findings

 1. People have lived in the Highlands for over 11,000

years; the earliest known inhabitants were the

Paleo-Indians.

 2. The principal prehistoric cultural periods that

characterize human occupation of the Highlands

prior to European exploration are as follows: PaleoIndian (11,500 B.P. [years before the present date]

to 10,500 B.P.), Archaic (9,900 B.P. to 2,000 B.P.),

Woodland (2,000 B.P. to 1,150 B.P.), and Mississippian (1,150 B.P. to A.D. 1650).

 3. The Spanish expedition of Hernando de Soto (1539

to 1543) marked the first European exploration of

the Highlands. French explorers and fur traders

came to the region in the late 1600’s.

 4. The people who moved into the Highlands in the

late 18th and early 19th centuries were attracted by

opportunities to acquire timberland and by the

availability of free open range on unclaimed public

land. Land acquisition records indicate that many of

the rough upland areas were settled between the

1880’s and the 1930’s.

 5. Federal lands within the Highlands include over

164,000 acres (ac) of lands managed by the

National Park Service, over 66,000 ac of national

wildlife refuges, about 673,000 ac of lakes managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, two

military bases, and 4.4 million ac of national forests.

 6. State lands include 65 State parks, 32 wildlife

management areas, 5 State historic sites, 5 conservation areas, and 2 National Guard areas.

 7. Approximately 14,000 archeological sites have

been documented on the three national forests in

the Highlands.

Data Sources

The Social-Economic Team extracted data from a

number of overviews and discussions of the region’s

cultural history prepared by various authors including

Chapman (1975, 1980), Sabo and others (1982, 1990),

Schambach (1970), Wyckoff and Brooks (1983), Bell

(1984), and Wood and others (1995). The historical

material about the Ozark-St Francis and Ouachita

National Forests is taken largely from Strausberg and

Hough (1997); Erickson (n.d.) provided the data about

the Mark Twain National Forest. In addition, the SocialEconomic Team used numerous reports prepared by

State agencies and Forest Service archeologists including Avery (1992), Pfeiffer (n.d.), and Erickson (n.d.).

Human Use and Settlement Through

the Early 20th Century

Early Inhabitants

The earliest known inhabitants of the Highlands were

the Paleo-Indians who occupied the region from about

11,500 B.P. (years before the present date) to about

10,500 B.P. (See fig. 1.3 for a timeline of the general

prehistoric cultural history of the Highlands area.)

Evidence of these people includes the presence, although rare, of Clovis and Folsom projectile points as

well as other large lanceolate projectile points. Items

such as tools and weapons found at the Blakely Mountain Dam site on the Ouachita River (near Hot Springs,

AR) and on a high terrace near Caddo Gap (in Montgomery County, AR) indicate that Paleo-Indians lived in

the Ouachitas, at least for short periods of time (Early

and Limp 1982). Similar evidence occurs in the Ozark

uplands. The people likely lived in groups of two or

more nuclear families inhabiting small territories. They

hunted large game animals, now extinct, such as the

mammoth, mastodon, and a species of bison. It is also

likely that, within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, the

Paleo-Indians relied heavily on small game (such as

squirrels and rabbits) and plant foods.

By about 10,500 B.P., Dalton people were living on

high, upland sites and in river valley locations in the

Ouachita Mountains and in alluvial valleys in the

2
Figure 1.3—Chronology of the prehistoric cultural history of the Highlands area. (Broken line segments near left margin indicate that ending and

beginning dates of transitions between cultural periods are approximate.)

500 B.P.

1,500 B.P.

2,500 B.P.

4,000 B.P.

10,000 B.P.

11,500 B.P.

2,000 B.P.

Mississippian, Plaquemine, and Caddoan Cultures flourish—A.D. 900 to 1650. 

Large towns and complex societies develop.

Fourche Maline Culture (Arkansas and Oklahoma) and Meramec Spring Culture 

(Missouri Ozarks) flourish—A.D. 500 to 1300. Continuation of Woodland Period 

lifeways.

Plum Bayou Culture (AR)—A.D. 600 to 1000. Toltec Mounds are constructed in 

central Arkansas. Emergent Mississippian Culture (MO)—A.D. 600 to 1100. 

Pigman Mounds are constructed in eastern Ozarks. 

Maize (corn) introduced from Mexico.

Bow and arrow replaces spear.

Settled villages, agricultural lifeways; population increases.

Hopewell Culture (e.g., trade, ritual, and burial ceremonialism).

Pottery making is introduced. 

Novaculite deposits in southern Ouachita Mountains are extensively quarried.

Plants are domesticated (e.g., squash, beans, other annuals). Gradual shift to more settled lifeway.

Dalton Culture—10,500 to 9,900 B.P. Adaptation to local forest environment.

Reliance on large game animals for food (e.g., mammoth, giant bison).

Paleo-Indian hunters and gatherers enter present-day Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

(A.D. 1500)

(A.D. 500)

(500 B.C.)

(2000 B.C.)

(8000 B.C.)

(9500 B.C.)

Mississippian Woodland Archaic Paleo-Indian

Hypsithermal Interval (warm dry climate).

Reliance on small game and plant resources for food becomes well established.

Cultural Periods

Cultural Periods

3
Ozarks. They were the first humans to regularly occupy

the Assessment area. Discoveries of bone needles,

awls, scrapers, and chipped stone perforators suggest

that clothing and other items were fashioned from deer

hides. The Dalton people also foraged intensively for

plant foods such as nuts and berries that they processed

with grinding stones or mortars and pestles. Dalton

people were highly mobile; sites from this period include

base camps and smaller “resource extraction” camps

used during hunting and gathering forays. They are also

known to have buried their dead in cemeteries (Morse

1997).

The Archaic Period, dating from about 9,900 to about

2,000 B.P., saw a growing population with more complex forms of social organization and a less migratory

lifestyle. According to Sabo and others (1990), “It is a

period during which many innovations were developed

and many distinctive cultural complexes emerged.”

While the Archaic people relied more heavily on plant

foods, they supplemented their diet with small game,

birds, fish, turtles, and mussels. There is also extensive

evidence that Archaic people quarried massive amounts

of chert (flint-like rock) from sources in both the

Ouachita Mountains and the Ozark Plateaus. Sabo and

others (1990) provide a comprehensive and detailed

cultural history for the Ozark Plateaus, the Arkansas

River Valley, and the Ouachita Mountains.

During the Early and Middle Archaic times, rapid

technological changes occurred among inhabitants of

the Ozarks; they also adapted to riverine environments.

Facts concerning the peoples of the Ouachita uplands

are less well known, but similar changes are likely to

have occurred. One major change was in the proliferation of styles of projectile points (or stemmed bifaces).

The bifaces during this period were likely to have been

used for other purposes including specialized cutting and

slicing and heavy duty cutting. Other types of artifacts

commonly found on these Early and Middle Archaic

sites include grinding stones, pitted stones, grooved axes,

and celts (axe or chisel-shaped implements made of

polished stone). Twined fiber fabrics first appeared and

were used in the manufacture of sandals, bags, and

mats. Decorated bone and shell ornaments have also

been found in these sites. A dog burial from Rodgers

Shelter (in the Missouri Ozarks) also may indicate

domestication of the dog at this time.

Sabo and others (1990) have suggested that the

climatic conditions were warmer and dryer after 8,000

B.P. Faunal materials from several sites and the pollen

record tend to support this hypothesis.

The Assessment area contains remains of the Late

Archaic Period, including base camps with features

such as hearths, middens (trash dumps) with a great

deal of lithic debris (waste flakes resulting from making

stone tools), human and dog burials, pits, post molds, and

burned clay concentrations (Williams and others 1993).

Within the Ouachita Mountains, several sites from this

period include what appear to be burned rock middens.

These large concentrations of burned sandstone may

indicate the former presence of roasting ovens. In the

Ozarks, Late Archaic people cultivated plants on a small

scale, growing non-native vegetables such as squash

and bottle gourds that were probably introduced by

migratory people passing through the area. In the

Missouri part of the Ozark Plateaus, the manifestation

of Late Archaic traits continues into the Early and

Middle Woodland times until around A.D. 400.

During the Woodland Period (about 2,000 B.P. to

1,150 B.P.), the number of hamlets in the larger river

valleys increased and were occupied on a more permanent basis than before. Sabo and others (1990) note that

Woodland people used sites at higher elevations above

stream valleys for quarries, short-term hunting, and

collecting camps. During this period, the bow and arrow

and ceramics appeared for the first time. Important

social changes occurred as people began to participate

in social networks outside their own regions. By the

Late Woodland Period, a higher level of social complexity was beginning to emerge and people began to

cultivate maize. In some areas of the Ozarks, Late

Woodland peoples began to bury their dead in cairns

(rounded or pyramidal heaps of stones made as a

monument or memorial), piling rocks on top of the

bodies. The construction of burial mounds and the

presence of exotic materials interred with the cultural

elite indicate a more complex social order. Late in the

period, a pattern of small, dispersed farmsteads prevailed.

The Mississippian Period (1,150 B.P. to A.D. 1650)

saw the widespread appearance of heredity-based

political and religious hierarchies. Elite members of

society, for example, were buried in platform mounds,

4
their bodies accompanied by high-status “grave goods.”

The regional Mississippian people lived in scattered

farming hamlets often surrounding a large mound center,

the construction of which indicates at least some degree

of organized labor. Two such centers can be found in

Yell and Logan Counties near the Ouachita National

Forest. New vessel forms appeared at this time as well,

including bottles, plates, jars, and nonutilitarian pieces

such as human and animal effigies. An exception occurs

in the northern Ozarks, where the only evidence for

social stratification and mound centers are present at

what is termed the Emergent Mississippian culture in

the eastern Missouri Ozarks and other fringe Ozarks

areas. Sites here may represent the earliest manifestation of the Mississippian, as evidenced by archeological

investigations at Pigman Mound in southeast Missouri

(Price 1980, Lynott 1982).

While Mississippian cultures flourished in much of

the southern part of the Assessment area up until the

arrival of European explorers in the 16th and 17th

centuries (fig. 1.4), the northern Ozarks seem to have

been largely abandoned after A.D. 1200 to 1400. No

resident populations were present in the northern

Ozarks at the time of European contact, although the

Osage are thought to have used this region for hunting

and gathering, primarily during historical times.

Toward the end of the 18th century, a few Delaware

Indians moved into southeastern Missouri at the invitation of the Spanish Government (Wood and others

1995). By 1818, they had relocated on the James River

in southwestern Missouri; by 1831, most of them had

moved to a reservation in northeastern Kansas. Following the Civil War, they moved into what is now Oklahoma.

In the late 18th century, Cherokee Indians were

hunting in the Arkansas, White, and St. Francis River

Valleys of Spanish Louisiana (Sabo 1992). By the early

19th century, they had moved into the St. Francis River

Valley in southeastern Missouri and northeastern

Arkansas. A few years later, many Cherokees were

living along the Illinois Bayou and the Arkansas River

Valley in west-central Arkansas. In 1805, a U.S. trading

post was established at Spadra to trade with the Cherokees, and a reservation was in existence in the southern

Ozark Plateaus between 1817 and 1828. Pressure from

European settlers began forcing the Cherokees to move

further west. In 1838, the Eastern Cherokees were

moved into Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma)

through portions of today’s national forests in Missouri

and Arkansas; this removal is known as the “Trail of

Tears” (Davis n.d., Myers 1997).

The Quapaw Tribe, whose ancestral home was in

present-day Arkansas, ceded their lands south of the

Arkansas River to the U.S. Government by treaties in

1818 and 1824. In 1833, a third treaty provided them

with 150 square miles (mi2

) of land in the northeastern

part of Indian Territory. Many of the lands ceded to the

Government, as well as lands they acquired in Indian

Territory, were in the Highlands (Sabo 1992).

Prior to European contact, all of the Osage Indians

are believed to have lived in southwestern Missouri

(Wood and others 1995). In 1808, 1818, and 1825, the

Osage Tribe ceded lands in the Highlands of presentday Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. In exchange,

they were granted reservation lands in southern Kansas

in 1825 (fig. 1.4). In 1865, the Government arranged for

the sale of the Kansas lands, and the Osage Tribe was

moved into Indian Territory (Sabo 1992, Wood and

others 1995).

Due to various pressures from European settlement

and American Indian groups in the late 18th and early

19th centuries, and also in the wake of the U.S.

Government’s removal policies of the 1830’s, more

American Indians came to be located within the Highlands: the Muscogee (Creek), Choctaw, Peoria,

Kickapoo, Kaskaskia, Piankashaw and Wea (Miami),

Sauk, Modoc, Ottawa, Shawnee, Wyandotte, and

Seneca Tribes. Descriptions of the removal of the

Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Seminole

Tribes into Indian Territory can be found in Foreman

(1986).

Before removal to eastern Oklahoma, the Quapaw

and Cherokee Indians were farmers living in log houses

similar to their European neighbors; their economy was

also similar to that of the European settlers. They

cultivated grains, vegetables, cotton, and tobacco and

raised cattle, horses, hogs, goats, and fowl (Williams and

others 1993).

5
Figure 1.4—Chronology of the history of the Highlands (from 1500 through 1950). (Broken line segments indicate transitions between historic

periods.)

Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration active within national forests and 

other public lands (1934 to 1942).

Mark Twain National Forest established (1933).

Arkansas (Ouachita) National Forest established (1907), Oklahoma statehood (1907), Ozark 

National Forest established (1908).

A.D. 1950

A.D. 1900

A.D. 1850

A.D. 1800

A.D. 1700

A.D. 1600

A.D. 1500

Large timber companies harvest much of the virgin timber within the Highlands.

Settlement increases in the uplands with small farmsteads prevalent in Arkansas.

Civil War (1861 to 1865).

Settlement in the larger valleys, limited settlement begins in the uplands.

Indian Territory tribal lands alloted and surplus sold.

Caddos removed to Indian Territory (1859).

Caddos granted reservation lands in Texas (1845).

Trail of Tears (1831 to 1839).

Arkansas Cherokees removed to Indian Territory (1828).

Osages granted reservation in Kansas (1825); Quapaws removed to Red River in Louisiana (1826).

Missouri statehood (1821).

Cherokee Reservation established in Arkansas (1817).

Louisiana Purchase (1803).

Cherokees begin to settle in Arkansas; Choctaws, Chickasaws, Coushattas, and Delawares soon follow.

Delawares begin moving into Ozark Highlands (MO).

France cedes territory to Spain and England (1763).

Quapaws welcome Marquette and Jolliet (1673); LaSalle (1682); the Caddos 

visited by Joutel on Red and Ouachita Rivers (1687) and by Tonti (1690).

No record of Indians and Europeans meeting (1543 to 1673); Missouri Ozarks unoccupied.

de Soto crosses the Mississippi River and meets Parkin Phase people at 

Casqui (1541); de Soto dies in present-day Arkansas (1542).

Great Depression begins (1929).

Industrial lead mining begins in Missouri Ozarks.

Settlement increases in Missouri Ozarks (1830's to 1860's). 

French begin lead mining in northeastern Ozarks. 

Osage Tribe begins using Missouri Ozarks for hunting and gathering.

Arkansas statehood (1836).

European exploration European settlement and Indian removal Agricultural development

Large scale logging

6
European Exploration and Settlement

The Spanish expedition of Hernando de Soto (1539 to

1543) marked the first European exploration of the

Highlands (fig. 1.4). Although de Soto’s exact route is

not known, archeologists believe that he journeyed along

the eastern edge of the Ozark Plateaus and possibly into

the plateau for short distances (Morse 1993). The

expedition then moved upstream, probably along the

Arkansas River, between the Ozark Pleateau and the

Ouachita Mountains. It is believed that de Soto may

have crossed a portion of the Ouachitas as the expedition headed back toward the mouth of the Arkansas

River (Early 1993).

French explorers and fur traders came to the region in

the late 1600’s. The earliest permanent European

settlements in either Missouri or Arkansas were the

French settlements at Ste. Genevieve, MO, and Arkansas Post, AR; both of these settlements are outside of

the current Assessment area. The extent to which the

French settlers utilized uplands to the west of these

settlements is not known; however, it is likely that

hunters and trappers exploited resources in these areas.

In addition, minerals such as lead began to play a

significant role in the French economy. The Mine la

Motte, located in what is now Madison County, MO, was

established probably as early as 1720 and by 1730 was

employing “several hundred laborers, along with AfroAmerican and Indian slaves” (Wood and others 1995).

These expeditions and the rich mineral and timber

resources helped spark an increase in European settlement in the region that intensified in the late 18th century

and continued through the 19th century. In the Missouri

Ozarks, in particular, during the early part of the 18th

century, the rich deposits of mineral resources were a

driving force in some of the settlements.

According to the Arkansas Historic Preservation

Program (AR HPP n.d.), the population of Arkansas

grew dramatically between 1840 and 1860—from

96,000 to 430,000. The population remained steady

during the Civil War but was seriously affected and

displaced by military action and acts of lawlessness. By

1880, the population of Arkansas had reached approximately 800,000 and was estimated to be over 1 million in

1900. Settlers were slow to move into the Highlands,

however. As might be expected, the areas first settled

were northwestern Arkansas and the rich bottomlands

along the larger streams throughout the Highlands area

(AR HPP n.d.). Until the interstate railroad system

reached the Ouachitas and Ozarks, the mountains

remained very sparsely populated despite the availability

of land under the Homestead Act of 1862. Railroads

brought access to new markets, farmers began to grow

cash crops for export, and more settlers moved into the

area. Land acquisition records indicate that many of the

rough upland areas were settled between the 1880’s and

the 1930’s. Many of these settled upland areas were

subsequently abandoned, and the lands typically were

purchased by timber companies or the Forest Service

between 1910 and 1940 (USDA FS n.d.).

Those who moved into the Highlands in the late 18th

and early 19th centuries were mostly from the South or

lower Midwest. Specifically, migrants to the Ouachitas

were generally from the Southeastern States of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama; those moving into the

Ozarks were largely of Scotch-Irish ancestry from the

Appalachian regions of Kentucky and Tennessee (AR

HPP n.d.). They were attracted to the area not only by

opportunities to acquire timberland, but also because it

was one of the few areas in the Eastern United States

where large tracts of unclaimed public land still remained. Free, open range for livestock, principally cattle

and hogs, was widely available (Jurgelski and others

1996). Albert Pike, an early Arkansas resident in the

1830’s, gave the following description of a typical settler

and his “hardscrabble” existence:

He goes into the Arkansas bottom, cuts a few

logs, and his neighbors help him raise a hut with a

wooden chimney, daubed with mud. If it is summer,

he leaves the crannies open; if it is winter, he

chunks them with wood, and daubs them with mud.

. . [He] hires himself out for a month or two, till he

earns some corn and two or three hogs, and then

“turns in to work” on his own farm. He cuts his

hogs’ ears in some mark or other, turns them out to

root for themselves and goes resolutely to work,

chopping timber, grubbing up cane, and performing

the various operations necessary to clearing up

land (Schwaab 1973).

Beginning in the 1880’s, railroads spurred a regionwide lumbering boom, although some large-scale lumbering activity took place earlier in the 19th century in the

Ozarks. Speculators competed for timber resources,

7
sometimes using unscrupulous practices to acquire land

from the public domain. From 1906 to 1909, unprecedented timber harvesting took place in Arkansas, which

contained the last extensive virgin forest east of the

Rocky Mountains (Smith 1986). Concurrently, railroads

improved market access in the region, leading to the

expansion of agricultural industry in some sectors.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, farms of

160 acres (ac), interspersed by land holdings of speculators, dominated the landscape. In 1929, folklorist W. A.

Browne described traditional farm life as follows:

It is not uncommon for the buildings to be of . . .

logs taken from the forest . . . . Spring work consists

of plowing the land and planting corn and a few oats

. . . . Everyone has access to . . .free range . . . and

much of the stock . . . is pastured on this land . . . .

Hog raising is quite universal (Browne 1929).

Ultimately, low agricultural potential, overgrazing,

overfarming on highly erodable soils, and distance from

markets resulted in widespread deprivation. In Missouri,

there was additional decline in forest resources from

uncontrolled burning and from the State’s logging and

mining heyday, along with the relentless demand for

charcoal for iron and lead furnaces, railroad ties, and

sawmill lumber.

In the economically turbulent decade of the 1930’s,

many rural folk, primarily south of the Missouri Ozarks,

emigrated to cities for employment. In Missouri, the

trend was toward repopulation of the Ozarks as many

made their way home to familiar surroundings to

weather the bad times. Bankrupt farmers and defunct

lumber companies sold large blocks of unwanted and

cut-over land to the Forest Service. Under President

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Program, the Civilian

Conservation Corps (CCC) constructed recreation

facilities and other improvements on the Federal and

State lands in the region, paving the way for future

economic opportunity. Coupled with highway improvement projects and the introduction of electricity (not

available in remote parts of Arkansas until the 1940’s),

new recreation facilities on national forests helped

expand economic opportunity in the region. More

detailed discussion of mining history can be found in

Chapter 7 of this report.

History and Current Status of

Public Lands

Federal land in the United States is owned in common by its citizens and is intended to be managed for

their common benefit. This concept of common (public)

land was first asserted in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Articles of Confederation and in

the Treaty of Paris (CSU n.d.).

Federal lands have been part of the Highlands since

1803, when France sold 523 million ac of land known as

the Louisiana Purchase to the United States. The

Louisiana Purchase and all other lands acquired by the

United States through 1867—nearly 1.8 billion ac in all—

made up the lands contained within the “public domain.”

The U.S. Constitution gave Congress full power to sell,

give away, or retain public domain lands: “Congress shall

have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and

regulations respecting the territory or other property

belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3).

Congress, in fact, has given away, sold, or otherwise

disposed of nearly two-thirds of the public domain.

Together, Congress and several U.S. Presidents reserved

the remainder—more than 715 million ac—for a variety

of purposes, including national forests and national parks.

Interestingly enough, the oldest Federal reserve in the

country is in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Congress

created the Hot Springs Reservation in 1832 to protect the

springs’ recharge area in the central Ouachita Mountains.

The reservation was later named Hot Springs National

Park. Public domain lands also formed the original

Arkansas (later renamed Ouachita) and Ozark National

Forests in 1907 and 1908, respectively. Figure 1.5 displays

most of the large tracts of Federal and State lands in the

Assessment area.

The States west of the Mississippi River and most of

those around the Great Lakes were created from public

domain lands. Those States admitted to the Union

before 1848 (including Missouri in 1821 and Arkansas in

1836) received a section of land (1 mi2

 or 640 ac in

area) in each township (36 mi2

 in area, made up of 36

sections); those admitted later (including Oklahoma in

1907) received as many as 4 sections per township.

This report does not address how much former public

domain land remains in State ownership, but table 1.1

lists many of the current State-owned or managed areas

8
Figure 1.5—Principal Federal and State lands and water bodies in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area, by managing

agency. (Green areas are lands within national forest “proclamation boundaries;” private lands are intermingled with Federal lands

within these boundaries.)

9
Table 1.1—Partial listing of State-managed areas in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

 Arkansas Missouri Oklahoma

State parks State parks State parks

Bull Shoals Bennett Spring Adair

Daisy Elephant Rocks Arrowhead

Devil’s Den Grand Gulf Beavers Bend/Hochatown

Jacksonport Ha-ha Tonka Bernice

Lake Catherine Harry S. Truman Boggy Depot

Lake Charles Huckleberry Ridge Cherokee

Lake Dardenelle Johnson’s Shut-In Cherokee Landing

Lake DeGray Katy Trail Clayton Lake

Lake Fort Smith Lake of the Ozarks Disney/Little Blue

Lake Ouachita Lake Wappapello Greenleaf

Mt. Nebo Mastodon Heavener Runestone

Old Davidsonville Meramec Honey Creek

Petit Jean Montauk Lake Eucha

Queen Wilhelmena Onondaga Lake Wister

Withrow Springs Pomme de Terre McGee Creek

Wooly Hollow Roaring River Pine Creek

St. Francois Robbers Cave

Wildlife management areas St. Joe Rocky Ford

Beryl Anthony/Lake Ouachita Sam A. Baker Sallisaw/Brushy Lake

Blue Mountain Stockton Sequoyah/Western Hills

Bull Shoals Table Rock Snowdale

Camp Robinson Taum Sauk Mountain Spavinaw

Caney Creek Trail of Tears Talimena

Dardanelle Washington Tenkiller

Gene Rush/Buffalo River Twin Bridges/Spring River

Jamestown/Independence Co. State historic sites

Lake Greeson Battle of Carthage

Madison County Dillard Mill Wildlife management areas

Mount Magazine Fort Davidson Atoka

Muddy Creek Missouri Mines Broken Bow

Nimrod Nathan Boone Cherokee

Norfork Cookson Hills

Petit Jean Conservation areas Gary Scerrer

Pigeon Creek Game Refuge Alley Spring James Collins

Sylamore Coldwater McCurtain County Wilderness

White Rock Deer Run McGee Creek/Stringtown

Winona Indian Trail Ouachita

Missouri Pine Creek

Arkansas National Guard Pushmataha

Fort Chaffee Robber’s Cave

Camp Robinson Spavinaw Hills

10
within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. State lands

include 65 State parks, 32 wildlife management areas, 5

State historic sites, 5 conservation areas, and 2 National

Guard areas.

Lands Managed by the National Park Service

The mission of the USDI National Park Service is to

protect natural, historical, and cultural resources while

providing opportunities for recreation. Within the OzarkOuachita Highlands, the National Park Service manages

seven areas totaling 164,337 ac (table 1.2). All but two

were established in the latter half of the 20th century.

The largest National Park Service management units in

the Highlands are scenic riverways; together the

Buffalo National River and Ozark National Scenic

Riverways cover over 153,000 ac. Congress established

the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in 1964 to protect

134 miles of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers in

southeastern Missouri; this unit was the first of the

nation’s “scenic riverways,” established 4 years before

Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. After

a decade of struggle between competing proposals to

dam or preserve the Buffalo River in the Arkansas

Ozarks, Congress designated it as the Buffalo National

River in 1972.

National Wildlife Refuges

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System—managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service—is “to preserve a national network of lands and

waters for the conservation and management of the fish,

wildlife, and plants of the United States for the benefit of

present and future generations” (USDI FWS 1998). The

most important uses of the system are wildlife-dependent recreational activities—hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, photography, and environmental education.

There are eight national wildlife refuges in the Highlands

(66,368 ac), all relatively small (table 1.3).

Reservoirs and Adjacent Lands

From the 1940’s through the early 1980’s, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers constructed 29 lakes and

reservoirs in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Built for

flood control, domestic water supplies, and recreation,

these water bodies (see table 1.4) have a combined

surface area of about 673,000 ac (at the top of their

combined “conservation pools,” i.e., their normal water

levels). The Corps manages campgrounds, boat launch

areas, and other recreational facilities near many of

these water bodies.

Table 1.2—National Park Service management units in Assessment area counties

Year

Management unit Size State authorized

Acres

Buffalo National River 91,827 AR 1972

Fort Smith National Historic Site 35 AR 1961

George Washington Carver National Monument 210 MO 1943

Hot Springs National Park 4,868 AR a

1921a

Ozark National Scenic Riverways (includes

Round Spring, Alley Spring, Big Spring) 61,368 MO 1964

Pea Ridge National Military Park 4,279 AR 1956

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield 1,750 MO 1960

Total 164,337

a Established as a Federal reserve in 1832 to protect the hot springs, designated a national park in 1921.

11
Military Bases

Military bases provide large areas of public land

representing a diversity of ecological conditions that

contribute to the habitat needs of wildlife, can serve as

protected areas for sensitive and endangered species,

and offer some opportunities for outdoor recreation. The

two Federal military bases in the Assessment area are

Fort Leonard Wood (U.S. Army) in Missouri and Little

Rock Air Force Base (U.S. Air Force). Camp

Robinson and Fort Chaffee are Arkansas Army

National Guard facilities.

National Forests

National forests are the most extensive type of public

land in the Assessment area, accounting for more than 4

million ac or about 10 percent of the total area. They

also constitute the most extensive holdings owned or

managed by a single entity in the Highlands. For these

reasons and because this Assessment is designed to

provide some of the context needed for revising the land

and resource management plans of the Highlands’ three

national forests, this section goes into more detail than

the immediately preceding ones. See table 1.5 for

summary information about the Mark Twain, Ouachita,

and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. (The St. Francis

National Forest, which is joined with the Ozark National

Forest administratively, is not within the Highlands).

Two of these national forests were established by

President Theodore Roosevelt more than 90 years ago.

William Logan Hall traveled to Arkansas in 1906 at the

request of Gifford Pinchot, first Chief of the Forest

Service, to select the areas that became the Ouachita

and Ozark National Forests. Based on Hall’s recommendations, Roosevelt designated about 1.7 million ac of

public domain lands (all in Arkansas) as national forests.

The Arkansas National Forest was described at that

Table 1.3—National wildlife refuges in Assessment area

counties

Refuge Size State Year

 Acres

Holla Bend 6,428 AR 1957

Logan Cavea 124 AR 1989

Bald Knob 14,760 AR 1993

Mingo 21,676 MO 1945

Ozark Cave Fishb 40 MO 1991

Pilot Knobb 90 MO 1987

Sequoyah 20,800 OK 1970

Ozark Plateauc 2,450 OK 1985

Total 66,368

a Managed as part of Holla Bend.

b Managed as part of Mingo.

c Managed as part of Sequoyah.

Table 1.4—Assessment area water bodies managed by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Year Surface

Reservoir State completed area

Acres

Beaver Lake AR 1963 28,220

Blue Mountain Lake AR 1947 2,910

Dardanelle Lake AR 1969 34,300

DeGray Lake AR 1972 13,800

Dierks Lake AR 1975 1,360

Gillham Lake AR 1972 1,370

Greers Ferry Lake AR 1962 31,500

Lake Greeson AR 1949 2,500

Lake Ouachita AR 1953 40,060

Nimrod Lake AR 1942 3,550

McClellan-Kerr

navigation pools AR 1969 24,440

Ozark Lake AR 1969 10,660

Bull Shoals Lake AR, MO 1951 45,440

Norfork Lake AR, MO 1944 22,000

Table Rock Lake AR, MO 1958 43,100

Clearwater Lake MO 1948 1,600

Harry S. Truman MO 1979 55,600

Pomme de Terre Lake MO 1961 7,720

Stockton Lake MO 1969 24,632

Wappapello MO 1941 8,400

Broken Bow Lake OK 1969 14,200

Eufala Lake OK 1965 105,500

Fort Gibson Lake OK 1953 19,900

Grand Lake O’ the

Cherokees OK 1941 46,500

Pine Creek Lake OK 1969 4,980

Robert S. Kerr Res. OK 1970 43,800

Sardis Lake OK 1983 14,360

Tenkiller Ferry OK 1953 12,900

Wister Lake OK 1949 7,333

Total 672,635

12
time as the only major shortleaf pine forest under

Federal Government protection; similarly, the Ozark

National Forest was described as the only major

hardwood timberland under Government protection.

Early Forest Service activity centered on attempting

to curb wildfire and timber theft and setting up ranger

outposts and telephone systems. In 1909, the Ouachita

and Ozark National Forests were subdivided into ranger

districts; each district ranger managed an average of

160,000 ac.

In 1911, the Weeks Act authorized the Forest Service

to acquire non-Federal land through purchase or exchange where such lands are within the watersheds of

navigable waterways. The Clarke-McNary Act of 1924

broadened the authorization of the Weeks Act to include

lands valuable for timber production. In 1933, the

Missouri Legislature approved establishment of national

forests in that State, and the Forest Service began

purchasing cut-over lands there. In 1939, the agency

divided these lands into two national forests: the Mark

Twain in the west and the Clark in the east. The forests

were consolidated and administered from Rolla in 1952,

with two of the Clark’s units assigned to the Shawnee

National Forest in Illinois. Then in 1962, The Mark

Twain and Clark were again separated, and the two

units administered by the Shawnee were returned to join

the Clark. The forests were again joined under a single

Supervisor’s Office located in Rolla in 1973 and called

the National Forests in Missouri. In 1976, the 1.49

million-acre forest became the Mark Twain National

Forest that remains today (McConnell 1963).

A large segment of the southwestern portion of the

Arkansas National Forest was proposed as the

Ouachita National Park in 1926 (Strausberg and Hough

1997, ONPFS 1926). President Calvin Coolidge pocketvetoed the legislation in the same year and then renamed the Arkansas National Forest the Ouachita

National Forest. In 1930, President Herbert Hoover

ordered the purchase of 53,000 ac of cut-over timberlands in Le Flore County, OK, thus expanding the forest

into another State. The following year, the forest

expanded in Oklahoma by adding lands within the

Canadian and Poteau River watersheds.

A complex history of land purchases, reductions

(lands were at times returned to the public domain for

disposal), exchanges, and transfers underlies the

present-day holdings of the national forests of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands (Bass 1981, Strausberg and

Hough 1997, Steen 1977). Today, each of these forests

continues to add and lose acreage through purchase and

land exchanges. These adjustments to the national

forest land base occur for a variety of reasons, including public acquisition of tracts for recreation, heritage

resources, recovery of threatened and endangered

species, and wildlife values; acquisition of inholdings

(private lands within the boundary of public land)

initiated by private landowners; and disposal of small,

isolated national forest tracts. The largest land exchange in Forest Service history—one involving the

Ouachita National Forest, Weyerhaeuser Company, and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—was completed in

1996.

Table 1.5—National forests within the Highlands or Assessment area States, with establishment dates, locations, and acres (as of

September 30, 1998)

NF lands in AR,

National Date Location NF lands within MO, or OK but

forest established (State) Highlands outside Highlands NF total

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million acres

Mark Twain 1933 MO 1,478,248 15,929 1.49

Ouachita 1907 AR, OK 1,746,861 16,913 1.76

Ozark-St. Francis 1908 AR 1,134,228 21,201 1.16

Total 4,359,337 54,043 4.41

NF = National forest.

13
Among the most important laws guiding national

forest management, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield

Act of 1960 declares that “. . . national forests are

established and shall be administered for outdoor

recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and

fish purposes.” The National Forest Management Act

of 1976 added wilderness to the list of multiple uses and

directed that land and resource management plans for

each forest reflect effective coordination among outdoor

recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish,

and wilderness values and uses. Other laws guide

mineral exploration and development and protection of

historic and cultural (“heritage”) resources.

Many of the roads, buildings, and recreation areas on

the national forests in the Assessment area owe their

existence to the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).

President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the corps in

1933 along with the Civilian Works Administration and

the Works Progress Administration to provide work for

unemployed youth, to construct recreation areas, and to

better manage the nation’s natural resources. During its

9-year existence, the CCC—also known as Roosevelt’s

Tree Army—planted nearly 50 million trees in Missouri

alone. The Corps enrollees also constructed fire lookout

towers, lakes for swimming, fish hatcheries, all-weather

roads, and rustic camps with architectural style that

complemented the natural environment.

The nationwide depression that helped spawn the

CCC also changed the pattern of land ownership in the

Highlands. During the 1930’s, large timber companies

and the Forest Service were able to purchase cut-over

timberlands at low prices from bankrupt farmers and

defunct lumber companies. Since World War II, however, the land ownership patterns in the Highlands have

become more stable. Now, farmers own the best

agricultural land, private timber companies own the

largest part of the better timberlands, and the national

forests encompass most of the more rugged upland

areas (Smith 1988).

Heritage Resources on National Forest Lands

The Highlands portions of the national forests,

encompassing over 4.4 million ac, contain an abundance

of prehistoric (predating written history) and historic

sites. Between the mid-1970’s and 1997—in compliance

with the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act—the

three national forests conducted archeological surveys

on about 900,000 ac. This act requires Federal agencies

to inventory archeological sites and historic buildings

under their jurisdiction and to consider the effect of any

planned actions on those resources that are eligible for

listing or are actually listed on the National Register.

Approximately 18 percent of the Ouachita National

Forest (306,000 ac), 21 percent of the Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests (235,400 ac), and 23 percent of the

Mark Twain National Forest (300,000 ac) were surveyed by 1997. The types and numbers of sites documented are displayed in table 1.6.

There are over 14,000 documented archeological

sites on the national forests. Prehistoric sites range from

small, isolated finds of a single artifact to extensive

scatters of lithic debris and from large, semi-permanent

habitation sites to extensive chert quarries. Dates of

these sites range from as early as 12,000 years ago to

about 450 years ago.

Historic sites are also highly varied. Some are the

remains of isolated, one-time events. Others, such as

townsites or farmsteads, represent many events involving large populations over long periods of time. The

significance of many of these sites remains unknown.

For both the prehistoric and historic resources,

individual sites may not yield much information by

themselves. However, when combined with information

from other similar sites and information from other

resource areas (e.g., geology, soils, botany, biology,

paleoclimatology, pollen studies) they may add significantly to our understanding of the people and historic

environments of the Highlands.

14
Table 1.6—Types and numbers of documented heritage resource sites and acres surveyed for heritage

resources on the Ouachita, Ozark-St. Francis, and Mark Twain National Forests through 1997a

Ozark-St.

Heritage resource survey sites Ouachita NF Francis NF’s

b Mark Twain NF

Prehistoric sites and components

Cave or rock shelter 30 NA 236

Open or lithic scatter 3,016 NA 1,719

Cairn 0 NA 40

Quarry 72 NA 7

Mound 0 NA 3

Rock art 1 NA 2

Isolated finds 1,276 NA 0

Historic sites and components

Road or trace of a path 46 NA 58

Land grant or improvement 0 NA 83

Civil War or other military 0 NA 9

Late domestic (e.g., farmstead) 1,642 NA 1,911

Rock inscription 0 NA 1

Logging related 26 NA 23

Mills (unspecified) 70 NA 47

Stage station 0 NA 1

Railroad 32 NA 56

Mining or quarry 239 NA 619

Kiln or charcoal 0 NA 36

Town 3 NA 75

Store or post office 2 NA 41

School 4 NA 230

Church or cemetery 55 NA 295

Hotel or resort 0 NA 23

Ferry 0 NA 4

Bridge and State highway shed 0 NA 2

Dam 16 NA 3

Mineral water bottling plant 0 NA 1

Still 140 NA 8

Gauging station 0 NA 1

Fish hatchery 0 NA 1

CCC related 66 NA 138

Isolated find 53 NA 9

Unidentified 23 NA 55

GLO markers 22 NA 0

Towers 18 NA 0

Dipping vats 13 NA 0

Other 257 NA 0

Total prehistoric sitesc 3,862 710 2,007

Total historic sitesc 2,206 1,329 3,730

Total sites with prehistoric and historic componentsc 519 159 0

Totalc 6,587 2,198 5,757

CCC = Civilian Conservation Corps, GLO = General Land Office, NA = not available.

a Includes some survey area and sites located outside the Highlands.

b No data were available for number of sites by specific categories.

c Some sites contain more than one component; therefore, the totals shown here do not equal the sums of totals listed in

the rest of the table.

15
Areas of Special Historical and

Archeological Interest

There are some archeological sites and centers of

information about human history in the Highlands that

have special significance because of their research and

interpretive value and availability to the public. Visiting

historic sites is one of the most popular outdoor activies

of people in the Highlands and nation (Cordell and

others 1997a, D.K. Shifflet 1998). (See Chapter 5 for

further discussion.) The following sites are particularly

noteworthy:

• Three State agencies—the Arkansas History

Commission located in Little Rock, the Oklahoma

Historical Society in Oklahoma City, and the

Missouri Department of Archives in Jefferson

City—maintain large collections of primary documents, original photographs, and microfilmed documents relating to the history of each of the three

States, including when they were territories. Many of

these documents are directly relevant to the studies

concerning 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries in the

Highlands.

• The Arkansas Territorial Restoration, located in

Little Rock, maintains buildings dating from the

Arkansas Territory (pre-1836) and original documents dating from the same period. One highlight is

the Hinderliter Tavern, a meeting place of the

territorial legislature. The Old State House, also in

Little Rock, was constructed between 1833 and 1840

and served as the State capitol between 1836 and

1911. Exhibits pertaining to the State’s early history

are maintained at these historic sites (AR AS 1997).

• There are a number of areas of interest open to

visitors along the Buffalo National River in northern Arkansas. These include shelters that contain

prehistoric archeological remains and petroglyphs

(rock art), such as Cob Shelter and the Indian Rock

House, and historic sites such as the old Rush Mining

Town where zinc was mined in the 1880’s (AR AS

1997).

• Fort Smith National Historic Site, located in the

Arkansas River Valley of northwestern Arkansas, is

managed by the National Park Service and includes

the remains of two historic forts and the Federal

Court for the Western District of Arkansas: “Commemorating a significant phase of America’s westward expansion, it stands today as a reminder of 80

turbulent years in the history of Federal Indian

policy” (USDI NPS 1989).

• The George Washington Carver National

Monument, located in southwest Missouri, highlights

the life and work of an individual who was born into

slavery, yet accomplished many great things. George

Washington Carver attained national prominence by

age 55 through his extensive research (especially

about peanuts) and work as an “educator, botanist,

agronomist, ‘cookstove chemist,’ and artist” (USDI

NPS 1990b).

• The Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa, OK, contains

important collections of North American Indian

artifacts, including some items recovered from the

looting at Spiro Mounds during the 1930’s. These

collections provide excellent research opportunities

for those wishing to understand prehistoric cultural

development within the Highlands (AR AS 1997).

• Hot Springs National Park, located in the eastern

Ouachita Mountains of central Arkansas, was the

first reservation set aside by the Federal Government

for the protection of resources (in 1832). Named a

national park in 1921, the park features interpretive

exhibits on the historic use of the hot springs and the

bathing facilities that developed around them, local

archeology, geology, and history.

• The Museum of the Red River, located in

McCurtain County, OK, highlights the prehistoric and

historic American Indian cultures that have lived (and

whose descendants currently live) in southeastern

Oklahoma. This museum includes exhibits of Caddo

Tribal history. The prehistoric homeland of the Caddo

Tribe covered all of what is now the Ouachita

National Forest as well as northwestern Louisiana

and northeastern Texas.

• The Ozark National Scenic Riverways, located in

south-central Missouri, and managed by the National

Park Service, primarily showcases the natural

environment. However, several historic sites, including CCC facilities, can also be found in the park

(USDI NPS 1990a).

• Pea Ridge Military Park, which is also under

National Park Service management, preserves a

16
portion of the battlefield on which Union forces

gained control of much of northwestern Arkansas

and parts of southwestern Missouri in March 1862

(USDI NPS 1965).

• Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park, located in

northwest Arkansas, was the site of an important

battle on December 7, 1862, in the western campaign

of the Civil War (AR AS 1997).

• Spiro Mounds Archeological Park is a large

Caddoan ceremonial center consisting of a village

and 11 earthen mounds in Le Flore County, OK.

Although looters took many artifacts from the

mounds during the 1930’s, the site has provided

extensive information about eastern Oklahoma and

western Arkansas. “Spiro’s inhabitants developed

political, religious and economic institutions with farreaching influence on societies from the Plains and

Mississippi Valley to much of what is now the

Southeastern United States” (Wyckoff and Peterson

1985). Some of the original artifacts as well as

reproductions are exhibited at the park, and nearby

museums have additional holdings of artifacts.

• The Toltec Mounds State Park, located north of

the Arkansas River in central Arkansas, was the

center for the Plum Bayou culture. Dating from

about A.D. 600 to 1000, people of the Plum Bayou

culture inhabited the Mississippi and lower Arkansas

River alluvial valleys. Originally at Toltec, there were

18 mounds surrounded by a ditch and an embankment, but today only 5 mounds and a portion of the

embankment are visible. Although outside the

Highlands, current research at the site attests to the

importance and use to the indigenous people of

upland resources in the adjacent Highlands, a short

distance to the west (AR AS 1997, Rolingson and

Howard 1997).

• The University of Arkansas Museum in

Fayetteville features important exhibits dealing with

the development of Indian cultures from 10,000 B.P.

to the 1800’s. Additional exhibits describe the historical, geological, and biological features of the State

(AR AS 1997).

• Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, located in

southwestern Missouri and operated by the National

Park Service, provides protection for an important

Civil War battlefield. The battle, a bitter struggle

between the Union and Confederate forces for

control of Missouri, was fought on August 10, 1861

(USDI NPS 1991).

Implications and Opportunities

Research and Interpretive Opportunities

Experts have estimated that the over 14,000 documented archeological sites on the Highlands national

forests represent only 25 to 30 percent of what actually

exists. If this estimate is accurate, there may be more

than 50,000 heritage sites on the Ouachita, Ozark, and

Mark Twain National Forests. Research and interpretive opportunities are constrained only by time, money,

and imagination.

The Highlands’ national forests have the ability to

protect from damage or destruction heritage resources

that hold significant information about human and

environmental history. Similar resources on adjacent

private lands are more readily subject to accidental

destruction through land development, industrial activity,

and vandalism. Similar to endangered species, once

archeological sites are lost, they are gone forever.

Public lands are therefore extremely important in

protecting and archiving heritage resources for future

researchers. Descriptions of some of the research and

interpretive opportunities available on the national

forests in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri follow.

Caddoan Archeology

Most of the Ouachita National Forest and part of the

southern fringes of the Ozark National Forest are

located within the Caddoan Indian cultural area. These

public lands offer excellent research opportunities to

study the prehistoric lifeways of the Caddoan people

and their use of upland areas. There has been a great

deal of archeological research about the Caddoans, but

it has centered on sites outside the uplands. Current

research resulting from a major land exchange between

the Ouachita National Forest and Weyerhaeuser

Company is concentrated in extreme southeastern

McCurtain County, OK, on the Gulf Coastal Plain

(Etchieson 1997a).

17
Within the Ouachitas themselves, research into

Caddoan lifeways has been rather limited. Researchers

routinely find and document sites that may contain a

Caddoan component, but since they do not recover

artifacts that can be directly associated with the Caddo

Indians from many of these sites, they cannot confidently identify them as Caddoan. Limited archeological

work during the early to mid-20th century centered on

the broad valley of the Ouachita River. More extensive

work was done in the mid-1960’s in the valley of the

Mountain Fork River in southeastern Oklahoma

(Wyckoff 1967a, 1967b, 1968) and in the mid-1970’s at

a small mound site in the valley of the Caddo River

(Early 1988).

Research undertaken more recently at a small

Caddoan hamlet in the southern Ouachita Mountains in

Montgomery County, AR, is providing new information

about how they constructed buildings, new environmental data on the distribution of bois d’arc (Osage orange,

often used as bow wood), and basic data on late

Caddoan use of mountain environments (Early 1997b).

Major opportunities exist for continued research into

upland Caddoan archeology within the Ouachita Mountains. National forest land managers can play a major

role in this research, including preserving sites for future

research.

Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian

Archeology

The early archeological work in the Missouri Ozarks

focused on the study of caves and shelters in the

western Ozarks. Little was known about late prehistoric

settlement in the eastern Ozarks until a 1975 study in

which Price and others (1975) postulated an Emergent

Mississippian occupation they called the Naylor Phase.

Before their study, this southeastern region was thought

to be primitive when compared with other Mississippian

sites, owing to a lack of mortuary goods, burial mounds,

or ceremonial centers.

In 1979, Ozark National Scenic Riverways archeological studies in the Upper Current River Valley

substantiated their findings. By 1980, three Emergent

Mississippian site types were defined in the eastern

Ozarks (Price 1980, Lynott 1982): a possible temple

mound and ceremonial center at Pigman Mound; small

villages recognized at the Gooseneck, Shell Lake, and

Shawnee sites; and special activity sites. These populations thrived in the eastern Ozarks between A.D. 700

and 1000. The Mississippian period populations in the

Current River area developed with minimal inmigration

of other people. In contrast, the Mississipian populations

in the northeastern and eastern Ozarks were significantly influenced by the people from Cahokia

(Wettstaed 1996).

Similar developments took place in the American

Bottoms, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, southeast

Missouri, northeast Arkansas, and southwest Missouri.

By A.D. 1100, classic Mississippian traits were present

in adjacent areas, and by A.D. 1300, much of the

Ozarks region had been abandoned. Prior to A.D. 700,

the Ozarks had been inhabited by Late Woodland

people, and this tradition continued into Mississippian

times throughout much of the Ozarks. Notably in the

northeast Ozarks, the Meramec Spring Phase was

dominated by Late Woodland characteristics, with the

exception of shell-tempered pottery, indicative of

interaction with adjacent Mississippian populations but

not of an Emergent Mississippian occupation (Wettstaed

1996).

Despite the presence of Emergent Mississippian

traits along some peripheries of the Missouri Ozarks, a

Late Woodland tradition continued in most of the region.

Additional research within the Mark Twain National

Forest will undoubtedly provide important information on

the divergent development of these two cultures and the

nature of their interactions.

Civilian Conservation Corps Camps and Other

Features

There is a significant amount of public interest in the

life and activities of Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)

members. The camps in which the CCC lived while

assigned to the national forests are now considered

historic archeological sites themselves, even though they

were of temporary construction and retain few structural elements of corps buildings (other than foundations). The sites of these camps represent opportunities

for the Forest Service to construct self-guided interpretive trails fairly inexpensively.

Enrollees in the CCC constructed many buildings,

roads, and recreation areas across the Highlands forests.

Many of these works exhibit excellent craftsmanship and

18
are still in use. The Mark Twain National Forest currently has several interpretive panels at CCC-constructed buildings and has identified opportunities for the

interpretation of specific CCC-constructed features such

as spring tanks, roadside stonework, trails, and fire

lookout towers. Construction of interpretive sites for the

Hollis and Jessieville CCC camps on the Ouachita

National Forest will be completed in 1999. The national

forests also have opportunities to rehabilitate and interpret the history and significance of some of the CCCconstructed and -operated fire towers and could develop

educational materials describing Government work

programs of the 1930’s and 1940’s, challenges facing

enrollees, and the accomplishments of the CCC.

Stock Ranching and Grazing

The glade-rich central portion of the White River

Hills in southwestern Missouri contains a mosaic of

open and grassy dolomite glades, cedar groves, and

broadleaf deciduous hardwood stands. The glades are

also dotted with archeological sites, both prehistoric and

historic. Historic occupation and use of the glades began

sometime during the 19th century and ended with the

U.S. Government acquisition of lands in this region.

Nineteenth and early 20th century settlement was mostly

agriculturally based. Livestock ranching, rather than

row-crop farming, was the principal agricultural activity.

Archeological sites include farmstead core areas

containing the remains of domestic structures and

outbuildings, isolated outbuilding areas, and limited

activity areas. The remains of rock walls, field clearing

piles, and old field clearings dot the landscape.

Since the Federal acquisition of lands in the area

starting in the 1940’s, various grazing allotments have

continued the traditional historic use of the glades.

Related to the ongoing stock grazing are stock ponds,

spring impoundments, fences, and woods roads. The

landscape remains much as it has since the early years

of this century, and the archeological sites are relatively

undisturbed (Price 1996).

Early in the 20th century, Arkansas and most of the

Southeastern States participated in a tick eradication

effort by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Initiated

in response to “Texas fever,” a tick-born illness that

jeopardized the region’s cattle industry, the program

endorsed the widespread construction of dipping vats.

Cattle were immersed in an arsenical solution to destroy

ticks. Such a broad-scale intergovernmental program

was unprecedented at that time (Coleman and others

1996). Dipping vats associated with this important

episode in U.S. history are a finite heritage resource.

Researchers have documented only 12 vats on the

Ouachita and Ozark National Forests, and the Forest

Service is actively preserving them for future research.

Archeological investigation of these dipping stations

should reveal information about early concrete construction and may help to assess the effects of arsenic on

forest surroundings.

Late Rural Domestic Sites (1880’s to 1930’s)

Homesteads represent the most abundant historic site

type on the national forests in Arkansas and Missouri.

To date, archeologists on the national forests have

documented approximately 3,800 19th- and early 20thcentury homesteads (acquired under the Weeks Law of

1911 and the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924).

Historic photographs show that the typical homestead

claim consisted of a one-room log house or a small

frame structure, and frequently included a simple log

outbuilding on the edge of a small clearing and a splitrail fence surrounding the claim. These surviving

examples of frontier construction from as late as the

1930’s appear in the Highlands and comprise a distinctive agrarian landscape represented nowhere else in

Arkansas or Missouri. However, in the Missouri Ozarks,

several other types of landscape variants occur that

represent post-Civil War to World War II years.

Ironically, because of the common historic Forest

Service practice of removing homestead improvements

(e.g., barns and houses that the agency could not afford

to maintain) after acquiring the tracts on which they

were located, most of the remaining evidence of this

landscape exists only in the archeological record—a

situation that underscores the importance of protecting

and studying late historic archeological sites. As of

1997, Forest Service archeologists had formally excavated only four such homesteads across the Ozark and

Ouachita National Forests. Each of the four sites,

however, has contributed new information about this

little-known chapter of history (Coleman 1993, 1995;

Coleman in press; Coleman and Guendling 1999).

Additional, non-Forest Service investigations are

19
described by Stewart-Abernathy (1986), and Stewart

(1995); still others are identified in the Sponsored

Research Program (1995). Within the Missouri Ozarks,

research has been conducted at the Herrygers Site

(Price 1993) and the Nevins Farmstead (Sloan 1989).

Novaculite Quarries

A hard, dense rock used extensively in the manufacture of prehistoric tools, novaculite occurs along ridge

tops across the entire extent of the southern Ouachita

Mountains. According to Holmes (1891, 1919), Jenny

(1891), Baker (1974), Stewart and others (1995), and

Etchieson (1997b), researchers have examined the

prehistoric quarries that probably date back to the midlate Archaic Period (7,500 to 500 B.P.). No intensive

research has been conducted at any single quarry; in

1996, however, the Ouachita National Forest together

with the Arkansas Archeological Survey began developing a research design for the study of novaculite quarries in Arkansas (USDA FS 1996). Research results

will include a process to prepare detailed maps of

quarry sites and trail systems, studies of a particular

artifact’s source and place of manufacture, environmental changes resulting from massive quarry activity, and

information on extraction techniques or mining methods

(Etchieson 1997b). In addition, selected quarry sites

within the national forest would be ideal public interpretive sites for either guided or self-guided tours.

Prehistoric Use of Upland Areas

The Ouachita, Ozark-St. Francis, and Mark Twain

National Forests have an opportunity to provide baseline

data on the prehistoric use of upland areas. Within the

Highlands’ national forests, most work has been accomplished as a result of compliance with the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Federal landmanaging agencies such as the Forest Service, National

Park Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

and the Corps of Engineers have largely restricted their

investigations to this type of “compliance study.” Even

this basic work, however, contributes significantly to the

baseline data for the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Over

the past decade, the national forests in the Highlands

have contributed the greatest volume of data within the

region, more than most other agencies and entities

combined.

Although large acreages have been surveyed and

several thousand archeological sites documented, the

researchers have hardly “scratched the surface” in

understanding the prehistoric use of upland areas within

the Highlands.

Historical Logging and Mining Sites

Logging has long been an important aspect of the

economy of the Highlands. Certain sawmill locations are

now documented as historic archeological sites, and

other associated logging resources (such as railroad

trams and trestles) are being inventoried across the

national forests. This inventory will make it possible to

complete detailed research into past logging activities in

the upland areas. Similar documentation and research

have recently been conducted in the western edge of

the Highlands (McGuff and others 1993). These sites,

along with associated archival records (such as land

acquisition records, timber company records and maps,

timber railroad maps) are very useful in documenting

land use and changes in historic vegetation patterns.

Some logging and grist mills remain intact on the

Mark Twain National Forest as historic sites and others

are represented as historic archeological sites on the

Ozark and Ouachita National Forests. Documentation

of these site types and archival research will provide

additional information regarding historic land use and

local and regional economies.

Historic mining resources provide great potential for

research and interpretation of industrial archeological

resources, how these resources affected historic land

use, and their importance in the local economies. The

historic exploitation of mineral resources within the

Highlands has occurred from at least the early 19th

century and from the early 1700’s in the Missouri

Ozarks (Schoolcraft 1819, Wettstaed n.d.). Many

abandoned mines and mining towns (with some original

structures remaining) occur throughout the Ouachita

Mountains and the Ozark Plateaus. The mining towns of

Palmer (lead with later barite mines), Silvermines

(tungsten and silver), and the ironworks mining town of

Nova Scotia are represented in Missouri’s Ozarks

(Wettstaed in press). The turn-of-the-century historic

mining town site of Slatington (slate mines) is located in

the central Ouachita Mountains (Purdue 1909). Other

minerals historically mined in the Ouachita Highlands

20
include barite, manganese (Pfeiffer 1995), quartz, and

novaculite. Each of these mineral sources and processing areas occur today as historic archeological sites.

Other minerals such as silver are reported to have been

mined in various places in the central Ouachita Mountains and historic mine pits are rumored to have contained silver. Geological records suggest that although

silver may occur, it is in such small quantities it would

not be commercially feasible to mine. For further

information regarding the actual geology and mineral

resources of the Highlands, see Chapter 7, “Mineral

Resources,” in this report.

Civil War

The Civil War from 1861 to 1865 had a major effect

on each of the three Ozark-Ouachita Highlands States.

Not only were thousands of families affected, but each

State experienced significant economic losses. The

hardships of war caused a loss of revenue and the loss

and failure of many family farms and businesses.

Military campaigns were conducted within the Ozark

Plateaus and, to a lesser extent, within the Ouachita

Mountains. Civil War encampments have been identified

within the Mark Twain National Forest at the forest

administrative sites in Rolla and Van Buren. Although

specific sites have not been identified on Forest Service

lands on either the Ozark or Ouachita National Forests,

it is highly likely that they do exist.

Rock Shelter Sites

Each of the three forests contain geological strata

(layers) that have allowed the development of rock

shelters and caves. Such sites may contain archeological deposits rich with information about the people who

lived in the forests, whether they were 19th-century

settlers trying to eke out a living in a poor upland

farming environment or members of a hunting and

gathering culture of 6,000 years ago. Information

contained in these shelters provides research opportunities not readily found in open (unsheltered) sites on ridge

tops or near streams.

Dry shelters in the Ozark Plateaus (the Ozark and

Mark Twain National Forests) often contain perishable

items such as fragments of cords or baskets that are

recovered only in charred form (if at all) from open

sites. Such shelters sometimes yield other perishable

remains such as foods, pollen, or wood that can provide

important information about diet, climate, and the

environment. In the Ouachita Mountains, the bedrock is

not conducive to formation of large, dry shelters, and

therefore such perishables are less often preserved.

Shelters may also display prehistoric rock art that

took two forms: petroglyphs—symbols carved into rock

surfaces—and pictographs—symbols painted on

protected rock surfaces. Rock art is nearly nonexistent

in the Ouachita Mountains but does occur occasionally

in shelters near the Arkansas River. It is more commonly found in shelters in the Ozark Plateaus. Several

shelters within the Assessment area are open for

visitors interested in viewing rock art.

Shelter sites are often the target of souvenir hunters

and others who collect artifacts for personal collections

or for profit. Such digging is damaging or destructive to

the site and the specimens found within it since it is

often done without regard to the context of the specimens (e.g., the association of one specimen with

another, deposits surrounding the specimen, and soils in

the area). Shelters located on public lands within the

study area are better protected than those on private

land, and it is these sites that will be available for future

research and interpretation.

Additional Subjects

Additional heritage subjects that warrant research

and interpretation within the Highlands area include:

• Archaic and Fourche Maline settlement patterns and

utilization of the upland environments,

• Black midden mounds and their distribution within the

Ouachitas,

• Exploitation of chert resources in the Ozark Plateau,

• Historic American Indian sites associated with the

Trail of Tears,

• Historic Choctaw Indian settlement within the

western Ouachita uplands in the early 19th century,

• Comparison of Choctaw late rural domestic farmsteads with those of European-Americans,

• Distribution of Dalton period sites within the upland

areas,

• Investigation of Paleo-Indian use of the upland areas,

• Prehistoric mining, collection and use of quartz

crystals,

21
• Historic mining of quartz crystals, and

• Historic land use and vegetation patterns based on

national forest land acquisition records.

Maximizing Partnerships

In times of ever-shrinking budgets, State and Federal

agencies must make the maximum use of partnerships.

Through partnerships with groups such as the Arkansas

and Missouri Archeological Societies, the Arkansas

Historic Preservation Program, the Arkansas Archeological Survey, and the Oklahoma Anthropological

Society, the Forest Service has been able to undertake a

number of projects that might not have been funded

otherwise.

Through joint efforts, researchers have evaluated

sites near the Shady Lake (Stewart and others 1995)

and Winding Stair Recreation Areas (Davis 1995), in the

Spradley Hollow area (Cande 1995, 1998), and at

Huckleberry Pond (Stewart 1995). They have also

developed a research design for novaculite quarries,

processed artifact collections from the Hicks Site,

completed evaluation testing of a prehistoric site damaged by road building and logging, undertaken research

on late historic rural domestic sites, and prepared

National Register nominations for historic CCC buildings

and structures.

Forest Service personnel, volunteer archeologists,

and historians on all three forests have undertaken many

other projects as well, including similar field and laboratory projects. The national forests thus provide recreational and educational opportunities for the volunteers,

who in turn provide labor, expertise, and enthusiasm.

The Mark Twain National Forest has been actively

engaged in partnerships with various entities in Missouri.

Several Passport-in-Time projects have been completed

with universities and consultants as partners, including

work at the Nova Scotia Ironworks sites and town, open

air, and cave sites. In addition, the forest has prepared

an overview for sites associated with Archaic cultures

and written a thematic nomination for the National

Register for the Big Creek/Central Glade area. Other

examples of partnerships include interpretation of the

Thaxton Barn and Rolla CCC-era Administrative Sites

(with local governments); mitigation work conducted on

the Civil War and prehistoric components at the Van

Buren Administrative site (with the National Park

Service); archeological survey and site evaluations on

national forest lands used for military training (with Fort

Leonard Wood); evaluations of prehistoric archeological

sites and training of paraprofessionals (with the Natural

Resources Conservation Service); and presentations on

Missouri archeology, as well as archeological surveys

and excavation projects (with State agencies such as

the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of Conservation, and the Missouri

Department of Transportation).

Future Mark Twain National Forest partnership

opportunities include a study of prehistoric and historic

use of the glades region in western Missouri that will

focus on differences between the glades and forested

environments along with site patterning. Other opportunities include frontier settlement studies of plantations,

early sawmills, cabins, hunter and trapper structures,

subsistence farms, and commercial activity localities.

In addition, staff from all forests work with the

American Indian tribes whose ancestors in both prehistoric and historic times may have occupied or utilized the

lands within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. These

partnerships include joint heritage resource technician

training, Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act coordination, Archeological Resource

Protection Act coordination, symposium on Choctaw

archeology and ethnology, and the Caddo Archeological

Conference. Tribes with whom partnerships are currently in place include: the Caddo, Choctaw, Muscogee

(Creek), Osage, Cherokee, Kiowa, Chickasaw, Seminole, Comanche, Quapaw, and Delaware.

The Ozark-St. Francis, Ouachita, and Mark Twain

National Forests have excellent opportunities to help

protect prehistoric and historic sites in the Assessment

area. These nonrenewable resources are becoming

increasingly important as population growth, vandalism,

and development take their toll on resources in other

areas of non-Federal lands. The heritage resources on

public lands are becoming the reserve for future research. They can yield a wealth of significant information on the Highlands and the people who have inhabited

them over the centuries.

22
Chapter 2: Social and Demographic Conditions and Trends

Question 2.1: What are the social trends and

changes taking place in the Highlands area that

will affect or be affected by national forest (or

other public land) management?

Question 2.2: What is the social profile (e.g., age,

education, and racial-ethnic characteristics) of

individuals who live in the Assessment area?

The purpose of this chapter is to describe some of the

changes taking place in the human population of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area. Data

presented describe general social trends within the

Assessment area and the three States in which it lies.

These broad trends can be used to help anticipate future

demands on the region’s public lands, especially its national

forests. Equally importantly, these patterns can be used to

better understand the social context in which public land

management takes place. The chapter also presents a

variety of county- and individual-level indicators of socioeconomic stress or hardship that may have more general

implications for Federal policymaking and decisionmaking.

This chapter is divided into two major sections. The

first presents the results of demographic and socioeconomic analyses of the counties within the Assessment

area. The second section provides a more detailed

analysis of various categories of individuals based on their

age, education, and racial characteristics.

The county-level analyses begin with a description of

the major population settlement patterns and trends in the

region, followed by a summary of some key characteristics of the population. A large portion of the county-level

analyses is used to examine the ways Assessment area

residents make a living. The section concludes with a

description of the socioeconomic well-being of the people

of the Assessment area.

The individual-level analyses are used to compare

differences in social and economic status between older

and younger residents of the Assessment area, between

more highly educated and less-educated residents, and

among three racial categories. To ensure confidentiality,

data concerning individuals living in specific counties are

not available. Instead, these analyses are presented for

people living within the larger region.

 Key Findings

 1. The Assessment area has grown rapidly in recent

decades, and continues to do so. Between 1970 and

1996, its population increased 48 percent, while

Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the Nation as a

whole grew by 15, 29, 31, and 31 percent, respectively.

 2. Recent (1990 to 1996) population growth seems to

be most strongly associated with metropolitan status,

presence of national forest lands, and high rates of

in-migration. In-migration of new residents contributed nearly 80 percent of the estimated population

growth in the Assessment area as a whole and 83 to

98 percent of the estimated growth in groups of

nonmetropolitan counties containing lands of one or

more of the Highlands’ national forests.

 3. Retirement-aged adults make up a significant

segment of the population of the Assessment area.

Retirement pensions and Social Security income

provide a slightly larger portion of total income in the

Assessment area than in the three States; these

sources of income are most important in

nonmetropolitan counties with national forest lands.

 4. The racial and ethnic composition of the Assessment

area changed little between 1970 and 1990, remaining predominantly (91 percent) White. One special

census showed that the Hispanic-American population of Washington County, AR, grew 435 percent

between 1990 and 1996.

 5. Overall, educational levels are relatively low in the

Assessment area. In nonmetropolitan counties in

1990, 37 percent of adults 25 years and older had not

completed high school (or its equivalent), and 13

percent of teenagers (ages 16 to 19) were high

school dropouts. In 14 nonmetropolitan Assessment

area counties clustered mainly on the eastern side of

the Highlands, at least 45 percent of the adult

population had less than a high school diploma.

 6. Assessment area workers, especially those living in

nonmetropolitan counties with national forest lands,

face higher unemployment rates than the Nation as

a whole. Workers living in nonmetropolitan counties

with Mark Twain National Forest lands face the

highest incidence of full-time, but seasonal (i.e.,

part-year) work.

23
 7. The overall level of socioeconomic well-being in

the Assessment area is relatively low. Median

household incomes in the area were $19,208 in

1989, compared to $20,360 in Oklahoma, $20,832 in

Missouri, and $30,056 in the Nation.

 8. Thirty-seven counties in the Assessment area

experience “persistent poverty” (47 percent of the

49 nonmetropolitan “national forest counties” and

33 percent of the 42 nonmetropolitan counties with

no national forest lands). Persistent poverty in

nonmetropolitan counties appears most common in

southeastern Missouri (15 counties), north-central

Arkansas (9 counties), and southeastern Oklahoma

(6 counties). The 24 “persistent poverty” counties in

southeastern Missouri and north-central Arkansas

include 12 of the 14 counties in which 45 percent or

more of the adult population have less than a high

school education; 19 of these 24 “persistent poverty” counties include national forest lands.

 9. As of 1990, 16 Assessment area counties were

termed “retirement destinations.” Most of these

counties are in the heart of the Assessment area—

9 of the 16 retirement-destination counties have

national forest lands and 8 include large lakes.

Definitions and Data Sources

For purposes of this analysis (and throughout most of

this report), the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment

area consists of 107 counties in western and northern

Arkansas, southern Missouri, and eastern Oklahoma.

(For a map showing county names, see fig. 1.1.) Among

these counties are several that either partially lie within

or are almost entirely outside the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands. Rather than exclude some of these counties

by applying an arbitrary rule, the Social-Economic Team

elected to include all of them in the study area.

The Assessment area includes most of three national

forests—the Mark Twain, the Ouachita, and the Ozark

portion of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. About

half of the counties in the region contain at least some

national forest land (fig. 2.1). Parts of the Ozark

National Forest are found in 16 counties in Arkansas,

while the Mark Twain National Forest occupies parts of

27 Missouri counties south of the Missouri River. The

Ouachita National Forest covers portions of 12 counties

in Arkansas and 2 in Oklahoma. Two counties (Logan

and Yell, both in Arkansas) include parts of both the

Ozark and Ouachita National Forests. To simplify the

analyses in this chapter, the national forest lands in these

two counties were treated as if they were all within the

Ouachita National Forest. Many of the following

analyses are presented for counties with and without

national forest lands.

The team excluded five additional counties that

contain parts of the Mark Twain (Boone and Callaway

Counties, MO), Ouachita (Ashley County, AR), or

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests (Lee and Phillips

Counties, AR) from these analyses because they lie

outside the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Some comparable information about these outlying counties is

available on the Assessment Web site (<www.fs.fed.us/

oonf/ooha/welcom.htm>).

The Assessment area encompasses five small- to

medium-sized metropolitan areas—FayettevilleSpringdale-Rogers, Fort Smith, and Little Rock-North

Little Rock, AR; and Springfield and Joplin, MO—and

part of one major metropolitan area, St. Louis, MO (fig.

2.2). More than 80 percent of the counties in the region

are nonmetropolitan (not part of a metropolitan area).

Because of the many social and economic differences

between cities and rural areas, this chapter presents

many social patterns and trends for both metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan counties as well as for the study

area as a whole. (See the “Glossary of Terms” for

definitions of “metropolitan county ” and “nonmetropolitan county.” The tabulation presented under “Population Growth, 1970 to 1996” lists the metropolitan

counties in the Assessment area.)

Most of the county-level data in this chapter came

from the U.S. Department of the Commerce’s (USDC)

1990 Census of Population and Housing (USDC BC

1993). Additional county-level data are from the Regional Economic Information System (USDC BEA

1996), USA Counties: 1996 (USDC BC 1996), The

Revised ERS County Typology: an Overview (Cook

and Mizer 1994), and the 1992 National Resources

Inventory (USDA NRCS 1992). Population figures for

1996 are from the County Population Estimates Web

site (USDC BC 1997a). Historical data came from the

Assembled Data Base from the 1970, 1980, and

1990 Censuses of Population and Housing (USDA

FS SR 1996). Information sources for specific items are

listed below.

24
Counties that contain 

national forest land

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Figure 2.1—Assessment area counties containing national forest lands. (National forest acres

per county range from less than 1,000 to more than 360,000 acres.)

25
Figure 2.2—Metropolitan areas in and near the Assessment area (USDC BC 1993).

Springfield

 

Joplin

Tulsa

Jonesboro

Pine

Bluff

Dallas-Ft. Worth

(partial)

 Little RockNorth Little Rock

Kansas City

St. Louis

Memphis

FayettevilleSpringdaleRogers

Fort Smith

Texarkana

Columbia

Arkansas

Missouri

Oklahoma

Nonmetropolitan counties

Metropolitan areas

ShermanDenton

ShreveportBossier City

(partial)

26
Population Distribution and

Land Use Patterns

Population

Almost 4 million people lived in the Assessment area

counties in 1996 (table 2.1). Within the Assessment area,

the population is fairly evenly split between metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan counties (46 percent and 54 percent

of the population, respectively). The distribution of

people living in counties with and without national forest

lands is also fairly even: 43 percent of the population

reside in counties that have national forest lands.

Among the 55 counties containing national forest

lands (6 metropolitan and 49 nonmetropolitan counties),

those with Mark Twain National Forest lands appear to

be the most rural; about 92 percent of the nearly

600,000 people in this part of the Highlands live in

nonmetropolitan counties (fig. 2.3). The population in the

“Ouachita National Forest counties” is also predominantly rural, with nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of the

483,000 residents living outside of a metropolitan area.

Residents of counties containing parts of the Ozark

National Forest are more likely to be in a metropolitan

area as are residents of Assessment area counties with

no national forest lands.

Table 2.1—Estimated Assessment area population, population density, and percent population

growth (1970–1996) plus projected population in 2010 and projected population growth from

1996 to 2010

Estimated Projected

Estimated Estimated population Projected population

population, population growth, population, growth,

Geographic area 1996 density, 1996 1970–96 2010 1996–2010

Persons

per mi2 Percent Percent

Counties with NF 1,605,047 39 — 1,906,808 19

Metropolitan 535,267 127 88 660,641 23

Mark Twain NF 44,871 80 197 60,204 34

Ozark NF 310,014 130 102 377,635 22

Ouachita NF 180,382 143 56 222,802 24

Nonmetropolitan 1,069,780 29 42 1,246,166 16

Mark Twain NF 552,051 30 38 599,627 9

Ozark NF 214,232 29 64 285,492 33

Ouachita NF 303,497 29 37 361,047 19

Counties without NF 2,159,378 62 — 2,480,720 15

Metropolitan 1,185,916 170 46 1,395,722 18

Nonmetropolitan 973,462 35 40 1,084,948 11

Assessment area 3,764,425 50 48 4,387,527 17

States

Arkansas 2,509,793 48 31 2,547,800 2

Missouri 5,358,692 78 15 5,508,989 3

Oklahoma 3,300,902 48 29 3,619,850 10

Mi2 = square mile; NF = national forest; — = not calculated.

Source: USDC BC (1997a), USDA FS SR (1996), IEA (1998), MO OA (1998), OK DC (1998).

27
Throughout the region, the population is relatively

sparsely and unevenly settled. Population densities

(measured by the number of persons per square mile)

tend to be higher on the perimeter of the Assessment

area and along developed transportation corridors.

Naturally, metropolitan counties are much more densely

populated, on average, than nonmetropolitan counties

(table 2.1).

The most sparsely settled counties tend to be

nonmetropolitan with national forest lands, but considerable variation in population density exists even among

these counties (fig. 2.4). For example, nonmetropolitan

Garland County (which includes 108,000 acres (ac) of

the Ouachita National Forest) has more than 100 people

per square mile (mi2

), while nearby Montgomery County

(with more than 300,000 ac of national forest land) has

10 people/mi2

.

Nonmetropolitan counties that include parts of the

Ozark National Forest exhibit less variation in population

settlement patterns. Newton County, AR, in the heart of

the Ozark Mountains, is similar to Montgomery County

in that it has fewer than 10 residents/mi2

. The most

densely populated nonmetropolitan counties with Ozark

National Forest lands (Baxter and Pope Counties) have

56 to 57 persons/mi2

.

Population densities in the 26 nonmetropolitan

counties with Mark Twain National Forest lands range

from a low of 8 persons/mi2

 in isolated Shannon County,

MO, to highs of 76 in Pulaski County, MO (home of Ft.

Leonard Wood), and 109 in St. Francois County (on the

outskirts of the St. Louis metropolitan area and containing less than 1,000 ac of national forest land).

Among the 42 nonmetropolitan counties in the

Assessment area that do not contain national forest

lands, population densities in Arkansas range from 16

persons/mi2

 in Fulton County (a predominantly farming

county on the Missouri border) to 53 persons/mi2

 in

White County (northeast of Little Rock). Population

densities in the Oklahoma counties without national

forest lands range from less than 8 persons/mi2

 in

Pushmataha County to almost 84 persons/mi2

 in

Muskogee County. With the exception of Cole County

(home of Jefferson City, Missouri’s State capital) and its

relatively dense concentration of more than 162 persons/mi2

, all nonmetropolitan study area counties in

Missouri that lack national forest lands have population

densities of less than 50 persons/mi2

.

Figure 2.3—Percent of the population living in a nonmetropolitan

county (USDC BC 1993).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mark Twain NF counties

Ozark NF counties

Ouachita NF counties

Counties without NF

Assessment area

 Percent

28
Figure 2.4—Population densities in the Assessment area, 1996 (USDC BC 1997a).

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

> 100 persons per square 

mile

15 to 100 persons per 

square mile

< 15 persons per square 

mile

Counties that contain 

national forest land

29
Population Growth, 1970 to 1996

The Assessment area grew by more than 1.2 million

people between 1970 and 1996—a 48 percent growth

rate (table 2.1). By comparison, Missouri, Arkansas,

and Oklahoma grew 15, 31, and 29 percent, respectively, and the population of the Nation as a whole grew

31 percent during the same period. The most rapid

growth was during the decade of the 1970’s, especially

in nonmetropolitan counties containing parts of the

Ozark National Forest and metropolitan counties

containing national forest lands (35 percent growth or

more) (fig. 2.5). Eight counties (Benton, Washington,

Faulkner, and Lonoke Counties, AR, and Jasper, Newton, Christian, and Webster, MO) that are metropolitan

today were nonmetropolitan in 1970. Le Flore County,

OK, on the other hand, was listed as part of the Fort

Smith standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) in

1970 but as a nonmetropolitan county in 1990. These

changes are summarized in the tabulation below:

 Metropolitan areas, 1990 SMSA’s, 1970

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers

Benton County, AR

Washington County, AR

Fort Smith Fort Smith

Crawford County, AR Crawford County, AR

Sebastian County, AR Sebastian County, AR

Sequoyah County, OK Sequoyah County, OK

Le Flore County, OK

Joplin

Jasper County, MO

Newton County, MO

Little Rock-North Little Rock Little Rock-North Little Rock

Pulaski County, AR Pulaski County, AR

Saline County, AR Saline County, AR

Faulkner County, AR

Lonoke County, AR

Springfield Springfield

Christian County, MO

Greene County, MO Greene County, MO

Webster County, MO

St. Louis (portion within St. Louis (portion within

Assessment area) Assessment area)

Franklin County, MO Franklin County, MO

Jefferson County, MO Jefferson County, MO

Some of the nonmetropolitan counties that grew most

rapidly from 1970 to 1996 (fig. 2.6) are home to wellestablished tourist attractions. Baxter County, AR

(which includes the recreation and retirement community of Mountain Home), for example, grew by more

than 137 percent during this period. Similarly, Stone and

Taney Counties in Missouri (home to the tourism

community of Branson) grew by 161 and 155 percent,

respectively, during the same period. Although much of

this population growth occurred during the 1970’s, these

counties continue to be among the most rapidly growing

in the three States. Other more rural counties—such as

Lawrence, Jackson, and Searcy Counties, AR, and

Ottawa County, OK—grew during the 1970’s but lost

population during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Pulaski County,

MO, lost population during the past 25 years.

30
Between 1990 and 1996, many metropolitan counties

in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands continued to grow

considerably faster than the States of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (table 2.2) and the Nation as a

whole (all with a population growth of 7 percent or

less). Metropolitan counties containing parts of the

Ozark or Mark Twain National Forest grew 22 and 36

percent, respectively (on average), while metropolitan

counties with Ouachita National Forest lands grew by

10 percent, on average. Population growth rates in

nonmetropolitan counties in the Assessment area also

exceeded State and national rates during the 1990’s, but

less dramatically; for example, nonmetropolitan counties

with Ozark National Forest lands grew 11 percent

between 1990 and 1996.

Based on Bureau of the Census estimates of population growth from 1990 to 1996 in cities of 10,000 or

more people (USDC BC 1997b), it appears that the 12

fastest-growing cities in Arkansas (with estimated

growth ranging from 16 to 56 percent) are all within the

Highlands. In Missouri and Oklahoma, however, the

most rapid population growth is not taking place in the

heart of the Highlands but on the fringes (e.g., greater

St. Louis, Kansas City, Tulsa) or even further away

(Oklahoma City).

Figure 2.5—Population growth in the Assessment area, 1970 to 1996 (USDA FS SR

1996, USDC BC 1997a).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Metropolitan, NF

Metropolitan, non-NF

Nonmetropolitan, Mark Twain NF

Nonmetropolitan, Ozark NF

Nonmetropolitan, Ouachita NF

Nonmetropolitan, non-NF

 Percent

Population growth, 1970–1980

Population growth, 1980–1990

Population growth, 1990–1996

31
Nearly 80 percent of the recent (1990 to 1996)

estimated population growth in the area was due to net

in-migration (more people moving into the area than

moving out) (table 2.2). Natural increase (more births

than deaths) accounted for about 20 percent of the

growth (2.1 percent of the Assessment area total

population growth of 9.4 percent) (fig. 2.7). These

numbers are especially remarkable when compared to

the relative importance of net migration versus natural

increase to the population growth in Missouri and

Oklahoma, where natural increases contributed to well

over half of their recent population growth.

In-migration of new residents during the 1990’s

contributed 98 percent of the growth in nonmetropolitan

counties with Ozark National Forest lands (the population of which grew 11 percent), 95 percent of the

growth in nonmetropolitan counties containing parts of

the Ouachita National Forest (8 percent growth), 93

percent of the growth in nonmetropolitan Assessment

area counties with no national forest lands (8 percent

growth), and 83 percent of the growth in the

nonmetropolitan “Mark Twain counties” (also 8 percent

growth). The contribution of net in-migration to the

population growth was nearly as high (81 and 86

percent, respectively) in metropolitan counties with

Ozark or Mark Twain National Forest lands (which

grew by 22 and 36 percent, respectively).

Thirty-five counties in the Assessment area (15 with

and 20 without national forest lands) lost population due

to natural decrease (number of deaths exceeded

number of births). Most of these counties more than

made up for the losses by drawing migrants from other

counties. For example, Baxter and Marion Counties in

northern Arkansas had more deaths than births, but they

Figure 2.6—Population changes in Assessment area counties, 1970 to 1996 (USDA FS SR

1996, USDC BC 1997a).

Population grew by ≥ 100%

Population grew 15 to 99+%

Population grew < 15% or 

declined

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

32
Table 2.2—Sources of recent (1990–1996) population

growth in the Assessment area

Population Net in- Natural

Geographic area growth migrationa increaseb

 - - - - - - - - - Percentc - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 19 15 4

Mark Twain NF 36 31 5

Ozark NF 22 18 4

Ouachita NF 10 7 3

Nonmetropolitan 9 8 1

Mark Twain NF 8 7 1

Ozark NF 11 11 < 1

Ouachita NF 8 7 1

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 7 4 4

Nonmetropolitan 8 8 1

Assessment area 9 7 2

States

Arkansas 7 4 2

Missouri 5 2 3

Oklahoma 5 2 3

NF = national forest.

a Net gain due to movement of people moving into the region.

b Rate at which births exceed deaths.

c Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: USDC BC (1993, 1997a).

Figure 2.7—Population growth in the Assessment area and three

States due to natural increase and in-migration, 1990 to 1996 (USDC

BC 1993, 1997a).

also experienced high rates of in-migration, resulting in

some of the highest population growth rates in the

region. Since many of the new residents are older

people (with much lower fertility rates and higher death

rates), future population growth in these counties in all

likelihood will continue to depend upon in-migration.

Five counties in the Assessment area experienced

net out-migration (more people left during the 1990’s

than migrated in). Natural population increase (more

births than deaths) took place in two of these counties

(Pulaski, AR, and Pulaski, MO), but only Pulaski

County, AR, experienced enough natural increase to

result in net population growth. Despite a 7 percent

natural increase in population, out-migration from

Pulaski County, MO, resulted in the loss of almost 30

percent of the county’s population. The remaining three

counties (Latimer and Ottawa Counties, OK, and

Jackson County, AR) experienced population losses due

to both out-migration and natural decrease.

Projected Population Change, 1996 to 2010

The population of the Assessment area is projected

to grow by 17 percent (623,000 people) between 1996

and 2010 (table 2.1). This growth rate is much higher

than that projected for any of the three States (10

percent for Oklahoma, 2 or 3 percent for the other two

States). Counties with national forest lands, on average,

are projected to have population increases of 19 percent

during this period, while those counties without national

forest lands, on average, should grow by 15 percent. In

general, metropolitan counties are expected to grow at a

faster rate than nonmetropolitan counties. However,

nonmetropolitan counties that include lands of the Ozark

National Forest are projected to grow by 33 percent

during this period, which is significantly higher than the

average for either metropolitan or nonmetropolitan

counties.

Projections for Baxter, Cleburne, Faulkner, Marion,

and Sharp Counties in Arkansas and Christian County in

Missouri suggest that these counties will have exceptionally high rates of population increase (averaging 3 to

5 percent per year through 2010). Some counties are

projected to decline in population, including Haskell

County in Oklahoma and Cent, Maries, Oregon, Osage,

and Reynolds Counties in Missouri.

7.3

4.2

1.8

2.1

2.3

2.7 2.9

1.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Assessment

area

Arkansas Missouri Okahoma

 Percent growth

Natural increase

In-migration

33
Land Use Patterns

Almost half of the land in the Assessment area

counties is forested. (Approximately 64 percent of the

Highlands proper is forested; see the companion technical report Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment:

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife (USDA FS

1999b).) Privately owned forests (both industrial and

nonindustrial) cover 39 percent of the land, and publicly

owned forests occupy another 10 percent (table 2.3).

Thirteen counties, all nonmetropolitan and all containing

national forest lands, have more than 75 percent forest

cover. Perry and Montgomery Counties, AR, and

Reynolds County, MO, each have more than 80 percent

forest cover. Forest cover generally is higher in

nonmetropolitan counties than metropolitan counties and

is especially high in those nonmetropolitan counties that

include parts of the Ouachita National Forest. Interestingly, nonmetropolitan counties with national forest lands

have a greater percentage of privately owned forested

acres, on average, than nonmetropolitan counties that

lack national forest lands—43 versus 38 percent.

Crops and pastures occupy about 38 percent of the

land in the Assessment area. Farm acreage accounts

for a significantly greater percentage of land use in

Missouri as a whole (57 percent), but Arkansas and

Oklahoma (both at 40 percent) are roughly identical to

the Assessment area. Crops and pastures occupy more

than half of the surface in 27 percent of the Assessment

area counties, including prominent blocks along the

eastern edge of the Highlands (most of these counties

have more land in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain than in

the Highlands) and in southwestern Missouri (fig. 2.8).

These land uses occupy less than one-quarter of the

Table 2.3—Land use in the Assessment area, 1992

Crops Other Other Roads

and Range- Private National public Federal and Urban MiscelGeographic area pastures lands forests forests forests lands Water railroads areas laneous

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 37 0 38 9 1 3 2 2 6 2

Mark Twain NF 47 0 29 14 3 0 0 2 4 1

Ozark NF 45 0 34 7 0 1 3 2 5 2

Ouachita NF 19 2 49 8 1 8 2 2 9 2

Nonmetropolitan 30 1 43 17 2 3 2 1 2 1

Mark Twain NF 36 1 42 12 2 2 1 2 2 1

Ozark NF 27 1 41 19 1 4 3 1 2 1

Ouachita NF 21 0 45 24 0 2 3 1 2 1

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 49 0 30 0 2 1 3 2 8 5

Nonmetropolitan 47 3 38 0 1 2 3 2 2 3

Assessment area 38 1 39 9 1 2 3 2 2 2

States

Arkansas 40 0 41 7 1 2 3 2 2 2

Missouri 57 0 25 3 1 1 2 2 3 5

Oklahoma 40 31 15 1 1 2 3 2 2 4

NF = national forest.

a Some row totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDA NRCS (1992).

34
surface area in 23 percent of the counties, including

large blocks of counties in the Ouachita Mountains and

eastern Missouri Ozarks. Farmlands account for

approximately 25 to 50 percent of the land use in the

remaining counties (nearly half of the total).

Not surprisingly, “farmland” is a significantly larger

land use in nonmetropolitan counties that have no

national forest lands than in those that do: 47 percent of

total acreage in counties with no national forest lands is

in crops and pastures, compared to 36 percent in “Mark

Twain” counties, 27 percent in “Ozark” counties, and 21

percent in “Ouachita” counties (table 2.3). Crops and

pastures make up more than 85 percent of Jackson

County, AR, on the eastern edge of the Assessment

area (and containing very little land in the Highlands). In

sharp contrast, Montgomery County, AR, where the

Ouachita National Forest occupies more than 63

percent of the land, has crops and pastures on less than

9 percent of the land.

Lakes and streams occupy less than 3 percent of the

Assessment area. Water covers more than 5 percent of

the surface in 17 counties, and more than 10 percent in

2 of these—Garland County, AR, and Stone County,

MO.

Urban areas account for about 2 percent of the total

land use in the Assessment area. Five counties, including nonmetropolitan Garland County, have urban areas

that occupy more than 10 percent of their total acreage.

Six counties (Fulton, Howard, Newton, and Perry, AR,

and Dent and St. Clair, MO) have urban areas on less

than 0.1 percent of the total county area.

Figure 2.8—Farmland use as a percent of total acreage, 1990 (USDA NRCS 1992).

25% or less

25.1% to 49.9%

50% or more

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

35
Characteristics of the Population

In this section, data from the 1990 Census of

Population and Housing: Summary Tape File 3C

(USDC BC 1993) show that the population of the

Assessment area was older and less racially or ethnically diverse than the three States and had completed

fewer years of schooling than the average U.S. resident. Data from earlier censuses (USDA FS SR 1996)

show that between 1970 and 1990, the area’s population

aged slightly and became significantly better educated.

The area also became slightly more diverse in its racialethnic composition.

Age

When compared to the three States, the Assessment

area population is slightly older, with more people ages

45 and older and a higher median age (table 2.4). Within

the region, residents in nonmetropolitan counties tend to

be slightly older than residents of metropolitan counties,

regardless of whether or not the counties contain

national forest lands. For example, the median age of

the population living in the seven metropolitan counties

containing national forest lands (33.2) is 3 to 5 years

less than the median ages of residents of nonmetropolitan counties containing national forest land. Metropolitan counties with no national forest lands also have

Table 2.4—Age characteristics of the population in the Assessment area, 1990

Change in

population

Less than Ages 20 Ages 45 Ages 65 Median Dependency age 65+

Geographic area age 20 to 44 to 64 and older age ratioa 1970–90

 - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of populationb - - - - - - - - - - Years Percent

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 29 38 19 13 33.2 0.69 17

Mark Twain NF 31 39 19 11 32.6 0.70 -15-

Ozark NF 29 38 19 14 33.1 0.70 17

Ouachita NF 29 38 20 13 33.6 0.69 22

Nonmetropolitan 28 33 21 17 36.8 0.79 18

Mark Twain NF 29 34 21 16 36.3 0.78 19

Ozark NF 27 33 21 19 38.3 0.80 21

Ouachita NF 28 33 21 18 36.4 0.81 12

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 30 40 18 12 32.5 0.67 15

Nonmetropolitan 28 33 21 17 37.5 0.79 13

Assessment area 29 36 20 15 36.4 0.74 15

States

Arkansas 30 36 19 15 35.7 0.75 20

Missouri 29 38 19 14 36.0 0.70 17

Oklahoma 30 38 19 13 35.5 0.71 15

NF = national forest.

a Derived by dividing the number of people most likely to be dependent (those under age 19 plus those older than age 64) by the number

of people in the working age population (ages 19 through 64); provides estimate of number of dependents per worker.

b Some row totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDC BC (1993), USDA FS SR (1996).

36
younger populations (median age 32.5 years compared

to 37.5 years in nonmetropolitan counties).

The age structure of various groupings of

nonmetropolitan counties in the region varies little.

Children under age 20 make up 28 percent of the

population. Working-aged adults 20 to 44 make up onethird, older working-aged adults 45 to 64 comprise 21

percent, and older residents (age 65 and over) represent

about 17 percent of the population, regardless of the

presence of national forest lands (fig. 2.9 and table 2.4).

Some Assessment area counties have relatively

young or relatively old populations (fig. 2.10). In four

nonmetropolitan counties (Baxter, Sharp, and Izard

Counties, AR, and Hickory County, MO), residents age

65 and older make up more than one-quarter (26 to 29

percent) of the population. At the other extreme,

children under 20 make up at least a third of the population in four other nonmetropolitan counties—Pulaski,

MO (35 percent), Washington, MO (33 percent), Adair,

OK (34 percent), and McCurtain, OK (33 percent).

Another way to measure differences in the age

structure of the Highlands counties is to compare the

number of working-aged adults (people 20 to 64) with

the number of children and older adults. This measure is

known as the “dependency ratio” because it roughly

indicates the likelihood that working-aged adults will be

caring for children or aging parents or both. The

region’s dependency ratio of 0.74 indicates that for

every 100 working-aged adults, there are 74 people

(children and/or older residents) who are not likely to be

in the labor force. Dependency ratios are somewhat

lower in Missouri and Oklahoma. Nonmetropolitan

counties have slightly higher dependency loads.

Between 1970 and 1990, the average age of the

region’s population increased. Adults 65 and older

represented 13 percent of the Assessment area population in 1970 but accounted for 15 percent by 1990. The

growth of the elderly population was similar in Oklahoma

but was greater in Arkansas (20 percent) and Missouri

(17 percent). Within the Assessment area, counties

Figure 2.9—Age structure of the population in the Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Metropolitan, NF Metropolitan, nonNFNonmetropolitan, NF Nonmetropolitan,

non-NF

Percent

Under 20

20 to 44

45 to 64

65 and over

37
Figure 2.10—Assessment area counties with relatively young or relatively old populations,

1990 (USDC BC 1993). (Unshaded counties fit neither category.)

containing national forest lands generally experienced a

larger percentage growth rate of older residents than did

counties without national forest lands (table 2.4). The

major exception was Christian County, MO, the only

metropolitan “Mark Twain county,” which had a 15

percent decline in population. The greatest increases of

older residents occurred in metropolitan counties containing Ouachita National Forest lands (22 percent) and in

nonmetropolitan counties containing parts of the Mark

Twain or Ozark National Forest (19 and 21 percent,

respectively).

Race and Hispanic Origin

This section uses the same categories as those used

by the U.S. Bureau of the Census during the 1990

census (the race categories of White, Black, American

Indian and Alaska Native, and Asian and Pacific

Islander and the ethnicity categories of Hispanic and

non-Hispanic). According to the Bureau of the Census

(USDC BC 1999), “These classifications are not

intended to be scientific in nature, but are designed to

promote consistency in Federal record keeping and data

presentation.” Participants in the U.S. Census are asked

to identify the racial and Hispanic origin categories with

which they identify. Individuals of Hispanic (or Latino)

origin are included in each of the four racial categories.

In 1990, 91 percent of the people living in the

Assessment area were White, representing a much

higher proportion of residents than in Arkansas (82

percent), Missouri (87 percent), Oklahoma (81 percent),

or the Nation as a whole (76 percent). Generally, racial

composition tends to be more homogeneous in counties

containing national forest lands than in the other Assessment area counties (table 2.5).

Adults, 65 and over > 20% of 

population

Adults, under age 20 > 30% of 

population

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

38
Table 2.5—Racial makeup of Assessment area residents and percent Hispanic-American, 1990

 Racial category Change in

White

American Other Hispanic- population

Geographic area White Black Indian Americana Americanb 1979–90c

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of populationd - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 94 2 1 2 1 +2.2

Mark Twain NF 98 0 1 0 1 +1.0

Ozark NF 96 1 1 1 1 +2.3

Ouachita NF 92 4 1 3 1 +2.8

Nonmetropolitan 94 3 2 1 1 -1.1

Mark Twain NF 96 2 0 1 1 -1.3

Ozark NF 96 2 1 0 1 0.0

Ouachita NF 89 6 4 1 1 -1.7

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 88 10 1 1 1 -2.7

Nonmetropolitan 89 3 7 1 1 -3.4

Assessment area 91 5 3 1 1 -2.3

States

Arkansas 82 16 1 1 0 +1.6

Missouri 87 11 0 1 1 -2.0

Oklahoma 81 7 8 2 1 -7.9

NF = national forest.

a Includes Asians and Pacific Islanders and several other racial categories included in the 1990 census data.

b Hispanic-Americans can belong to any of the various racial categories; therefore, some row totals exceed 100.

c Change in percent of total Assessment area population that Whites represent. Changes in other racial or ethnic categories are not

shown because their populations are so small that they change little relative to the Assessment area population.

d Rounded.

Source: USDC BC (1993), USDA FS SR (1996).

Among those counties that do contain national forest

lands, those with Ouachita National Forest lands

appear to have the greatest degree of racial diversity:

together, American Indians and Black Americans make

up 5 percent of the metropolitan population and 10

percent of the nonmetropolitan population in “Ouachita

counties.” However, some of the nonmetropolitan

“Ouachita counties” have very little diversity. The

higher numbers of American Indians and Black

Americans in the Ouachitas as a whole largely reflect

the racial diversity of two southeastern Oklahoma

counties (Le Flore and McCurtain) and three Arkansas

counties (Hot Spring, Howard, and Garland—the first

two of which lie partially in the West Gulf Coastal

Plain and contain less than 1,900 national forest ac)

(fig. 2.11).

Although the population of the Assessment area

grew rapidly between 1970 and 1990, its racial and

ethnic composition changed very little. The White total

declined slightly as a percentage of the population, from

93 percent in 1970 to 91 percent in 1990. Black American totals also declined slightly (5.3 percent in 1970 to

5.2 percent in 1990). Other groups grew from 1.4

percent of the Assessment area population in 1970 to

3.6 percent in 1990. Most of this growth occurred

between 1970 and 1980.

39
Figure 2.11—Racial composition of Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

There is evidence, however, that the ethnic diversity

of the Assessment area increased in the 1990’s. For

example, the Bureau of the Census (USDC BC 1998a)

estimates that the Assessment area Hispanic population

grew 52 percent between 1990 and 1996. Arkansas

apparently has the fastest Hispanic growth rate in the

Nation (an estimated 127 percent between 1990 and

1997) (Green 1998). Finally, a special census of Washington County, AR, in 1996 showed a 435 percent

growth in the Hispanic-American population between

1990 and 1996 (from 1,526 to 8,164 individuals) (USDC

BC 1998b).

Households and Families

In 1990, the 3.8 million residents of the Assessment

area lived in 1.3 million households. As shown on table

2.6, nearly three-fourths of these households consisted

of “families”—defined by the Census Bureau as two or

more persons living in the same household who are

related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption

(USDC BC 1992). The remaining population lived alone

or with nonrelatives.

Women are more likely than men to live alone in the

Assessment area (15 percent of households consist of

women living alone; 9 percent of households consist of

men living alone). There is a possible correlation between the concentration of elderly population in a county

and the percent of households represented by single

women: 3 of the counties with the highest percentages

of women living alone (Cedar, St. Clair, and Barton

Counties, MO) are also among the 10 counties with the

highest percentage of the population over age 64.

On average, families in the Assessment area contain

three members. Average family size varies slightly

across the region, and differences between the

Assessment area and the three States are negligible

(table 2.6). On average, family sizes are lower in the

Whites 90 to 99% of population

American Indians > 10% of 

population

Blacks > 10% of population

Blacks and American Indians 

each > 10% of population

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

40
Table 2.6—Household and family characteristics in the Assessment area

 Household composition Family composition

Married Married Average

Single Single couples with Single couples without family

Geographic area Families males females Other childrena parents childrena Other size

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percentb

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Members

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 74 9 13 4 41 10 44 5 3.05

Mark Twain NF 80 7 11 3 44 9 43 4 3.07

Ozark NF 74 9 13 4 40 9 46 5 3.03

Ouachita NF 74 9 14 3 42 11 42 5 3.07

Nonmetropolitan 74 9 15 2 38 10 47 5 3.00

Mark Twain NF 74 8 15 3 39 10 46 5 3.01

Ozark NF 75 8 14 2 37 9 49 5 2.96

Ouachita NF 74 9 16 2 37 11 46 6 3.02

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 72 9 15 4 40 12 41 6 3.11

Nonmetropolitan 73 9 16 2 38 10 47 5 2.98

Assessment area 73 9 15 3 39 11 45 6 3.06

States

Arkansas 73 9 15 3 38 13 43 6 3.07

Missouri 70 10 16 4 38 12 42 6 3.02

Oklahoma 71 10 16 3 39 13 42 7 3.04

NF = national forest.

a Children under 18 years of age.

b Some row totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDC BC (1993).

nonmetropolitan counties with Ozark National Forest

lands (2.96 members) and in nonmetropolitan counties

without national forest lands (2.98 members). The

largest average family sizes tend to be in metropolitan

counties without national forest lands (3.11 members).

Families with children under age 18 (especially

married couples with children) are somewhat more

prevalent in metropolitan areas of the region. These

metropolitan/nonmetropolitan differences are greatest in

those counties with no national forest lands, although

two of the counties with the highest percentages of

families with children (Pulaski and Washington Counties,

MO, at 63 and 57 percent, respectively) include parts of

the Mark Twain National Forest. Neither of these

counties is a typical “national forest county,” however.

Pulaski County, MO, also contains a large military base,

and Washington County, MO, is an exurb of the St.

Louis metropolitan area. Other nonmetropolitan counties

with relatively large concentrations of families with

children tend to be located on the outskirts of national

forest lands in Oklahoma.

Education and Schooling

Adults living in the Assessment area tend to have

somewhat less formal education than adults in Missouri

or Oklahoma (table 2.7) and the Nation as a whole. As

shown in table 2.7, 13 percent of Assessment area

adults (25 years and older) had received at least a 4-

year college degree as of 1990 compared to 18 percent

of Missouri and Oklahoma adults and 20 percent of all

adults in the Nation (USDC BC 1993).

41
Table 2.7—Educational characteristics of Assessment area adults 25 years and older, 1990 dropout rates, and percent increase

from 1970 to 1990 of adults with college degrees

Increase in

High school Some college/ Bachelor’s or adults with

Less than high diploma or associate’s higher college Dropout college degrees,

Geographic area school diploma GED degree degree ratea 1970–90

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 28 34 24 15 11.1 103

Mark Twain NF 23 40 24 12 9.3 165

Ozark NF 28 33 23 16 11.0 86

Ouachita NF 28 34 25 14 11.5 110

Nonmetropolitan 37 35 18 10 12.9 97

Mark Twain NF 38 36 17 9 12.8 80

Ozark NF 36 34 19 11 12.1 135

Ouachita NF 37 34 19 10 13.7 106

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 26 33 25 17 11.0 100

Nonmetropolitan 35 35 19 11 11.0 88

 Assessment area 32 34 21 13 11.6 94

States

Arkansas 34 33 20 13 11.4 97

Missouri 26 33 23 18 11.4 85

Oklahoma 26 31 26 18 10.5 80

GED = General Educational Development; NF = national forest.

a Percent of all individuals 16 to 19 years of age who were not enrolled in school and were not high school graduates in 1990.

b Some row totals (of first 4 columns) do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Sources: USDC BC (1993), USDA FS SR (1996).

As is typical throughout the United States, adults living

in metropolitan areas within the Assessment area are

more likely to be college educated than adult residents of

nonmetropolitan areas (fig. 2.12 and table 2.7). Seventeen percent of the residents of metropolitan counties

without national forest lands had completed at least a 4-

year college program, followed by 15 percent of residents of metropolitan counties with national forest lands,

11 percent of residents of nonmetropolitan counties with

no national forest land, and 10 percent of residents of

nonmetropolitan counties with national forest lands.

Not surprisingly, counties with the most educated

populations are home to 4-year colleges—Pulaski

County, AR; Cole and Greene Counties, MO; and

Cherokee County, OK, have 21 to 24 percent collegeeducated populations. Pulaski County, AR, and Cole

County, MO, are also home to State capitals. At the

other end of the spectrum, 45 percent or more of the

adults in 14 nonmetropolitan counties have not completed high school (fig. 2.13). Twelve of these counties

lie along the eastern edge of the Assessment area, near

or partially within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (sometimes referred to as the “Delta”).

The geographic pattern of low-education levels

shown in figure 2.13 does not appear to correspond to

the presence of large elderly populations, even though

educational attainments tend to be less in older populations. Nor does the pattern correspond to the presence

or absence of national forest lands in Arkansas or

Oklahoma. The geographic distribution of lower educational levels does seem to overlap with the presence of

national forest lands in Missouri, however.

42
Figure 2.12—Educational achievements of adults (25 years and older) in Assessment

area counties and three States, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

The dropout rates of teenagers (16 to 19 years old)

provide another perspective on the educational achievements of Assessment area residents. Dropout rates

were approximately the same in the Assessment area

as they were in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma,

ranging from 11.6 percent in the Assessment area to

10.5 percent in the State of Oklahoma (table 2.7).

Metropolitan counties as a whole and nonmetropolitan

counties without national forest lands had identical

dropout rates (11 percent). Teenagers in nonmetropolitan counties that contain national forest lands, where

the average dropout rate was nearly 13 percent, were

somewhat more likely to drop out of high school than

those in any other category.

There is little if any correlation between dropout

rates among teenagers and schooling completion rates

of adults. Of the 14 counties where more than 45

percent of the adult population had not completed high

school, only 3 had dropout rates above 5 percent.

Garland County, AR, had a relatively high dropout rate

(over 15 percent) and a relatively high percentage of

college-educated adults (14 percent). One hypothesis is

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Metropolitan, NF

Metropolitan, non-NF

Nonmetropolitan, NF

Nonmetropolitan, non-NF

Arkansas

Missouri

Oklahoma

Percent

Less than high school diploma

HS diploma or GED

Some college or assoc. degree

Bachelor's degree or more

43
Figure 2.13—Counties in which residents have relatively high or relatively low educational achievements, 1990 (third category represents combination of first two; unshaded counties fit none of the

categories) (USDC BC 1993).

that teenagers are more likely to drop out of school in

areas where low-skill employment opportunities abound.

This hypothesis is supported by the relatively high

dropout rates in nonmetropolitan counties near growing

cities in northwestern Arkansas and southwestern

Missouri (fig. 2.13).

The number of adults in the Assessment area with a

college education rose between 1970 and 1990 (table

2.7). Comparing numbers of adults with college degrees

in 1990 versus 1970 shows that percentage increases

were substantial in all types of counties, but tended to be

greatest in metropolitan areas. However, nonmetropolitan “Ozark National Forest counties” had a greater

relative increase in population with college degrees (135

percent) than did the metropolitan “Ozark National

Forest counties” (86 percent).

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

18% or more of teenagers 

(ages 16 to 19) are high 

school dropouts

45% or more of the adult 

population over age 25 did not 

complete high school

High dropout rates and a high 

percentage of adults without a 

high school diploma

14% or more of the adult 

population over age 25 

completed 4 or more years of 

college

44
Predominant Means of Making a Living

The primary means by which individuals make a

living in almost any region is through employment in the

labor force. This section uses data from the 1990

Census of Population and Housing: Summary Tape

File 3C (USDA BC 1993) and the Regional Economic

Information System: 1969 to 1994 (USDC BEA

1996) to examine labor market participation patterns in

Assessment area counties. The authors employ a

variety of measures to describe the extent and type of

labor market participation in 1990, as well as the kinds

of industries and occupations found in the local labor

market. The section then reports on other important

means of making a living within Assessment area

counties, including retirement incomes, governmental

assistance, and land ownership using data from USDA

BC (1993) and USDA NRCS (1992).

When compared to national patterns, these data

display higher unemployment rates, more part-time and/

or seasonal work, and more self-employment among

Assessment area workers. Assessment area employees

were more likely to be employed in farming or manufacturing industries and less likely to be employed in whitecollar occupations. These data also indicate a weaker

reliance on labor markets as a source of aggregate

county income and a stronger reliance on social security

and other retirement incomes. County-by-county

comparisons within the Assessment area reveal clusters

of counties where these differences are even greater.

Extent of Labor Market Participation, 1990

In 1990, the Assessment area had higher unemployment rates than Missouri or Oklahoma (table 2.8) and

the Nation (7.4 percent, 6.5 percent, 6.1 percent, and

Table 2.8—Unemployment rate and extent and type of labor force participation in the Assessment area, 1990

 Extent of work Class of worker

Unem- Private Unpaid

ployment Full-time, Full-time, Part-time, Part-time, wage/ Self- Govern- family

Geographic area rate full year part-year full-year part-year salary employed ment worker

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percenta

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 5.7 60 19 7 13 80 8 12 1

Mark Twain 5.8 60 19 8 13 79 11 10 1

Ozark 5.3 59 20 7 14 79 9 11 1

Ouachita 6.3 63 18 7 12 81 6 12 0

Nonmetropolitan 7.8 54 25 8 14 72 12 14 1

Mark Twain 8.2 53 25 8 14 72 12 15 1

Ozark 7.4 54 24 8 14 73 13 13 1

Ouachita 7.3 55 24 8 13 73 11 14 1

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 6.8 59 19 8 14 79 7 14 0

Nonmetropolitan 7.2 55 24 8 14 70 12 17 1

Assessment area 7.4 57 22 8 14 75 10 14 1

States

Arkansas 7.7 58 22 7 13 75 9 15 1

Missouri 6.5 59 19 9 14 78 8 13 1

Oklahoma 6.1 57 21 8 14 72 9 18 1

NF = national forest.

a Some row totals for extent of work and class of worker do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDC BC (1993).

45
6.3 percent, respectively). By 1994, the unemployment

rate in the Assessment area had dropped to 6.3 percent

(USDC BC 1997a) but was still slightly higher than the

national rate of 6.1 percent (USDC BC 1997d).

Unemployment rates and part-time or seasonal work

rates were higher in nonmetropolitan counties and

highest of all in nonmetropolitan counties with Mark

Twain National Forest lands (where the average was

8.2 percent). Workers in nonmetropolitan “Mark Twain”

counties were also the least likely to be employed in fulltime, year-round jobs (53 percent worked full-time, fullyear, 4 percentage points less than the average for

Assessment area nonmetropolitan counties). Counties

with the highest unemployment rates were most concentrated along the eastern edge of the study area and

in southeastern Oklahoma.

High unemployment combined with large numbers of

seasonal or part-time jobs can indicate a serious lack of

good employment opportunities. In addition to having

some of the highest unemployment rates in the region

(historically 9 percent or more), Washington, Wayne,

and Taney Counties, MO; Van Buren County, AR; and

Haskell and Latimer Counties, OK, also had more than

half of their work force employed in seasonal and/or

part-time jobs, suggesting areas where large numbers of

workers (and potential workers) may be struggling to

make ends meet (darkest shaded counties in fig. 2.14).

Figure 2.14—Unemployment and seasonal employment patterns in Assessment area

counties, 1990 (third category represents the combination of the first two; unshaded counties

fit none of the categories) (USDC BC 1993).

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Missouri Seasonal or part-time 

employment 50% or more

Unemployment 9% or more

Both unemployment and 

seasonal or part-time 

employment high

46
Types of Jobs

There are two usual ways to describe types of jobs in

an area: by industrial sectors and by occupations.

Researchers use industrial sectors to classify commercial establishments, governmental agencies, and other

entities according to the commodities produced or the

services provided. Often, they also use a set of occupational categories to summarize the kinds of activities that

workers do on a regular basis.

The two different indicators of the types of jobs in an

area are somewhat independent. For example, a paper

mill (in the industrial sector called “manufacturing”) may

employ workers in a variety of occupations, including

perhaps a manager, a secretary, an accountant, several

machine operators, and a custodian. At the same time,

many of these occupations may also be found in an

establishment within the retail trade industry. In general,

larger establishments tend to make use of a wider

variety of occupations, while smaller businesses tend to

combine multiple work activities into a single employee’s

job description.

At times, the labels of the industrial sectors and the

occupational categories seem identical when they

actually differ in important ways, which can be confusing. For example, the industrial “service sector” includes

businesses or firms that provide a service (or services),

whereas the occupational category called “services”

refers to workers who actually provide a service,

regardless of what kind of business they work in.

Likewise, the industrial sectors distinguish between

“farming” establishments and establishments involved in

“agricultural services/forestry/fishery.” In contrast, the

occupational category of “outdoor jobs” combines

farming with forestry and fishing occupations.

Industrial Sectors

In this section, the authors examine the distribution of

workers across the following 12 industrial sectors (see

U.S. OMB 1987 for a complete listing of the industries

included in each sector):

• Farming—includes establishments primarily engaged

in the commercial production of crops or livestock

(e.g., farms, orchards, greenhouses, dairies, ranches,

feedlots, and broiler facilities).

• Agricultural services/forestry/fisheries—includes

establishments primarily engaged in providing soil

preparation services, veterinary services, and landscape and horticultural services. The sector also

includes establishments primarily engaged in the

operation of timber tracts, tree farms, forest nurseries, the gathering of forest products, commercial

fishing, fish hatcheries, hunting, trapping, and game

propagation.

• Mining—includes establishments primarily engaged

in the extraction of naturally occurring minerals

(solid, liquid, or gas) as well as establishments

involved in the exploration and development of

mineral properties.

• Construction—includes establishments primarily

engaged in the construction of residential, farm,

industrial, commercial or other buildings, heavy

construction other than buildings (such as highways,

streets, bridges, and sewers), and special trade

contractors (such as masonry, carpentry, roofing,

siding, electrical, plumbing, and heating and airconditioning).

• Manufacturing—includes establishments (usually

referred to as plants, factories, mills, and so forth)

engaged in the mechanical or chemical transformation of materials or substances into new products:

manufacturers of food and kindred products (e.g.,

meat packing plants), textile mill products (e.g.,

cotton fabric mills), apparel and other textile products

(e.g., blue jeans manufacturers), lumber and wood

products (e.g., sawmills), furniture and fixtures, paper

and allied products (e.g., paper mills), printing and

publishing (e.g., newspaper companies), chemicals

and allied products (e.g., fertilizer plants), petroleum

and coal products (e.g., refineries), rubber and

miscellaneous plastic products (e.g., tire factories),

leather and leather products (e.g., shoe factories),

stone, clay, and glass products (e.g., concrete companies), primary metal products (e.g., steel mills),

fabricated metal products (e.g., makers of metal cans

or barrels), industrial machinery and equipment (e.g.,

makers of internal combustion engines), electronic

and other electric equipment (e.g., semiconductor

assembly plants), transportation equipment (e.g.,

automobile makers), and instruments (e.g., manufacturers of surgical and medical instruments).

47
• Transportation and public utilities—includes businesses that provide transportation, communication

services, or electricity, gas, steam, water, or sanitary

services.

• Wholesale trade—includes establishments primarily

engaged in selling merchandise to retailers, industrial

or commercial users, or other wholesalers.

• Retail trade—includes establishments primarily

engaged in selling merchandise for personal or

household consumption.

• Finance/insurance/real estate—includes depository

institutions, credit companies, investment companies,

and insurance and real estate agencies.

• Services—includes hotels and other lodging places,

establishments providing personal services (e.g., dry

cleaners, beauty shops, shoe repair shops), business

services (e.g., advertising agencies, data processing),

repair services (e.g., auto body shops and television

repair), amusement and recreation services (e.g.,

movie theaters and golf courses), health services

(e.g., hospitals and dental laboratories), legal

services, engineering and other professional services, educational institutions, and membership

organizations.

• Federal Government—includes both civilian and

military agencies of the Federal Government.

• State and local government—includes all State and

local governmental agencies and offices.

The Regional Economic Information System, part of

the USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis, annually

provides information about employment in these 12

industrial sectors for all counties in the United States.

These data offer a look at the relative importance of

different types of economic activities in the Assessment

area (table 2.9). Chapter 4 of this report provides

additional information about the economic effects of

Table 2.9—Assessment area employment in 12 industrial sectors, 1994a

Trans- Finance, Federal

Agric. porta- insur- Govt. State

services, tion/ Whole- ance, civilian and

forestry, Con- Manu- public sale Retail real and local

Geographic area Farming fishery Mining struction facturing utilities trade trade estate Services military govt.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percentb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 4 1 1 5 23 6 3 18 5 22 2 10

Mark Twain NF 7 1 0 7 17 3 3 17 5 23 2 13

Ozark NF 5 1 0 5 23 7 3 19 5 19 2 10

Ouachita NF 1 0 2 5 26 5 4 16 5 25 3 8

Nonmetropolitan 10 1 1 6 19 4 2 16 4 20 6 10

Mark Twain NF 10 1 1 5 17 4 2 16 4 20 9 10

Ozark NF 10 2 0 6 21 5 2 15 4 21 3 10

Ouachita NF 8 2 1 7 20 4 2 15 4 21 4 11

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 3 1 0 6 14 6 6 18 7 27 4 10

Nonmetropolitan 11 1 1 5 15 5 3 16 5 19 3 15

Assessment area 7 1 1 5 17 5 4 17 5 23 4 11

States

Arkansas 6 1 1 5 20 6 4 16 5 22 4 11

Missouri 4 1 0 5 15 6 5 17 7 26 4 10

Oklahoma 5 1 5 4 11 5 4 16 6 24 6 13

NF = national forest.

a Industrial sectors used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

b Some row totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDC BEA (1996).

48
employment (using a slightly modified set of industrial

sectors).

In 1994, farming provided 7 percent of total employment in the Assessment area (11 percent in

nonmetropolitan counties, 3 percent in metropolitan

counties). This sector is somewhat larger in the Assessment area than in the three States within which the

Highlands lie, and significantly larger than in the Nation

as a whole (where farming accounts for 2 percent of all

employment). Mining industries and construction provided approximately 1 and 5 percent, respectively, of total

Assessment area employment. There was little consistent variation in the size of the construction sector among

the various groups of counties in the Assessment area.

Despite increasing competition from overseas,

manufacturing continues to be a significant source of

employment (17 percent) in the Assessment area.

Counties containing national forest lands (especially

lands of the Ozark or Ouachita National Forests) rely

more heavily on manufacturing than do those without

national forest lands. Retail sales establishments also

employ large numbers of Assessment area workers (17

percent of the work force in 1994), varying slightly

across the metropolitan/nonmetropolitan categories. The

presence of national forest lands does not appear to be

associated with the size of the retail trade sector.

The services sector is the largest sector in the

Assessment area, employing 23 percent of area workers. Metropolitan counties, especially those without

national forest lands, tend to have the largest services

sectors. National trends show this industrial sector

continuing to grow.

Looking at the representation of industrial sectors

across the Assessment area in more detail, farm

employment accounts for more than 20 percent of all

jobs that earn wages and salaries in 18 of the study area

counties. In Maries and Dade Counties, MO, the farm

sector employs more than 30 percent of the work force.

Construction is typically associated with a growing

economy, and a few counties stand out with relatively

large construction sectors, namely Jefferson County,

MO (10.5 percent), Hot Spring County, AR (10 percent), Le Flore County, OK (14 percent), and Camden

County, MO (10 percent).

Over 45 percent of the workers in Howard County,

AR, at the southern edge of the Highlands, are in

manufacturing. Something of a manufacturing cluster

appears to be developing around Yell, Johnson, and

Logan Counties near the Arkansas River, where 27 to

35 percent of the workers are employed in that sector.

Another potential manufacturing cluster is located in the

southwestern corner of Missouri, where 32 to 38

percent of the workers in Barry and McDonald Counties are employed in manufacturing.

Six counties in the region have more than 20 percent

of their work force in retail sales. Two of these are

metropolitan counties, and the remaining four are widely

recognized retirement and recreation counties: Garland

County, AR (which includes Hot Springs and Hot

Springs Village), and Benton (which includes a large

part of the Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Camden (home

of the Lake of the Ozarks), and Taney (including

Branson) Counties in Missouri. Four retirement and

recreation counties (Garland, AR, and Stone, Taney, and

Camden, MO) have more than 30 percent of their

workers in the service sector.

Occupations

In this section, the authors examine the distribution of

workers across six broad occupational categories that

they selected and named. See USDC BC 1992, Appendix H, for a complete listing of occupations included

under the occupational codes listed below.

• White-collar I (occupational codes 000–242)—this

category includes managers, executives and administrators, engineers, scientists, physicians, pharmacists,

teachers, lawyers, health technicians, science and

engineering technicians, airplane pilots, and computer

programmers.

• White-collar II (occupational codes 243–402)—this

category includes finance, business or commodity

sales representatives, retail sales workers, administrative support, computer equipment operators,

secretaries, information clerks, receptionists and

reservation agents, record processing clerks, bookkeepers, office machine and telephone operators, and

mail clerks.

• Service occupations (occupational codes 403–472)—

this category includes private household workers,

police, firefighters, restaurant staff, nurse’s aides,

janitors, barbers/hairdressers, and child care workers.

• Outdoor occupations (occupational codes 473–

502)—this category includes farm operators and

49
managers, farm laborers, nursery workers, forestry

and logging workers, fishers, hunters, and trappers.

• Blue-collar I (occupational codes 503–702)—this

category includes mechanics and repairers,

brickmasons, carpenters, electricians, plumbers,

precision machinists, and plant operators.

• Blue-collar II (occupational codes 703–902)—this

category includes machine operators and tenders,

welders, assemblers, inspectors, truck drivers,

bulldozer operators, stock handlers, and other general

laborers.

The white-collar I and blue-collar I occupations

typically require greater skills and education than do

white-collar II and blue-collar II occupations. As a rule

of thumb, workers in both categories of white-collar jobs

as well as workers in the blue-collar-I jobs receive

higher wages and benefits and enjoy greater job security

than do workers in service occupations. However,

service occupations are among the fastest growing jobs

in the national economy. The outdoor occupations have

declined significantly over the course of the 20th

century.

The occupations of workers in the Assessment area

differ somewhat from the occupations of workers in

Missouri and Oklahoma (table 2.10). For instance, 34

percent of Assessment area workers are employed in

blue-collar (I or II) occupations compared to 27 percent

of workers in these two States. Assessment area

workers are less likely to be employed in white-collar

occupations (48 percent compared to 56 percent in

Missouri and Oklahoma). Service and outdoor occupations represent approximately the same percentages of

the work forces in the Assessment area and the three

States.

Table 2.10—Percent employment in the Assessment area, 1990, by occupational categorya

White- White- Service Outdoor Blue- BlueGeographic area collar I collar II occupations occupations collar I collar II

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percentb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 24 27 12 3 14 21

Mark Twain NF 20 26 13 5 15 22

Ozark NF 24 26 11 4 13 22

Ouachita NF 25 28 11 1 14 20

Nonmetropolitan 20 21 14 7 14 24

Mark Twain NF 20 21 15 6 13 25

Ozark NF 21 20 14 7 14 25

Ouachita NF 20 22 15 7 14 23

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 26 29 13 2 12 17

Nonmetropolitan 22 23 14 7 13 21

Assessment area 23 25 14 4 13 21

States

Arkansas 23 25 13 5 13 21

Missouri 28 28 14 3 11 16

Oklahoma 28 28 14 4 12 15

NF = national forest.

a See “Occupations” in text for explanations of occupational categories. b Some row totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDC BC (1993).

50
Within the Assessment area, workers in metropolitan

counties are more likely to work in white-collar occupations (fig. 2.15). Service as well as outdoor occupations

are more common in nonmetropolitan counties, regardless of the presence of national forest lands. Blue-collar

workers are most prominent in nonmetropolitan counties

containing national forest lands.

White-collar workers make up 50 percent of the

work force or more in 14 counties (fig. 2.16). These

counties include four metropolitan areas: the retirement

and recreation counties of Garland, AR, and Camden

and Taney, MO; and the government-specialized

counties of Cole, Phelps, and Pulaski, MO, and Cherokee, OK.

Blue-collar workers constitute 45 percent or more of

the work force in 13 nonmetropolitan counties (fig.

2.16); all but 5 of these are in Missouri in the northeastern section of the Assessment area (Bollinger, Carter,

Crawford, Gasconade, Reynolds, Shannon, Washington,

and Wayne Counties, MO). Randolph County in northeastern Arkansas, Newton and Searcy Counties in the

Arkansas Ozarks, and Logan and Yell Counties in the

Arkansas Valley and Ouachita Mountains also have

particularly high numbers of blue-collar workers.

Service workers are most strongly represented in the

retirement and recreation counties of Garland and

Baxter, AR; and Benton and Taney, MO; and in the

counties of Atoka, Latimer, Pittsburg, and Pushmataha,

OK; and Pulaski, MO; which have relatively high

employment in government jobs. Outdoor occupations

make up more than 12 percent of the work force in three

counties in Arkansas (Madison, Montgomery, and Scott)

and in nine counties in Missouri. One Missouri cluster is

located in the northwestern part of the Assessment area,

while the other is located in south-central Missouri.

Figure 2.15—Occupational employment patterns in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties within

the Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

White-collar I White-collar II Service Blue-collar I Blue-collar II Outdoor

occupations

 Percent

Metropolitan, NF

Metropolitan, non-NF

Nonmetropolitan, NF

Nonmetropolitan, non-NF

51
Figure 2.16—Assessment area counties in which the proportion of white-collar or blue-collar

jobs is relatively high, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). (Unshaded counties fit neither category.)

Other Means of Making a Living

The above analyses focused on the labor market as

the major means of making a living. About 70 percent of

the total household income in the Assessment area is

from the labor market in the form of wages and salaries

(table 2.11). Self-employment (farm and nonfarm)

contributes another 7 percent of household income. The

relative contribution of wages and salaries is highest in

metropolitan counties of the Assessment area (72 to 76

percent of total income) Self-employment incomes are

generally somewhat more important in nonmetropolitan

counties than in metropolitan ones.

The remaining 23 percent of household income in the

region does not come directly from current labor market

participation. Interest, dividends, and net rental income

(7 percent), Social Security income (8 percent), and

retirement pensions or disability income (5 percent) are

especially important sources of income among retired

households and contribute a combined 20 percent of the

total income in the region. “Public assistance” income

and “other income” provide the final 3 percent of the

total household income in the Assessment area.

One of the largest differences within the Assessment

area is the relative importance of Social Security and

retirement and disability incomes in nonmetropolitan

versus metropolitan counties (fig. 2.17). When combined, these sources of income contributed 11 and 10

percent, respectively, of total income in “metropolitan,

national forest” and “metropolitan, non-national forest”

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

≥ 50% of workers 

employed in white-collar 

occupations

≥ 45% of workers 

employed in blue-collar 

occupations

52
Table 2.11—Sources of household income in the Assessment area, 1990

 Self-employment Interest, Retirement

Wages and dividends, Social and Public Other

Geographic area salaries Nonfarm Farm and rent Security disability assistance income

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of aggregate household incomea - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 72 6 1 7 7 4 1 1

Mark Twain NF 72 9 2 6 6 4 0 1

Ozark NF 70 6 1 8 7 5 1 1

Ouachita NF 75 6 0 6 7 4 1 1

Nonmetropolitan 64 7 2 8 11 6 1 2

Mark Twain NF 64 7 2 7 10 5 1 2

Ozark NF 62 7 3 8 12 6 1 2

Ouachita NF 64 7 2 8 11 6 1 2

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 76 5 1 6 6 4 1 1

Nonmetropolitan 65 7 2 8 10 5 1 2

Assessment area 70 6 1 7 8 5 1 2

States

Arkansas 70 6 2 7 8 4 1 2

Missouri 74 5 1 8 7 4 1 1

Oklahoma 72 6 1 8 7 5 1 1

NF = national forest.

a Some row totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDC BC (1993).

counties. By comparison, combined Social Security and

retirement incomes contributed 17 percent to the total

income in nonmetropolitan counties with national forest

lands and 15 percent in nonmetropolitan counties

without national forest lands (table 2.11).

Four nonmetropolitan counties in the region—

Hickory County, MO, and Sharp,Van Buren, and Baxter

Counties, AR—rely on current local labor market

activities for less than 60 percent of their total income.

At the other extreme, wages, salaries, and self-employment income contribute more than 80 percent of county

income in 18 counties, of which 7 are nonmetropolitan.

Incomes important to retired households (including

interest, dividends, and rent; Social Security; and

pensions) contribute more than 28 percent of the total

income in 19 nonmetropolitan counties (fig. 2.18).

Additional insights into the predominant means of

making a living in the Assessment area can be gained

by examining land ownership patterns for 1992 (table

2.12 and fig. 2.19). The majority (84 percent) of land in

the Assessment area is privately owned; however, there

are considerable differences among counties. The

greatest concentrations of privately owned land (more

than 90 percent, on average) are in the counties without

national forest lands. Among nonmetropolitan counties

with national forest lands, those in Missouri (with parts

of the Mark Twain National Forest) tend to have the

most privately owned land. Nonmetropolitan counties

53
Figure 2.18—Relative contribution of retirement-related incomes to total incomes in

Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

Figure 2.17—Sources of household income in the Assessment area other than wages and salaries, 1990

(USDC BC 1993).

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Retirement-related incomes 

> 28% of total income

Retirement-related incomes 

17 to 28% of total income

Retirement-related incomes 

< 17% of total income

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nonfarm self-employment

Farm self-employment

Interest, dividends, rent

Social Security

Retirement pensions and disability

Public assistance

Other sources of income

 Percent

Metropolitan, NF

Metropolitan, non-NF

Nonmetropolitan, NF

Nonmetropolitan, non-NF

54
Table 2.12—Land ownership patterns in the Assessment area and States, 1992

State and Federal

Private and local Indian Govern- Water

Geographic area corporate government tribes ment acresa

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of total landb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 85 2 0 11 2

Mark Twain NF 81 4 0 14 0

Ozark NF 88 1 0 8 3

Ouachita NF 80 2 0 16 2

Nonmetropolitan 76 2 0 19 2

Mark Twain NF 81 3 0 14 1

Ozark NF 72 2 0 23 3

Ouachita NF 70 1 0 26 3

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 93 3 0 1 3

Nonmetropolitan 91 3 0 2 3

Assessment area 84 3 0 11 3

States

Arkansas 86 2 0 9 3

Missouri 91 3 0 5 2

Oklahoma 91 3 1 3 3

NF = national forest.

a Water acres are not allocated to specific owners in the 1992 Natural Resources Inventory. b Some row totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDA NRCS (1992).

Figure 2.19—Land ownership patterns in the Assessment area, 1992 (USDA NRCS 1992).

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Missouri 96% or more of the land 

privately owned

75 to 95.9% of the land 

privately owned

< 75% of the land privately 

owned

55
with Ouachita National Forest lands have the least

privately owned land (70 percent). In three counties—

Montgomery and Scott in the heart of the Ouachita

National Forest and Newton County in the heart of the

Ozark National Forest—private citizens and corporations hold less than half of the land. State and local

(municipal and county) governments own a relatively

small and consistent share of the land in the Assessment

area (ranging from 1 to 4 percent, but averaging 3

percent, which is very similar to State and local government ownership in the three States). Tribal governments

own very little land in the Assessment area; almost all

of it is located in Oklahoma counties without national

forest lands. Half of the 42,000 ac owned by tribal

governments is located in Delaware County, OK.

The Federal Government owns the largest share of

land in nonmetropolitan counties containing parts of the

Ouachita and/or Ozark National Forests (26 percent and

23 percent, respectively) and metropolitan counties with

Ouachita National Forest lands (16 percent). The Forest

Service manages about 4.4 million ac in the OzarkOuachita Highlands. Counties with the highest concentration of national forest lands are the nonmetropolitan

counties encompassing the Ouachita National Forest (24

percent of the total acreage in these counties is national

forest land), the Ozark National Forest (19 percent), and

the Mark Twain National Forest (12 percent). In the

Arkansas portion of the Ouachita Mountains, over 60

percent of the land in rural Montgomery and Scott

Counties is in Federal ownership. The Forest Service

manages more than 35 percent of the land in rural

Johnson and Newton Counties in the Arkansas Ozarks

and more than 25 percent of the land in rural Carter and

Iron Counties in the Missouri Ozarks.

Socioeconomic Well-Being

Historically, the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands region

has had a relatively low standard of living when compared to other regions of the country. This section uses

data from USDC BC (1993) to examine a variety of

measures of socioeconomic well-being. Given the above

differences in the characteristics of the Assessment

area’s population and in the means by which residents

earn their livings, it should not be too surprising to find

that incomes in the region tend to be lower and poverty

rates higher than national averages. Housing quality,

which is more difficult to define, also appears to be

somewhat lower than the national average.

Income and Poverty

In general, incomes in the Assessment area are

much lower and poverty rates are higher than those in

the Nation. The median household income in the

Assessment area in 1989 was $10,000 lower ($19,208

compared to $30,056 in the Nation); median family

income was approximately $12,000 lower ($23,008

compared to $35,225 in the Nation); and per capita

income was $5,000 lower ($9,448 compared to $14,420

in the Nation). The poverty rate for individuals was 3

percentage points higher (17 percent compared to 14

percent in the Nation) (USDC BC 1993).

As shown in table 2.13, median household ($19,208)

and family ($23,008) incomes in the Assessment area

also fell short of median incomes in Missouri (household = $20,832; family = $25,286) and Oklahoma

(household = $20,360; family = $24,823). Assessment

area incomes did surpass those in Arkansas (median

household = $18,847; median family = $22,783), however. Personal poverty rates (17 percent in the Assessment area) followed a similar pattern: lower in Missouri

(13 percent), the same in Oklahoma (17 percent), and

higher in Arkansas (19 percent).

Throughout the country, people living in cities generally have higher incomes than do people living in small

towns and rural areas, and fewer city dwellers have

incomes below the poverty level. This common metropolitan-nonmetropolitan gap in incomes and poverty

rates exists within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands area

as well (fig. 2.20). Using median household income in

1990 as a measure, the 14 wealthiest counties in the

Assessment area include 2 that are part of the St. Louis

metropolitan area and 9 (of 16) counties that make up

all or part of the remaining metropolitan areas (fig. 2.21).

Three nonmetropolitan counties in Missouri are also

counted among the richest counties: one is an outer

suburb of St. Louis, the others lie near or contain

Jefferson City, the State capital.

The poorest counties in the region, again using

median household income in 1990, are all nonmetropolitan and tend to be relatively isolated from urban

centers. Six of the poorest counties form a noticeable

56
Table 2.13—Family and household income and poverty rates in the Assessment area

Poverty rateb Change in

Change in personal

Median Median Per capita per capita Female- Related Persons poverty

household family income, income All All headed children 65 and rates

Geographic area income income 1990 1970–90a persons families families under 18 older 1970–90

 - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 24,836 28,721 11,415 57 12 9 28 15 15 -6

Mark Twain NF 25,995 28,855 10,862 54 10 8 28 12 20 -11

Ozark NF 23,573 27,516 11,196 62 13 9 27 16 14 -6

Ouachita NF 26,150 30,461 12,019 52 12 9 30 15 15 -4

Nonmetropolitan 17,994 21,484 8,921 49 20 16 43 26 22 -6

Mark Twain NF 17,857 21,358 8,908 44 21 16 45 26 22 -3

Ozark NF 17,732 21,094 8,774 61 19 15 39 25 21 -11

Ouachita NF 18,534 22,114 9,082 51 21 16 44 27 24 -8

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 24,172 28,655 11,042 48 13 10 31 16 16 -3

Nonmetropolitan 18,637 22,626 9,403 46 19 15 41 24 22 -6

Assessment area 19,208 23,008 9,448 49 17 13 37 21 20 -5

States

Arkansas 18,847 22,783 9,281 54 19 15 41 25 23 -9

Missouri 20,832 25,286 10,081 38 13 10 31 17 15 -1

Oklahoma 20,360 24,823 10,120 40 17 13 38 21 18 -2

NF = national forest.

a To control for inflation, per capita incomes in 1970 and 1990 were adjusted to 1982–1984 constant dollars. b Percent below poverty level; area and State poverty rates calculated using simple aggregrations.

Source: USDC BC (1992), USDA FS SR (1996).

Figure 2.20—Incomes within the Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Median household income Median family income Per capita income

Dollars

Metropolitan, NF

Metropolitan, non-NF

Nonmetropolitan, NF

Nonmetropolitan, non-NF

57
Figure 2.21—Median household incomes in the Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

cluster in southeastern Missouri and adjacent Arkansas

(fig. 2.21). Also among the poorest counties in the

region are one other county in Missouri, three in Oklahoma, and four others in north-central Arkansas.

The highest poverty rates in the region are among

families headed by females, especially those families

living in nonmetropolitan areas (fig. 2.22 and table 2.13).

In 1990, 43 percent of female-headed families living in

nonmetropolitan counties containing national forest lands

had incomes below poverty. More than half of all

female-headed families in 23 nonmetropolitan counties

were living with incomes below the poverty line. In

Cherokee County, OK, 60 percent of families with

female heads were in poverty.

Children (ages 18 and younger) and persons 65 and

older also face significantly higher poverty than the

general population within all types of counties. More

than one-third of all children aged 18 and under lived in

poverty in 14 nonmetropolitan counties. Ripley County,

MO, had the highest child poverty rates (42 percent). At

the other extreme, poverty rates among children were

less than 10 percent in Jefferson, Osage, and Cole

Counties, MO. Several pockets of poverty among

elderly residents exist within the Highlands, including 20

counties in which 28 percent or more of these residents

are in poverty (fig. 2.23). The five counties with the

highest percentage of residents ages 65 and older living

in poverty were Searcy (39 percent) and Newton (34

percent) Counties, AR; Atoka (35 percent) and

McCurtain (35 percent) Counties, OK; and Carter

County (33 percent), MO.

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Median household income 

> $23,000

Median household income 

$16,000 to $23,000

Median household income 

< $16,000

58
Figure 2.22—Poverty rates in Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

Figure 2.23—Poverty rates among older persons in Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC

1993).

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

28% or more of adults 65 and 

older are in poverty

17 to 28% of adults 65 and 

older are in poverty

< 17% of adults 65 and older 

are in poverty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

All persons All families Female-headed

families

Children under

18

People 65 and

older

Percent

Metropolitan, NF

Metropolitan, non-NF

Nonmetropolitan, NF

Nonmetropolitan, non-NF

59
Housing Characteristics

The characteristics of housing in an area can also be

used to compare variations in the quality of life. If

housing quality can be defined in terms of higher dollar

values, more recent construction, and higher owner

tenancy, then Assessment area housing units compare

favorably with housing in the larger three-State area

(table 2.14). National comparisons are less favorable.

Average housing values were $39,943 in the Assessment area, $39,252 in Arkansas, $38,888 in Missouri,

$36,617 in Oklahoma and $78,500 in the Nation. The

average housing unit in the Assessment area and

Arkansas was constructed in 1970, compared to 1966 in

Oklahoma and 1965 in Missouri and the Nation. Similarly, owner-occupancy was 64 percent in the Assessment area, 62 percent in Arkansas, 61 percent in

Missouri, and 58 percent in Oklahoma and the Nation.

On the other hand, if housing quality can be defined as

having “modern conveniences” (e.g., having complete

plumbing facilities and a telephone), then Assessment

area housing does not appear to stack up as well. Four

percent of Assessment area housing units did not have

complete plumbing facilities, and 11 percent were without

a telephone. By comparison, housing units in Missouri,

Oklahoma, and the Nation were more likely to have such

equipment. Arkansas had a percentage of housing units

without a phone that was similar to that in the Assessment area, but units were more likely to have plumbing.

Within the Assessment area, the metropolitannonmetropolitan housing differences follow a familiar

pattern, with almost all measures of housing quality

indicating more favorable housing conditions in the

metropolitan counties. Housing differences correlated

with the presence of a national forest tend to be much

smaller than differences based on metropolitan status.

Within the metropolitan category, however, “national

forest counties” do tend to have somewhat higher

priced homes than metropolitan counties without

national forest lands.

Table 2.14—Housing characteristics in the Assessment area, 1990a

Average Average Incomplete

housing year of Owner- Renter- plumbing No

Geographic area value construction occupied- occupied Vacant facilities telephone

Dollars Year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counties with NF

Metropolitan 54,017 1973 67 25 8 1 9

Mark Twain NF 58,600 1977 74 19 7 1 6

Ozark NF 52,700 1974 64 27 9 2 10

Ouachita NF 53,700 1971 67 25 8 1 9

Nonmetropolitan 37,476 1970 65 20 15 5 12

Mark Twain NF 37,354 1970 63 21 16 4 11

Ozark NF 39,509 1972 67 18 15 6 11

Ouachita NF 35,875 1971 66 20 14 3 13

Counties without NF

Metropolitan 50,960 1971 66 25 9 2 9

Nonmetropolitan 38,188 1969 62 20 18 4 11

Assessment area 39,943 1970 64 21 15 4 11

States

Arkansas 39,252 1970 62 27 11 2 11

Missouri 38,888 1965 61 28 11 1 5

Oklahoma 36,617 1966 58 27 14 1 9

NF = national forest.

a All area values are averages of county values.

Source: USDC BC (1993).

60
In nonmetropolitan counties, the presence of national

forest lands is not correlated with better housing (table

2.14). However, average nonmetropolitan housing

values are highest in counties with land in the Ozark

National Forest ($39,509) and lowest in counties with

land in the Ouachita National Forest ($35,875).

Nonmetropolitan counties without national forest lands

tend to have the oldest housing units and the highest

vacancy rates. And despite the relatively expensive

housing in the nonmetropolitan “Ozark National Forest

counties,” this is the category of counties most likely to

have homes without complete plumbing facilities.

Ten of the 19 counties with the most expensive

housing are located in metropolitan areas (fig. 2.24). Of

the nine remaining counties with average housing values

over $50,000, six have been described as retirementdestination counties by the Economic Research Service

(see “Policy-Sensitive Counties” below); another is

home to Ft. Leonard Wood, the region’s largest military

base; another is home to Jefferson City, Missouri’s

State capital; and the remaining one is on the outer

edge of St. Louis, the largest metropolitan area in the

region.

The distribution of counties with significantly low

housing values (less than $30,000) is very similar to the

distribution of counties with high rates of poverty.

Counties with the lowest housing values tend to cluster

in three relatively isolated, nonmetropolitan counties in

southeastern Oklahoma (Latimer, McCurtain, and

Pushmataha) and five relatively isolated nonmetropolitan

counties in southeastern Missouri (Bollinger, Oregon,

Ripley, Shannon, and Wayne).

Figure 2.24—Median housing values in Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993).

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Missouri Median housing value 

> $50,000

Median housing value 

$30,001 to $50,000

Median housing value 

≤ $30,000

61
Changes in Socioeconomic Well-Being

Most of the indicators of socioeconomic well-being

presented above imply that standards of living are lower

in the Assessment area than in Missouri and Oklahoma.

Changes in several of these indicators, however, suggest

that conditions in the Highlands are improving at a faster

pace than in the two States (USDA FS SR 1996). For

example, per capita incomes in the Assessment area

region grew by 49 percent, adjusted for inflation,

between 1970 and 1990 (table 2.13). By comparison,

incomes in Arkansas grew by 54 percent, in Missouri by

38 percent, and in Oklahoma by 40 percent.

The same general pattern exists for changes in

poverty rates. Using percentage point declines to

measure improvement in poverty rates, Arkansas

showed the most progress, dropping from a poverty rate

of 28 percent in 1970 to 19 percent 20 years later.

Personal poverty rates declined by 5 percentage points

in the Assessment area, from a county-level average of

22 percent in 1970 to 17 percent in 1990. Missouri had

the smallest percentage decline in poverty, with a

decrease of slightly less than 2 percentage points over

the course of the two decades.

Within the region, incomes grew fastest between

1970 and 1990 in counties containing parts of the Ozark

National Forest, where both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan per capita incomes grew by more than 60

percent. Personal poverty rates declined the most (11

percentage points) in nonmetropolitan counties with

Ozark National Forest lands and metropolitan counties

with Mark Twain National Forest lands.

A map of the percent change in per capita incomes

in Assessment area counties (fig. 2.25) shows the most

rapid improvements occurring in a band of metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan counties (with and without national

forest lands) through the heart of Arkansas’ Ozark

Mountains. The slowest rates of growth in income tend

to be clustered on the outer edges of metropolitan areas

in Missouri.

Figure 2.25—Per capita income growth in Assessment area counties (USDA FS SR 1996).

Per capita income grew by 

more than 65%

Per capita income grew by 34% 

to 64.9%

Per capita income grew by less 

than 34%

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

62
Reductions in county-level personal poverty rates

follow a similar pattern (fig. 2.26). The majority of

counties with the most dramatic reductions in poverty

occurred in nonmetropolitan areas in the Ozark Mountains. For example, personal poverty declined in Stone

and Cleburne Counties, AR, by more than 20 percentage points between 1970 and 1990. At the other extreme, most of the counties where poverty rates fell by

less than 2 percentage points are on the outer edges of

cities in Missouri.

Policy-Sensitive Counties

The Economic Research Service (Cook and Mizer

1994) uses “policy-sensitive” designations to classify

Figure 2.26—Reductions in poverty rates in Assessment area counties, 1970 to 1990 (USDA

FS SR 1996).

Poverty rate declined by 

more than 12 percentage 

points

Poverty rate declined by 2 to 

12 percentage points

Poverty rate declined by less 

than 2 percentage points

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

socioeconomic conditions in counties. This system

identifies nonmetropolitan counties that may be particularly sensitive to policies and decisions made external to

the county, e.g., by Congress, by State or Federal

agencies, or by neighboring communities. Based on an

extended analysis of all nonmetropolitan counties in the

United States, social scientists at the Economic Research

Service specified five types of policy-sensitive counties:

• Persistent poverty—counties in which persons with

poverty-level incomes in the preceding year were 20

percent or more of the population in 1960, 1970,

1980, and 1990.

• Retirement-destination—counties in which the

population aged 60 years and over in 1990 increased

by 15 percent or more from 1980 to 1990 through the

in-migration of people.

63
• Transfers-dependent—counties in which the income

from transfers payments (Federal, State, and local)

contributed a weighted annual average of 25 percent

or more to total personal income over the 3 years

from 1987 through 1989; transfer payments consist

of income from (1) retirement and disability programs, (2) medical programs, (3) income maintenance programs, (4) unemployment insurance,

(5) veteran’s programs administered by the U.S.

Department of Veteran’s Affairs, and (6) education

and training programs.

• Federal lands—counties in which Federal lands made

up 30 percent or more of the area in 1987.

• Commuting—counties in which 40 percent or more

of the workers aged 16 and older commuted to jobs

outside their county of residence in 1990.

Using this classification scheme, three-fourths of the

91 nonmetropolitan counties in the Assessment area are

rated as “policy-sensitive.” Nonmetropolitan counties

with national forest lands are more likely to be vulnerable to outside policy decisions: 82 percent (40 of 49) of

the nonmetropolitan counties with national forest lands

are sensitive to at least 1 type of policy, compared with

67 percent (28 of 42) of the nonmetropolitan counties

without national forest lands (table 2.15).

Twenty-three (47 percent) of the nonmetropolitan

“national forest counties” and 14 (33 percent) of the

nonmetropolitan “non-national forest” counties experienced significantly high poverty rates in 1960, 1970,

1980, and 1990 (fig. 2.27). The “persistent poverty”

designation is most common among counties containing

land in the Mark Twain National Forest (15 counties).

Other prominent clusters appear in north-central Arkansas (nine counties) and southeastern Oklahoma (six

counties). Changes in welfare policy might be expected

to have strong effects on residents and communities in

these counties. Since many of the counties designated

as persistent poverty counties had high rates of unemployment, relatively low levels of full- time and full-year

work, relatively higher rates of self-employment, and a

less-educated work force, residents of these areas could

be extremely vulnerable to any job losses.

Regardless of the presence or absence of national

forest land, almost half of the counties in the Assessment

area relied on transfer payments for 25 percent or more

of residents’ total personal income from 1987 through

1989. The Economic Research Service’s definition of

transfer payments includes a wide range of income

sources, from retirement incomes and veteran and health

benefits to unemployment insurance and educational and

training grants. Although transfer payments include

Table 2.15—Policy-sensitive nonmetropolitan counties in the Assessment area

Counties with Counties without

Policy typea NF lands NF lands

Number Percentb Number Percentb

Policy-sensitive 40 82 28 67

Persistent poverty 23 47 14 33

Retirement-destination 9 18 7 17

Transfers-dependent 25 51 20 48

Federal lands 9 18 0 0

Commuting 7 14 7 17

Not policy-sensitive 9 18 14 33

NF = national forest.

a Defined and assigned by the USDA Economic Research Service; see text (“Policy-Sensitive

Counties”) for explanations. b Designations are not mutually exclusive; therefore, total percentages of counties assigned to one or

more of the five policy types exceed 100 percent in some cases.

Source: USDA ERS (1997).

64
money from State and local governments, Federal

programs provide the majority of the income. Decisions

to balance the Federal budget, overhaul the Social

Security system, and/or reform health care could be

expected to have a significant effect on a large number

of residents of the Assessment area.

Not surprisingly, all of the nonmetropolitan counties in

the study area that are sensitive to decisions made about

Federal lands contain national forest lands. Eight

“Federal lands” counties are concentrated in Arkansas

and include lands of the Ozark or Ouachita National

Forests (Franklin, Johnson, Montgomery, Newton, Pope,

Polk, Scott, and Yell). The ninth county especially

sensitive to Federal lands policies is Carter County, MO,

which includes part of the Mark Twain National Forest.

These are the counties where decisions by the Forest

Service or Congress (affecting national forest manageFigure 2.27—Persistent poverty counties in the Assessment area, 1960 to 1990 (Cook and

Mizer 1994).

ment) could be expected to have the most direct and

immediate effects.

Finally, the Economic Research Service identifies 16

retirement-destination counties in the Assessment area

(fig. 2.28). In general, these retirement-destination

counties appear to be located in areas with considerable

scenic beauty; nine of the counties contain national

forest lands and eight contain relatively large bodies of

water. These retirement-destination counties have fared

rather well over the past two decades in terms of both

population and income growth. At the same time,

residents in these counties could be vulnerable to large

fluctuations in interest rates and/or the stock market and

to significant changes in the Social Security system.

This vulnerability could extend not only to “retirees” but

also to employees in the large retail trade and service

sectors in these counties.

Persistent poverty counties

Counties that contain national 

forest lands

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

65
Environmental Justice

Presidential Executive Order No. 12898 (issued February 11, 1994) requires Federal agencies to respond to

the issue of environmental justice by “identify(ing) and

address(ing) disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies,

and activities on minority and low income populations.”

While the Assessment Team did not attempt to determine whether any particular communities were disproportionately affected by Federal actions, this chapter

does provide information, based on the 1990 census,

about locations (at the county level) of low income and

minority populations that can be used in future analyses

of environmental justice. Figure 2.23 identifies the 14

poorest counties of the Assessment area (those with

average annual income less than $16,000), and figure

2.27 identifies 38 counties that have been designated as

“persistent poverty” counties by the Economic Research Service. Below the county level, there likely are

individual communities and neighborhoods with much

higher concentrations of poor and minority populations.

Individual-Level Analyses

The following individual-level analyses differ significantly from the preceding analyses of counties and

county types. First, the individual-level analyses are

based on data from the Public Use Microdata Sample-L

(PUMS-L) from Tolbert and others (1995). Compared

to the county-level data from USDC BC (1993), these

PUMS-L data provide more detail about the social and

economic characteristics of people; however, they

provide significantly less detail about where people live.

Figure 2.28—Retirement-destination counties in the Assessment area (Cook and Mizer 1994).

Retirement-destination 

counties

Counties that contain national 

forest lands

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

66
This compromise between the individual-level and the

county-level data is necessary in order to protect the

confidentiality of everyone who responds to the decennial censuses. The Census Bureau will release some

social and economic information about a random sample

of individuals living within an area that has a minimum

population of 100,000 residents. Since the sample data

include only a small fraction of the population, the

chance that a public-use microdata file contains the

record of a given individual is very small.

Second, because it includes the St. Louis and Kansas

City labor market areas, the geographic area covered in

the individual-level analyses is slightly larger than the

Assessment area. The sample population in the PUMSL analysis area is slightly younger, more highly educated, and more heterogeneous in its racial-ethnic

composition than the population in the Assessment area

(table 2.16). Although these differences are not great,

they should be taken into account when comparing

numbers from the different analysis areas (i.e., the

PUMS-L analysis area vs. the county-based Assessment area).

Third, and most importantly, these two data sources

answer different types of questions. For example, in

earlier sections, county-level data answered questions

such as “Which counties (or county types) have the

highest concentration of older adults?” and “Which

counties (or county types) have the lowest median

household incomes?” (Tables 2.4 and 2.13, for instance,

show that nonmetropolitan counties with Ozark National

Forest lands tend to have both the oldest populations and

the poorest households.) However, these county-level

data cannot answer questions such as “Do older adults

have the lowest household incomes?” or “What kinds of

jobs do adults with college degrees hold?” The individual-level data from the PUMS-L can be used to

answer these types of questions for the residents in the

entire PUMS-L analysis area.

This section summarizes the social and demographic

characteristics of residents in the PUMS-L analysis

area for three age groups (called “cohorts”), four

educational categories, and three racial categories. That

is, the sample population of the PUMS-L analysis area

was first grouped according to age: (1) younger “working-aged” adults (ages 20 to 44), (2) older “workingaged” adults (45 to 64 years old), and (3) “retirementaged” adults (65 years old or older). These three

cohorts were then compared in terms of their demographic characteristics, primary means of making a

living, and general levels of socioeconomic well-being.

Next, adults ages 25 and older in the PUMS-L sample

were grouped according to educational attainments:

(1) adults who had not completed high school, (2) adults

who had a high school or General Educational Development (GED) certificate but no further education,

(3) adults who had some college or post-high school

technical training, and (4) adults who had at least a 4-

year college degree. Again, the authors compared the

demographic characteristics, primary means of making

a living, and general levels of socioeconomic well-being

of people with different educational attainments. The

last set of individual-level analyses in this section

examines social and demographic differences based on

three racial categories: (1) White, (2) Black, and

(3) American Indian. Except for table 2.16, which

compares the population characteristics of the Assessment area and the PUMS-L area in 1990, the authors

Table 2.16—Demographic comparisons of the Assessment

area and PUMS-L analysis area

Assessment PUMS-L

Demographic category area analysis area

 - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - -

Age group

20 to 44 years old 36 38

45 to 64 years old 20 19

65 and older 15 14

Schooling completion rates

of adults 25 and older

Did not complete high school 32 24

Have a high school diploma

or GED 34 33

Have completed some college 21 24

Have a 4-year college degree 13 19

Racial or ethnic category

White 91 85

Black 5 11

American Indian 3 2

Hispanic-American 1 2

GED = General Educational Development.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

67
Table 2.18—Living arrangements among three age groups

in the PUMS-L analysis area

Ages 20 Ages 45 Ages 65

Living arrangement to 44 to 64 and older

 - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - -

Household type

Married couple 61 69 45

Single adult living with

children or other relatives 16 10 8

Single adult living with

nonrelatives 5 2 1

Single adult 17 19 46

Dwelling type

Detached houses 68 82 76

Multi-unit housing 22 9 17

Mobile homes 9 7 6

Other types of dwellings 1 1 1

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

did not include data on individuals of Hispanic origin (an

ethnic, not a racial category) because they believed that

the substantial in-migration of Hispanic individuals since

1990 might make meaningless an analysis based on the

earlier data.

Characteristics of Working- and RetirementAged Residents

Population Characteristics

Although residents in the White category dominated

the racial composition of all three cohorts, younger

cohorts in the PUMS-L analysis area tend to be more

diversified: while 85 percent of residents ages 20 to 44

were White, 89 percent of residents ages 45 to 64 and

90 percent of those 65 or older were White (table 2.17).

The two older cohorts consisted primarily of longer term

residents in their home States (80 and 85 percent of the

respective totals), with the older cohort slightly more

likely to have lived in the same State in 1985 and 1990.

Members of the younger, working-aged cohort were

much more likely to be recent in-migrants.

Educational attainment also varied with age. In 1990,

the oldest cohort had completed substantially less formal

schooling than their working-aged neighbors did. Half of

Assessment area residents 65 and older did not complete high school compared to 25 percent of those 45 to

64 and 12 percent of those 20 to 44.

Living Arrangements

Assessment area residents 65 and older were more

than twice as likely to live alone as those in the two

working-aged cohorts (46 percent versus 17 and 19

percent) (table 2.18). At the same time, members of

both the oldest and the youngest cohorts were more

likely to be living in multi-unit housing (duplexes or

apartments) than were members of the 45-to-64 cohort.

Means of Making a Living

Dependence on current labor market conditions tends

to decline with age. Almost 90 percent of the retirement-aged cohort was not in the labor force during the

census week in 1990. Comparable percentages for the

two working-aged cohorts were as follows: 33 percent

Table 2.17—Population characteristics of three age groups

in the PUMS-L analysis area

Ages Ages Ages

20 to 45 to 65 and

Characteristic 44 64 older

 - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - -

Racial category

White 85 89 90

Black 11 9 8

American Indian 2 2 2

Migration status

Lived in same State in 1985 58 80 85

Lived in different State in 1985 42 20 15

Schooling completion rates of

adults 25 and older

Did not complete high school 12 25 51

Have high school diploma or

GED 34 36 26

Have completed some college 31 22 14

Have a 4-year college degree 24 17 9

GED = General Educational Development.

a Sums of some subcolumns do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

68
of residents aged 45 to 64 and 18 percent of residents

between 20 and 44 were not in the labor force (table

2.19). Incidentally, 27 percent of the retirement-aged

residents who were active in the labor market in 1990

worked full time throughout the year. An average of 17

percent of the incomes of those 65 and older came from

labor market earnings (wages, salaries, or self-employment incomes). Their neighbors aged 45 to 64 derived

an average 83 percent of their income from such

earnings, and those aged 20 to 44 relied on earnings

from employment for 95 percent of their total income.

The industrial sectors used in table 2.19 (and two

other tables in this section) are similar but not identical

to those used in the county-level analyses. Occupational

types used here are identical to those in the countylevel analyses except that military occupations were

added. Most differences in employment by sector were

not striking. However, less than 4 percent of the

younger workers were employed in extractive industries

(e.g., logging, mining, farming) compared to 11 percent

of the oldest workers. Younger workers were somewhat more likely to be employed in manufacturing

industries and in blue-collar I occupations than those in

the other cohorts.

Socioeconomic Well-Being

Table 2.20 indicates that the median household

income of older residents ($12,000) is considerably

lower than that of the other two groups (at $25,000 and

$26,238). Poverty rates in households with a retirementaged head (21 percent) are almost double those of

households with a middle-aged head (11 percent).

Income and poverty differences between the two

working-aged cohorts are small by comparison.

When compared to their working-aged neighbors,

older heads of households are much more likely to own

their own homes free and clear of any mortgage or

other loans (65 percent compared to 35 percent among

household heads aged 45 to 64 and 8 percent among the

younger heads of households). Most households in the

youngest cohort either hold a mortgage for or rent their

home (49 percent and 40 percent, respectively).

Table 2.19—Means of making a living among three age

groups in the PUMS-L analysis area, 1990

Ages Ages Ages

20 to 45 to 65 and

Characteristic 44 64 older

 - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - -

Labor force participation

In the labor force 82 67 11

Not in the labor force 18 33 89

Unemployment rate (percent) 6.0 4.0 5.6

Sources of personal income

Earnings 95 83 17

Retirement-related income 3 15 79

Other sources 2 2 4

Extent of labor force participation

Full time-full year 64 67 27

Full time-part year 20 17 26

Part time-full year 7 8 21

Part time-part year 10 8 27

Industrial sectorb

Extractive industries 2 4 11

Construction 6 6 5

Nondurable manufacturing 9 8 5

Durable manufacturing 12 11 6

Transportation, communications,

and public utilities 7 8 5

Wholesale trade 3 4 2

Retail trade 17 14 16

Finance, insurance, real estate,

and misc. business services 8 8 10

Personal and recreational services 7 7 10

Education and job training services 14 15 12

Professional services (except

education) 7 7 9

Public administration 3 4 5

Active duty military 5 5 3

Occupational type (working adults)

White-collar I occupations 28 29 22

White-collar II occupations 27 27 31

Service occupations 13 12 15

Outdoor occupations 2 4 11

Blue-collar I occupations 11 13 8

Blue-collar II occupations 18 16 13

Military occupations < 1 < 1 < 1

a Some subcolumn totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

b Categories derived from PUMS-L industry codes. (Sectors are similar

but not identical to those used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis

that appeared earlier in this chapter in the “Types of Jobs” section.)

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

69
Characteristics of More Highly and

Less-Educated Residents

Population Characteristics

Almost half (46 percent) of the adult population with

less than a high school diploma are 65 years old or older

(table 2.21). According to the PUMS-L data, 91 percent

of the adults having completed a 4-year college degree

(or more) were White, about the same as the proportional representation of Whites in the population of the

area. American Indians and Blacks made up 1 percent

and 6 percent, respectively, of adults having completed a

baccalaureate degree (or more), which was 1 to 5

percentage points less than their proportional representation in the PUMS-L area population. Educational

attainment levels appear to correspond to migration

status: in 1990, 38 percent of the more highly educated

adult residents were fairly recent in-migrants, compared

to 27 percent of adults with a high school education only.

Living Arrangements

The most highly educated heads of households were

slightly more likely to be part of a married couple

household (69 percent) than were heads with less

education (52 and 61 percent) (table 2.22). The best

educated heads of households were also less likely to be

single adults living with children or other relatives (7

percent compared to 13 and 14 percent). Less-educated

heads of households were considerably more likely to

live in a mobile home or trailer: 10 percent of households

headed by a high school graduate lived in a mobile home

or trailer, compared to 2 percent of those headed by an

individual with a 4-year college degree.

Means of Making a Living

Less-educated residents of the Assessment area

have lower participation rates in the labor force: 66

percent of high school-educated adults were active in

the labor force during the 1990 census week compared

to 81 percent of adults with a 4-year college education

(table 2.23). Unemployment rates drop significantly with

higher levels of education—from about 6 percent among

the high school/GED adults to 2 percent among adults

with the most education. The three groups with a high

school education or more show minor differences in

their reliance on earnings for their total personal income:

the range is from 80 percent to 86 percent.

Compared to working adults with a 4-year college

degree, working residents with a high school education

were twice as likely to be employed in a manufacturing

industry (24 percent compared to 12 percent); twice as

likely to be employed in retail trade (17 percent compared to 8 percent); and less than half as likely to be

employed in the education and job-training services

industry (10 percent compared to 28 percent) or in other

professional services (e.g., health care or legal services)

(5 percent compared to 13 percent).

Table 2.20—Socioeconomic well-being among three age groups in the PUMS-L analysis area

Indicator of well-being Ages 20 to 44 Ages 45 to 64 Ages 65 and older

Median household income $25,000 $26,238 $12,000

Household poverty rate (percent) 14.0 10.8 21.3

Housing tenure (percent)

Owned outright 8 35 65

Owned with a mortgage or

other loan 49 47 13

Rented for cash 40 16 19

Under another form of tenure 3 2 2

Average housing value $66,835 $74,958 $53,218

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

70
Table 2.21—Characteristics of people in the PUMS-L analysis area grouped according

to four levels of educational achievement

 Schooling completed

Less than High Baccalaureate

high school Some degree or

Characteristic school or GED college more

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Age

25–44 24 50 61 62

45–64 31 33 27 27

65 or older 46 17 13 11

Race

White 84 88 88 91

Black 13 9 9 6

American Indian 2 2 2 1

Migration status

Lived in the same

State in 1985 78 73 66 62

Lived in a different

State in 1985 22 27 34 38

GED = General Educational Development.

a Some subcolumn totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

Table 2.22—Living arrangements of groups of people who have completed various levels of

schooling (PUMS-L analysis area)

 Schooling completed

Less than High Baccalaureate

high school Some degree or

Characteristic school or GED college more

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Household type

Married couple 52 61 61 69

Single adult living with

children or other relatives 13 13 14 7

Single adult living with

nonrelatives 1 3 4 3

Single adult 33 22 21 21

Dwelling type

Detached house 74 75 76 80

Multi-unit housing 14 14 17 17

Mobile home 11 10 6 2

Other type of dwelling 1 1 1 1

GED = General Educational Development.

a Some subcolumn totals for household type do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

71
Table 2.23—Means of making a living among groups of people who have completed various levels of

schooling (PUMS-L analysis area)

 Schooling completed

Less than High Baccalaureate

high school Some degree or

Characteristic school or GED college more

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Labor force participation

In the labor force 34 66 75 81

Not in the labor force 66 34 25 19

Unemployment rate 0009.7 0005.5 0004.2 0002.1

Sources of personal income

Earnings 53 80 84 86

Retirement-related income 42 18 15 13

Other sources 5 2 2 1

Extent of labor force participation

Full time-full year 51 65 70 68

Full time-part year 25 18 14 19

Part time-full year 9 9 7 6

Part time-part year 15 9 9 7

Industrial sectorb

Extractive industries 8 4 3 2

Construction 10 7 5 2

Nondurable manufacturing 10 10 8 6

Durable manufacturing 15 14 10 6

Transportation, communications, and

public utilities 6 8 10 5

Wholesale trade 3 4 4 2

Retail trade 16 17 15 8

Finance, insurance, real estate, and

misc. business services 3 8 10 11

Personal and recreational services 11 8 7 4

Education and job training services 9 10 12 28

Professional services, exc. education 5 5 6 13

Public administration 2 2 3 6

Active duty military 2 4 6 7

Occupational type

White-collar I occupations 6 13 30 70

White-collar II occupations 14 29 35 20

Service occupations 21 13 10 4

Outdoor occupations 9 3 2 1

Blue-collar I occupations 18 16 12 2

Blue-collar II occupations 32 24 10 2

Military occupations < 1 < 1 < 1 1

GED = General Educational Development.

a Some subcolumn totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

b Categories derived from PUMS-L industry codes. (Sectors are similar but not identical to those used by the Bureau

of Economic Analysis that appeared earlier in this chapter in the “Types of Jobs” section.)

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

72
The occupations of working residents also varied by

educational achievement. Seventy percent of 4-year,

college-educated workers in the region had white-collar

I occupations compared to 13 percent of those who

finished their formal schooling with a high school degree

(or its equivalent). Twenty-four percent of the high

school-educated labor force worked in blue-collar II

occupations compared to 2 percent of the collegeeducated labor force.

Socioeconomic Well-Being

Table 2.24 illustrates contrasts in socioeconomic

well-being among groups defined by level of schooling

completed. The median household income of high

school-educated heads of households ($23,000) is

considerably lower than that of heads with baccalaureate degrees ($41,200). Just as striking, the poverty rate

for households with a less-educated household head

(13.1 percent) is almost 5 times higher than poverty rate

for households with a head who has a 4-year degree

(2.8 percent).

The percentage of households with high school- and

college-educated heads who own their homes varies

little (71 and 75 percent, respectively). But the average

home owned by a household head with a baccalaureate

degree is almost $47,000 more expensive than the

average home owned by a high school graduate

($105,842 compared to $58,975).

Characteristics of White, Black, and American

Indian Residents

Population Characteristics

Compared to the White population, the Black and

American Indian populations in the Assessment area

were younger (table 2.25). Among these three groups,

American Indians had the largest percentage (39

percent) of children and teenagers, followed by Blacks

(36 percent) and Whites (27 percent).

The percentage of Black adults in the region who

had a post-high school education was somewhat lower

than those for the other two racial categories. The

dropout rate among Black teenagers (ages 16–19) was

14.8 percent; White teenagers had a 9.5 percent

dropout rate; and American Indian teenagers had a 7.4

percent dropout rate. Blacks were slightly more likely

Table 2.24—Socioeconomic well-being of groups of people who have completed various levels of

schooling (PUMS-L analysis area)

 Schooling completed

Less than High Baccalaureate

high school Some degree or

Indicator of well-being school or GED college more

Median household income $12,000 $23,000 $28,121 $41,200

Household poverty rate

(percent) 29.0 13.1 8.5 2.8

Housing tenure (percent)

Owned outright 50 32 23 18

Owned with mortgage or

other loan 21 41 48 57

Rented for cash 26 25 27 24

Another form of tenure 3 2 2 1

Average housing value $41,235 $58,975 $69,738 $105,842

GED = General Educational Development.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

73
Table 2.25—Population characteristics associated with three racial categories

(PUMS-L analysis area)

 Racial category

American

Characteristic White Black Indian

 - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - -

Age

19 or younger 27 36 39

20–44 38 38 36

45–64 20 15 15

65 or older 15 11 10

Schooling completion rates

Did not complete high school 23 34 27

Have a high school diploma or GED 33 31 34

Have completed some college 25 23 27

Have a 4-year college degree 19 12 12

Dropout rate, 16–19 year olds 9.5 14.8 7.4

Migration status

Lived in the same State in 1985 64 62 69

Lived in a different State in 1985 36 38 31

GED = General Educational Development.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

(38 percent) and American Indians less likely (31

percent) to be recent in-migrants compared to Whites

(36 percent).

Living Arrangements

As shown in table 2.26, Black households were least

likely to consist of married couples (36 percent compared to 59 percent of American Indian and 62 percent

of White households). The percentage of single heads

of families was notably high among Black households

(37 percent), lower among American Indians (13

percent), and even lower among Whites (10 percent).

Means of Making a Living

Table 2.27 illustrates that differences in participation

rates in the labor force among racial categories are

relatively small, ranging from 61 to 65 percent participation. For Assessment area residents in the civilian labor

force, unemployment rates vary by racial category;

Blacks and American Indians experience unemployment

rates (13.5 and 10.6 percent, respectively) at least twice

as high as that of Whites (5.3 percent). Eighty to 84

percent of all those living in this area rely on earnings as

the main source of their personal incomes. The percentages of White, Black, and American Indian workers in

manufacturing are nearly equal (18 or 19 percent). One

of the few race-related differences in employment is in

the percentages working in the educational and jobtraining sector. More than 20 percent of employed

Blacks, compared to 14 and 12 percent of employed

American Indians and Whites, respectively, work in this

sector.

Fifty-five percent of employed Whites work in whitecollar occupations compared to 44 to 45 percent of

Blacks and American Indians, respectively. Whites are

also somewhat more likely to be employed in the more

highly skilled, blue-collar (I) occupations (12 percent), at

least when compared to Blacks (7 percent). In contrast,

close to one-fourth of employed American Indians and

74
Table 2.26—Living arrangements associated with three racial categories

(PUMS-L analysis area)

 Racial category

American

Living arrangement White Black Indian

 - - - - - - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Household type

Married couple 62 36 59

Single adult living with children or

other relatives 10 37 13

Single adult living with nonrelatives 4 3 3

Single adult 25 25 25

Dwelling type

Detached houses 75 62 69

Multi-unit housing 15 35 18

Mobile homes 8 2 13

Other types of dwellings 1 1 1

a Some subcolumn totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

Blacks (22 percent and 26 percent) work in service

occupations, while little more than one-eighth (13

percent) of White workers are in service occupations.

Socioeconomic Well-Being

Employment differences among the racial categories

are reflected in differences in socioeconomic well-being

(table 2.28). Average household incomes in households

headed by Blacks or American Indians ($13,000 and

$15,562, respectively) are about 60 to 70 percent of

average household incomes of White heads of households ($22,000). Differences in household poverty rates

are even greater: American Indian and Black poverty

rates of 28 percent and 33 percent, respectively, are more

than two times higher than the household poverty rate

among White heads of households (13 percent). A similar

gap exists in the values of homeowners’ dwellings.

Implications and Opportunities

The metropolitan population of the region is increasing at nearly twice the rate of the nonmetropolitan

population. As the above analyses have shown, the

metropolitan population differs in significant ways,

including younger median age, greater per capita

income, and higher educational achievement than the

nonmetropolitan population. If current trends continue,

social and economic differences between the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas of the Highlands are

likely to increase. Of course, several nonmetropolitan

counties (and some of the cities within them) also have

impressive growth rates and seem destined eventually to

become new metropolitan areas or part of existing ones.

Most of the population growth in the Assessment

area in recent decades is due to in-migration. Inmigrants may bring with them ideas, values, and expectations that differ substantially from those who are

longer term residents. More detailed analysis of migration flows (especially source areas from which inmigrants are coming) could provide useful insights into

the kinds of demands and expectations that may be

placed on the national forests in the region.

Although data are limited, racial and ethnic diversity

appears to be increasing in the region, especially in the

metropolitan areas. Little is known, however, about the

75
Table 2.27—Means of making a living associated with three racial categories

(PUMS-L analysis area)

 Racial category

American

Characteristic White Black Indian

 - - - - - - - - - - - Percenta

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Labor force participation

In the labor force 63 61 65

Not in the labor force 37 39 35

Unemployment rate 5.3 13.5 10.6

Sources of personal income

Earnings 80 84 82

Retirement-related income 19 11 14

Other sources 2 5 4

Extent of labor force participation

Full time-full year 59 56 54

Full time-part year 19 22 26

Part time-full year 9 6 5

Part time-part year 13 16 14

Industrial sectorb

Extractive industries

Construction 6 3 8

Nondurable manufacturing 8 9 11

Durable manufacturing 11 9 8

Transportation, communications, and

public utilities 7 6 4

Wholesale trade 3 2 1

Retail trade 19 18 19

Finance, insurance, real estate, and

misc. business services 5 3 5

Personal and recreational services 10 11 8

Education and job training services 12 21 14

Professional services, exc. education 8 5 10

Public administration 3 2 1

Active duty military 4 9 8

Occupational type

White-collar I occupations 27 21 19

White-collar II occupations 28 23 26

Service occupations 13 26 22

Outdoor occupations 3 2 3

Blue-collar I occupations 12 7 10

Blue-collar II occupations 17 22 19

Military occupations < 1 1 1

a Some subcolumn totals do not equal 100 due to rounding.

b Categories derived from PUMS-L industry codes. (Sectors are similar but not identical to those used by

the Bureau of Economic Analysis that appeared earlier in this chapter in the “Types of Jobs” section.)

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

76
growing Hispanic-American population living in the

Highlands region. Their numbers are poorly documented

in most counties, and even less is known about their

actual or potential use (for work and recreation) of the

national forests and other public lands of the area.

Federal land managers can use Assessment information about the location of poor and minority communities

as a starting point for ensuring that the issue of environmental justice is adequately addressed in policy, program, and project planning. Public involvement strategies can be designed to ensure that these communities

are included and have meaningful opportunities to

participate in agency decisions that may affect them.

While Assessment data are based on the 1990 census,

more up-to-date estimates or surveys may be available

at the time national forests revise their land management plans.

With regard to the fastest-growing nonmetropolitan

counties, concerns exist about the tradeoffs that local

residents are experiencing in terms of congestion, parttime or seasonal jobs, and an aging population. For

example, a local economy dependent upon tourism and

recreation requires roads that are adequate to carry

heavy traffic during peak seasons. The local area also

needs an adequate supply of affordable housing for

seasonal and/or part-time workers, who tend to receive

relatively low wages and few benefits. Aging populations in retirement areas may also place unique demands

on local services.

People living in nonmetropolitan counties that include

national forest lands are likely to feel the greatest and

most immediate effects of any changes in national

forest management. Aging residents in nonmetropolitan

areas who are less educated and/or are living in or near

poverty tend to be especially vulnerable to outside

forces. These forces range from cuts in Social Security

to decisions or conditions that limit firewood cutting in

the national forest. When clusters of these populations

are close neighbors of national forests, their vulnerability

to forest management policy decisions is likely to be

greater.

On several measures, the presence of national forest

lands appears to be associated with growth and general

prosperity in metropolitan areas. Rates of population and

income growth are highest and unemployment rates are

lowest, for instance, in metropolitan counties with

national forest lands. These relationships suggest that

the co-occurrence of metropolitan advantages (such as

transportation networks, colleges or universities, and

employment opportunities) and national forest amenities

(including scenic beauty and recreational opportunities)

may be part of the attraction to people and industries

Table 2.28—Socioeconomic well-being associated with three racial categories

(PUMS-L analysis area)

 Racial category

American

Characteristic White Black Indian

Median household income $22,000 $13,000 $15,562

Household poverty rate (percent) 13.0 32.5 28.1

Housing tenure (percent)

Owned outright 40 30 36

Owned with mortgage or other loan 32 19 25

Rented for cash 26 50 34

Under another form of tenure 2 2 5

Average housing value $67,431 $42,609 $42,069

GED = General Educational Development.

Source: Tolbert and others (1995).

77
moving into the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. However,

national forest lands represent less than 5 percent of the

county acreage in three of the metropolitan counties that

have national forest lands and 11 to 22 percent of the

other three metropolitan counties that have national

forest lands. Further study (e.g., multivariate analyses)

is necessary to determine whether such a relatively

small presence is an independent factor in local growth

and prosperity. It may also be worthwhile to study the

relationships between the proximity of growing metropolitan areas to national forests rather than co-occurrence in the same counties.

Proximity to national forests also appears to benefit

some retirement- and recreation-oriented communities

in nonmetropolitan counties within the Assessment area.

Here again, additional (more sophisticated) analyses

might shed light on the relative contributions of proximity

to national forests and access to lakes toward the

growth and development of these communities.

Equal caution is necessary when interpreting the

patterns of persistent poverty, high rates of unemployment, and relatively low levels of educational achievement in the Assessment area. Although the occurrence

of these socioeconomic indicators appears to be strongly

correlated with the presence of national forest lands in

many counties, it would be a mistake to assume (without

additional analyses) that there is a causal relationship

between presence of national forest lands and poverty.

Many other factors are at play, including relatively low

investment in education (compared to many other parts

of the country).

Still, a key question that needs to be reexamined when

the process of revising the national forests’ management

plans begins is how national forests can best contribute—if indeed they can contribute—to improving

socioeconomic conditions. Dialogue and analyses are

needed to determine whether some management

scenarios are more likely than others to contribute to

sustainable economic development, reduced unemployment, and higher quality of life in impoverished areas

(especially in those 23 nonmetropolitan counties that

have both persistent poverty and national forest lands).

78
Chapter 3: Communities

Question 3.1: What kinds of community planning

take place in the Assessment area, and how is such

planning related to national forest planning?

Public land managers work with two kinds of communities: geographic communities and interest communities.

Geographic communities (communities of place) include

cities, towns, neighborhoods, and even counties. Interest

communities (or communities of interest) include local,

State, tribal, regional, national, and international organizations that represent particular concerns or agendas rather

than places per se (although organizations obviously also

represent part of one or more geographic communities).

American Indian nations may represent a third type of

community, one in which a particular place or places

(e.g., tribal lands) and the interests of the residents or

owners of that place coincide.

This chapter emphasizes communities of place and the

major factors affecting them, the kinds of local and

subregional planning activities in which they engage, and

the potential for greater linkages between local planning

and Federal land management planning. The communities

of interest in the Assessment area are discussed briefly,

but more research is needed before social scientists can

thoroughly characterize them. Many other chapters in this

report provide information relevant to understanding the

various kinds of communities in the Highlands. The

demographic profile in Chapter 2, for example, shows

that in the 14 Oklahoma counties in the Assessment area,

more than 10 percent of the population are American

Indians; however, this group makes up less than 10

percent of the population in all other Assessment area

counties. The “Public Opinions Expressed about the

Assessment” section of Chapter 9 deals broadly with the

kinds of communities of interest that get involved in public

land management planning. Linkages with other chapters

are noted throughout Chapter 3.

 Key Findings

 1. The communities of the Highlands include 695

municipalities plus numerous unincorporated communities and neighborhoods. These communities range

from rapidly developing metropolitan areas and

associated suburban communities to small, rural,

natural resource-dependent communities. In 1990,

97 percent of the municipalities had populations of

10,000 or fewer.

 2. More than half of the population of the Assessment

area lives in the open country and relies principally

upon county governments for essential services;

about 23 percent live in municipalities of less than

10,000 people.

 3. The Assessment area had major population increases in the 1970’s and grew again in the 1990’s;

however, the ongoing loss of the most highly educated young people from the area’s rural communities is a concern.

 4. The Federal assistance available to counties and

municipalities has declined greatly since the middle

1970’s; local governments have obligations to provide

services that previously were not required of them.

 5. Arkansas communities of the Highlands that depend

upon the timber industry show no clear pattern of

disadvantage in levels of poverty or investment in

human capital through education.

 6. Annual 25 percent reimbursements from national

forest gross revenues to Arkansas counties and

school districts apparently compensate for most

effects of the reduced tax base attributable to the

presence of significant amounts of Federal land.

 7. Many municipalities engage in land use planning and

zoning. While a few counties plan for land use, they

seldom use zoning. States are beginning to require

various forms of local planning, including planning for

capital improvements and public health. Some

counties are becoming more involved in public land

management planning; the recent passage in the

Highlands of at least nine “county land use plans”

may be an important trend.

79
 8. At the local level, the following planning groups are

available in the Assessment area: Planning and

Development Districts, Metropolitan Planning

Organizations, and Resource Conservation and

Development councils. There are also community

development specialists in the three States’ Extension Services, utility companies, and other institutions.

 9. National forest planning efforts have had little

connection with local planning activities. Generally,

neither long-range national forest planning, more

immediate project planning, nor forest management

issues are included in the agendas of community

planning efforts.

 10. National forest ranger districts help sustain a wide

variety of partnerships with local communities.

Some of the most important ones result from the

Rural Community Assistance program, but many

relate to other aspects of the stewardship responsibilities of the ranger districts.

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The data sources for this section include 1990 census

data on the population sizes of the incorporated places in

the region (see Chapter 2 for further detail); a wide

variety of published documents and World Wide Web

sites; and extensive mail and telephone contacts with

numerous informed individuals, including local officials.

The Social-Economic Team also drew upon the results

of a Master’s thesis on the relationships between timber

or forest dependency and community investment in

education (Vasquez 1994). In addition, they consulted

some preliminary findings from the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Communities Project (coordinated by the lead

author of this chapter), which included data collection on

plans and planning activities and relationships with the

USDA Forest Service in some 30 communities in the

Assessment area. Finally, the team gained information

from informal interviews with community leaders,

Extension Service personnel, and district rangers on the

three national forests of the Highlands.

The methods of analysis varied greatly and depended

upon the data source. They ranged from interpreting

descriptive statistics based upon Census Bureau and

other secondary data sources to compiling systematic

lists about planning institutions.

Communities of Interest

In political theory, interest communities play a crucial

role as a “third force” representing the citizen in the

face of the powerful State and market. Such communities are the concrete expressions of the vital role of

voluntary associations (and volunteerism in general) in

the Nation’s democratic system, one of the things that

most impressed Alexis de Toqueville about the United

States (de Toqueville 1973). “Civil society” is sustained,

in large part, by the plethora of independent, private,

organized groups that serve as buffers or mediators

between the individual citizen and the polity. Interest

communities represent citizens and, at the same time,

educate and inform them. In the context of public land

management (and certainly in many other arenas), it is

through membership in these communities that the

average citizen’s interests are represented, regardless of

whether he or she lives near the lands in question.

Participation by these communities in the processes that

lead to decisions about public land management is,

therefore, essential.

However, interest communities often have a tendency toward ideological purity; toward conflict and

advocacy for its own sake and for the sake of generating publicity and membership; and, finally, toward using

local communities as battlegrounds for their issues.

Kemmis (1990), in a widely recognized analysis of

various “policy gridlocks,” has shown that many issues

that appear to be irreconcilable in situations where

national interests compete with each other can be

resolved in local communities in which people have very

practical reasons to pursue dialogue, compromise, and

resolution. The interface between interest communities

and geographic communities, then, may be a very

fruitful place to explore opportunities for creative

problem solving.

Many different kinds of interest communities are

active in public land planning and management in the

Highlands. Fendley and others (1997) identified three

broad groups involved in various planning efforts and

programs of the Ouachita National Forest: (1) environmental organizations, (2) timber-related organizations,

and (3) groups and organizations that promote recreation. The same kinds of interest communities function

in the other parts of the Highlands. However, groups

80
such as the Ozark Society, the various State and local

branches of the Wildlife Federation, and perhaps others

fit readily into two or more of the above categories.

Recently, a fourth group of interest communities has

emerged in the Highlands—organizations that advocate

for property rights, resist additional environmental

regulations and controls, and promote the traditional,

resource-based economic sectors of the Highlands.

Thus, even a preliminary assessment of the relevant

interest communities in the Assessment area would

have to include the four types just named but also

recognize that interest communities resist easy classification and represent considerable diversity.

Communities of Place

Geographic communities represent the most common

and most concrete notion of “community,” because they

represent specific places in which groups of people live.

But geographic communities include a very wide variety

of places; furthermore, communities may be “nested”

within other communities. Thus, people may identify

more than one of the following as communities to which

they belong: counties, municipalities, school districts,

and/or neighborhoods; other places within counties;

neighborhoods and school districts within municipalities;

and so forth.

One of the most common ways people define

“community” operationally is as an incorporated place

(or area). Only about half of the population of the

Assessment area, however, resides in its 695 incorporated areas (table 3.1). The other half lives in unincorporated areas, including “open country,” where communities are not necessarily less real but may be more

difficult to identify, name, or count.

The incorporated areas of the Assessment area—

306 in Missouri, 281 in Arkansas, and 108 in Oklahoma—

range in size from 5 to 176,000 people. Almost 97 percent (671) of the incorporated areas had less than 10,000

people in 1990 (when the last complete census was

taken); 20 had populations of 10,000 to 49,999, and 4

had populations of 50,000 or more. Nearly 11 percent of

the people in the Assessment area lived in incorporated

Table 3.1—Assessment area communities and 1990 population by community size class and State

Community size class

10,000– Over

State or area Under 500 500–2,499 2,500–9,999 49,999 50,000 Open country Total

Arkansas

Incorporated areas 139 95 32 12 3 NA 281

Population 33,046 107,753 168,380 262,074 310,334 657,386 1,538,973

Population (%) 2.1 7.0 10.9 17.0 20.2 42.7 100

Oklahoma

Incorporated areas 49 41 15 3 0 NA 108

Population 12,487 49,925 64,261 39,910 0 242,122 408,705

Population (%) 3.1 12.2 15.7 9.8 0.0 59.2 100

Missouri

Incorporated areas 149 111 40 5 1 NA 306

Population 33,214 126,667 194,440 94,392 140,494 894,167 1,483,374

Population (%) 2.2 8.5 13.1 6.4 9.5 60.3 100

Assessment area

Incorporated areas 337 247 87 20 4 NA 695

Population 78,747 283,345 427,081 396,376 450,828 1,794,675 3,431,052

Population (%) 2.3 8.3 12.4 11.6 13.1 52.3 100

NA = not applicable.

Source: USDC BC (1993).

81
areas of less than 2,500, and 23 percent lived in incorporated areas of less than 10,000 people. Twelve and

13 percent of the population, respectively, resided in the

2 larger categories of incorporated areas (10,000 to

49,999 and 50,000+ people). Population projections

(USDC BC 1997b) show that 4 cities in the Arkansas

portion of the Highlands (Cabot, Harrison, Mountain

Home, and Siloam Springs) and 2 cities in the Missouri

Ozarks (West Plains and Lebanon) are very likely to

currently have more than 10,000 people. Fayetteville,

AR, already has a population over 50,000. Thus, rather

than having 24 cities with populations over 10,000, the

Highlands area likely now has 30 such communities of

place. But at least 96 percent of the cities and towns

still have populations that are lower and, in most cases,

far lower than 10,000.

County seat towns have special economic, political,

and social significance. With some minor exceptions

(counties that still maintain two county seats), one

county seat town serves each county. Even though

county seat towns may be quite small, generally they

boast relatively stable economies because of the government employment associated with being a county seat.

Twenty-four of 32 national forest district offices and all 3

forest supervisors’ offices are located in county seats.

This statistical portrayal, however, masks the variety

of communities one finds in the region. Two metropolitan areas lie partially in the Highlands: Little Rock/North

Little Rock, AR and St. Louis, MO. Four others lie fully

within the Highlands: Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers,

AR; Fort Smith, AR and OK; and Springfield and Joplin,

MO. The Highlands also include smaller, but often

rapidly growing suburban communities at the edges of

the metropolitan areas—communities noted for tourism

and recreational attractions such as Branson, MO, and

Eureka Springs and Hot Springs, AR; designed communities such as Cherokee Village, Bella Vista, and Hot

Springs Village, AR, and the new Cooper Communities

development at Branson; and hundreds of small, rural

communities (including 337 incorporated areas having

less than 500 people).

Discussions with national forest district rangers about

their perceptions of communities of place (see OzarkOuachita Highlands Communities Project below)

revealed a consistent pattern. In general, the rangers

perceive the relevant communities to be: (1) the larger

towns or business centers, frequently county seats, in

which the ranger district office might be located but

which are not considered heavily dependent upon

forestry or the Forest Service for their economies in

most cases (e.g., Booneville, Paris, Danville, Ozark,

Clarksville, Mena, or Waldron, AR, and Salem, Houston,

Doniphan, Poplar Bluff, or Potosi, MO); (2) the entire

county as the relevant community, especially in cases

where the ranger district and the county roughly coincide; (3) smaller, rural communities, (such as Lamar,

Oark, Oden, and Mansfield, AR, and Elsinore, MO)

many of which are considered to be more dependent

upon and likely to be interested in forest management

and/or mining, and (4) the larger communities that are

not dependent upon forestry at all, but in which live

many active members of the major interest communities

with which the Forest Service interacts (e.g.,

Fayetteville, Hot Springs, Little Rock, Oklahoma City,

and St. Louis). It is among the smaller, rural communities that one finds communities still highly dependent

upon forestry, the timber industry, the mining industry,

and/or, in some cases, upon recreation and tourism

opportunities made available by the national forests and

other public lands and waters.

Major Factors Affecting Geographic Communities

One of the most important factors affecting communities of place in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands is the

transformation of the area’s economy, especially the

rural economy, from one based on diversified agriculture

to one based more on poultry, light manufacturing,

recreation and tourism, and retirement. Other important

factors are migration and population growth trends;

emerging transportation patterns; the changing role of

government, especially the Federal Government; and the

changing and sometimes conflicting values and preferences of residents of the Highlands.

Transformation of the Economy

The Highlands area has a long history of poverty.

The economy has been heavily based upon natural

resource use and management, including agriculture and

forestry, both of which have been radically transformed

during the last three decades. Agriculture, which was

never very prosperous in this region, has declined in

relative economic importance but has experienced a

82
rapid expansion in the food production and processing

areas, mostly poultry. Poultry production and processing

have reinvigorated some of the small, rural communities

that previously depended upon forestry and diversified

agriculture. Many people in rural communities perceive

that, relative to other industries in their communities, the

timber industry is declining in economic importance as it

grows more capital intensive and employs fewer people

than in the past. Certainly perception is reality in places

that no longer have active saw mills or from which

loggers have moved away. Another factor that may be

contributing to timber seeming less important in some

local economies is that timber sales from the national

forests have declined somewhat from a peak in the

1980’s, and dramatically so in a few locales (see

Chapter 6).

The northern part of the Assessment area led the

Nation in the “rural renaissance” that began in the

middle 1960’s. Very rapid population growth occurred in

some of what were formerly very rural counties; Baxter

County, AR, for example, underwent a 60 percent

increase from 1970 to 1980. Light manufacturing

increased substantially in the region. Then came the

rural crisis of the early 1980’s—a time when international markets fell due to the rising value of the dollar—

and many rural counties actually lost population.

Some light manufacturing has returned. But many of

the smaller, rural communities are now looking to

tourism and attracting retirees as feasible options for

economic development. These communities are responding to growing demand (especially from nearby

urban areas such as the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan

area) for better access to amenities and for improved

services. And in-migration has again emerged as an

important trend in the Highlands.

Major public investments (in lakes, for example) and

the appealing natural environment of the region have

made it attractive for in-migration, especially of retirees

and families seeking refuge from the stresses of urban

life. Not only does the region boast a vast complex of

lakes attractive for both water-based recreation and

fresh water supplies, it also has a very large network of

parks, public forests, and other recreation settings (see

Chapter 5); a large number of institutions of higher

education (in 42 communities); and a vigorous retirement “industry.”

Recent work by Nord and Cromartie (1997) demonstrates both the recent pattern of in-migration and its

correlation with natural amenities. The Social-Economic

Team’s analysis of the results of this nationwide study

revealed that 43 percent of the counties in the Assessment area have a Natural Amenities Index that places

them in the top quartile of U.S. counties; 87 percent of

the counties in the Assessment area rank in the top half.

Rankings for Assessment area and surrounding counties

are shown in figure 3.1.

Transportation Patterns

Historically, the Highlands area has been rather

isolated, with only two Interstate highways crossing the

region (I-44, formerly U.S. 66, crosses east-west in the

north and I-40, much of which was formerly U.S. 64,

crosses east-west along the Arkansas River). Until very

recently, driving through the Highlands from north to

south or vice versa meant a beautiful but slow and

winding trip. Recent and continuing improvements to

U.S. highways 65, 69, and 71 are now making motor

vehicle access easier. Ongoing expansion of U.S. 60 to

a four-lane road east of Springfield, MO; improvement

of the road system into and around Branson, MO;

establishment and improvement of U.S. 412 crossing the

Ozarks in northern Arkansas; and highway improvements in southeastern Oklahoma will soon further

improve access to the region. A new regional airport in

northwestern Arkansas may improve access to air

transportation for that part of the Ozarks.

Demands Placed on Local Governments

Since the first major consolidation of Federal programs designed to assist localities under the New

Federalism of the middle 1970’s, Federal Government

support for rural communities has declined almost

continuously. Federal programs available in the 1960’s

for local communities in areas such as infrastructure

development, law enforcement, and combating poverty

are now extremely limited. At the same time, the

demands placed upon local communities, often as direct

mandates from Federal or State Governments, for good

streets and roads, clean water, and effective sewage

treatment, among other things, have not declined, leaving

most rural communities in severe financial straits.

83
Figure 3.1—Natural Amenities Index for the Assessment area and surrounding counties (Nord and

Cromartie 1997).

Community Leadership

Some issues are characteristic of rural communities

almost everywhere. Migration from these communities

typically has drained away many of the most highly

skilled young men and women and, with them, much

potential local leadership. This trend has prevailed even

when net in-migration was positive. Hence, a major

concern of rural communities in the region is how to

retain their most talented young people. Another

important issue is that public administration is mostly

part-time and typically is conducted by people without

professional training in this field. Few small communities

have the resources to employ professional administrators, and leadership frequently is in short supply.

Community Conflicts

Conflicts over natural resource management and

goals and objectives for communities appear to be

persistent features in some parts of the Highlands.

Several communities have become battlegrounds for

interest groups that represent seemingly irreconcilable

national policy conflicts. In others, the conflicts are

more local, but no less paralyzing. Conflicts range from

simple disagreements about desired futures for communities undergoing rapid change (with some residents

committed to retaining a traditional, small-town atmosphere and others seeking economic development and

other changes) to long-standing resentment over matters

such as past condemnation of private land for public

Assessment area

Top quartile (U.S.)

Second quartile (U.S.)

Third quartile (U.S.)

Fourth quartile (U.S.)

Oklahoma

Missouri

Arkansas

84
purposes (e.g., national rivers), management practices

of Federal or State agencies, and/or the perceived

domination of public agencies by (variously) an environmental agenda or a commodities agenda.

Natural Resource-Dependent Communities

Social scientists hypothesize that people who live in

resource-dependent rural communities are likely to be

poor and “inherently disadvantaged.” Much has been

written recently about these relationships, especially

about the role of resource dependency in the persistence of rural poverty (Humphrey and others 1993;

Freudenberg and Gramling 1994; Peluso and others

1994; West 1994; Nord 1994; Johnson and Stallman

1994; Cook 1995; Overdevest and Green 1995;

Humphrey 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995).

Forest-dependent communities are among those

believed most likely to be disadvantaged. Cook (1995)

presents information on poverty in western Washington

during the 1980’s that clearly supports this generalization. Howze and others (1994) found similar patterns in

Alabama. In Arkansas, however, the highest rates of

rural poverty are in the Lower Mississippi Delta region,

not in timber-dependent or forest-dependent communities (Vasquez and others 1996). Overdevest and Green

(1995) have shown a similar pattern in Georgia, where

the timber industry actually is associated with higher

levels of well being in some places.

Vasquez (1994) examined these questions for all

school districts in Arkansas. She focused upon the

schools as key community institutions and upon funding

for education as an indicator of community investment

in its human capital. Vasquez (1994) and Vasquez and

others (1996) also examined a key relationship between

the Forest Service and local communities—the “25

percent returns” from gross national forest revenues

that go to local schools (and county road funds) each

year. They compiled detailed data in 2-year intervals

from 1980 to 1990 for all school districts. Some data

were available at the school district level and some only

at the county level. Vasquez and her colleagues measured two indices of resource dependency—timber

dependency and forest dependency.

Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis, Vasquez (1994) calculated “timber dependency” as the percentage that timber-related earnings

(Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 08 and

24) represented of all earnings (farm and nonfarm) in

the county. To classify counties and school districts

unambiguously over the study period, she calculated

averages of these percentages for each county.

Vasquez calculated forest dependency directly from the

Forest Service payments made to States for use by

school districts in the counties, divided by the number of

students in the counties and adjusted for inflation; hence,

the actual measure used was the inflation-adjusted

payment per student. Forest dependency, then, refers to

dependence upon national forest revenues for a portion

of school budgets. These values were averaged for

each school district across the six 2-year periods.

Vasquez (1994) also classified the nonmetropolitan

counties of Arkansas into three regions—the Coastal

Plain, the Highlands, and the Delta—and treated the

metropolitan counties as a fourth category. This study

concluded that differences among regions in average

expenditures per student were not great and did not

point to any “rural disadvantage.” The authors did show

a small disadvantage for timber-dependent communities

but no clear pattern of disadvantage for national forestdependent communities. The capacity to invest in

education appeared to be at least as high, perhaps

higher, in rural communities, and the average per pupil

investment of timber-dependent communities was higher

than that of the average rural community. These

differences were small, but there was no evidence that

timber-dependent communities in Arkansas have lower

capacity for investment in human capital (at least in

terms of per pupil expenditures through elementary and

secondary schools).

Interestingly, school districts most dependent on 25

percent returns from the national forests had the highest

per student expenditures in each of the 2-year periods

studied (table 3.2). Thus the reimbursements that such

communities receive from the Forest Service appear to

compensate on average for what they lack in assessed

land base.

85
Table 3.2—Average biennial CPI-adjusted expenditures per student by Arkansas

communities that have various levels of dependency on national forests

Forest

dependencya 1980–81 1982–83 1984–85 1986–87 1988–89 1990–91

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dollars expended per student - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

None 1,457 1,519 1,718 2,000 2,064 2,068

Low 1,398 1,469 1,659 1,949 2,005 1,995

Moderate 1,449 1,525 1,734 2,024 2,101 2,109

High 1,500 1,571 1,836 2,087 2,120 2,157

CPI = Consumer Price Index.

a See “Glossary of Terms” for definition.

Source: Vasquez (1994).

Local Planning in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands

Rarely do local governments and public land managing agencies in the Highlands coordinate their planning

processes, even though there is great potential for their

efforts to complement and enrich one another. Obviously, differences in the scale of planning efforts (city

and county to multi-county and even multi-State scales)

can be barriers, and local efforts often have to be more

narrowly focused (e.g., on infrastructure improvements

or economic development) than, for example, national

forest planning (which must integrate multiple resources,

uses, and values). Communities may not be able to

devote sufficient resources to participate meaningfully in

public land management planning. Still, to paraphrase

one community specialist, “Wherever possible, community planning and national forest planning should be

viewed as interdependent, interlinked processes.”

Understanding and trying to link planning activities at

various scales should yield benefits for communities and

public land managers alike. This section offers a

summary of local and subregional planning efforts and

capacities in the Assessment area.

Some of the earliest comprehensive planning in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands occurred in the 1930’s as

part of the “New Deal” efforts to address the virtual

collapse of the country’s economy during the Great

Depression and associated problems such as resource

depletion and the Dust Bowl. The documents prepared

then, often under the auspices of the Works Progress

Administration (WPA), still serve as good examples of

comprehensive analysis. They are, in many respects,

quite similar to the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment. The 244-page Arkansas document (AR SPB

1936), for example, includes a detailed analysis of public

and private forest lands, their disposition and use, and

recommendations concerning their management.

However, the political acceptability of planning and

related activities such as zoning and growth management has always been very low in the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands. Although Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

laws allow counties to plan and zone, very few do

either. Those that have initiated planning activities

usually avoid zoning, the major instrument available for

implementing plans. Opposition to planning has been

especially strong when the Federal Government promoted it. Thus, several counties of the Assessment

region strongly resisted the “regionalism” of the federally supported Planning and Development Districts of

the 1960’s. Several jurisdictions refused to join the new

regional organizations, and even now some of the

Missouri counties do not participate in such organizations. Seligman, MO, near the western MissouriArkansas border, hosted an organization opposed to

“regionalism” and dedicated to support for the kinds of

propositions known in the 1970’s as “county supremacy” (the view that county government is—or

should be—the supreme government authority).

Community development specialists believe that local

residents will favor development strategies that extend

to include other communities or even multi-county areas

or regions only if they can (1) see the benefits of

86
economies of scale due to working together (rather than

individually) and (2) be assured that the planning effort

is not an attempt to replace county/city autonomy. In

addition, local officials must feel that such efforts

enhance their ability to better serve those who elected

them.

Several types of local planning activities currently are

taking place in the Highlands region. These include

standard land use planning, economic development

planning, broad-based strategic planning, and more

narrowly defined planning associated with special

agencies and programs.

Land Use Planning by Local Governments

The major instruments available for people to influence the physical growth, development, and use of their

community are land use planning and its associated tools

such as zoning and building codes. Municipalities and

counties in all three States in the Assessment area can

engage in land use planning. Land use planning draws

upon the expressed goals and objectives of the citizenry

to develop a plan to guide the physical development of

the community. Such plans deal not only with the

general pattern of land use, but also with the character

and location of public buildings, streets, transportation

systems, controls over land uses, and facilities that

promote economic development, comfort, convenience,

and general welfare.

Each State has its own set of regulations for implementing land use planning by municipal and county

governments. In Arkansas, for example, cities and

counties are not required to engage in land use planning

(UA DCA 1972). If they choose to do so, though, they

must (1) have a planning commission, (2) generate a

plan or planning document, and (3) adopt a zoning

ordinance that specifies the allowable uses of different

parts of the community. The minimal goals of land use

planning are to reduce conflict resulting from incompatible uses and to exercise some control over growth and

expansion. Doing so protects local governments (and

their constituents) from the burdens of maintaining

substandard developments or too rapid growth.

To be able to control their “growth areas,” municipalities usually have the right to exercise some control over

development outside their boundaries (extra-territorial

authority). Still, there is little in traditional community land

use plans or in their ordinary land use planning processes

that has implications for national forest planning, other

than that the processes pursued are somewhat similar.

Communities and public agencies certainly could forge

linkages between community planning and national forest

planning, however, and some counties are beginning to

explore this avenue (see below).

The Social-Economic Team was able to obtain

relatively complete information about municipal planning

activity in 86 of the 107 counties in the region. In these

86 counties, 222 (35 percent) of 593 municipalities

engage in land use planning. Naturally, larger communities are more likely to engage in planning than smaller

ones, and few of the smallest conduct any land use

planning.

Among the Assessment area’s 107 counties, only 24

(including 6 in Oklahoma that deal only with solid waste)

engage in some explicit form of planning. Other than

work done by Regional Planning Commissions and

Economic Development Districts (or Planning and

Development Districts) there has been very little county

planning in Arkansas. Cleburne County, AR, and Heber

Springs (a municipality within that county) initiated a

joint city/county planning and zoning effort in the 1970’s.

Recently, Washington County, AR, hired a planner and

began to engage in some planning activity. County

planning activity is more common in Missouri but seldom

includes any form of zoning or land use control. In

Oklahoma, counties are now required by State law to

prepare capital improvement plans.

Some county governments in the Highlands recently

began developing “interim county land use plans.”

During the course of this Assessment, the county

quorum courts of Montgomery, Newton, Pike, Polk,

Searcy, and Stone Counties in Arkansas and Dent

County in Missouri adopted such plans. Similar efforts

have been initiated in other counties in the Highlands,

and others likely will emerge in still more counties,

including some that have significant blocks of public

land. Typically, the stated purpose of these interim plans

is to help direct uses of public resources and public

lands in a county as well as to protect the rights of

private landowners (e.g., this was the purpose of an

ordinance in Newton County, AR, in 1997).

Local governing bodies, however, cannot mandate or

direct the actions of Government agencies charged with

implementing Federal land management policies.

87
Although local elected officials do not have the authority

to manage Federal lands, they can express the interests

of those they represent and participate actively in

decisionmaking affecting those lands. Several Federal

laws and regulations, in fact, encourage coordination

among Federal, State, and local agencies and governments. For example, the regulations for implementing

the National Forest Management Act of 1976 state that

the Forest Service “shall coordinate regional and

national forest planning with the equivalent and related

planning efforts of other Federal agencies, State and

local governments, and Indian tribes” (36 CFR 219).

Multijurisdictional Planning and Development

A variety of multijurisdictional planning and development organizations exist in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands area. Councils of government represent the

earliest form of multijurisdictional collaboration; they are

based entirely upon local initiative. In the 1960’s,

Federal initiatives led to Planning and Development

Districts (P&DD’s) (or Economic Development Districts) in nonmetropolitan areas (fig. 3.2) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) in urban areas (fig.

3.3). Both kinds of organizations exist today in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, where they play important

roles in planning. The Oklahoma portion of the Assessment area has four Economic Development Districts

and one MPO (part of the Arkhoma Regional Planning

Commission). The Arkansas portion of the Highlands

has seven P&DD’s and three MPO’s (including the

Arkhoma Regional Planning Commission jointly with

Oklahoma). In Missouri, Regional Planning Commissions accomplish the same functions as P&DD’s (or

Economic Development Districts) in Arkansas and

Oklahoma. There are nine Regional Planning Commissions in the Missouri portion of the Assessment area

and three MPO’s. The St. Louis Metropolitan Planning

Organization functions also as a Regional Planning

Commission.

Multijurisdictional planning and development organizations are quasi-governmental agencies, governed by

boards of directors made up of public officials representing the counties and municipalities they serve as

well as representatives of the private sector. There are

two fundamental reasons for their existence: (1) governments need to work together on a regional basis to

address shared needs and challenges and (2) certain

organizations have the flexibility to do long-range

planning and development and provide technical assistance (grant applications, for example) to members.

These organizations do some planning themselves and

frequently serve as a repository of socioeconomic

information on the regions they serve. In some cases,

they also administer programs within their areas.

In the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, 19 P&DD’s help

formulate overall economic development plans and solid

waste plans for their districts (fig. 3.2). (Note that

development districts numbered 14 and 21 are adjacent

to the Assessment area but include small units attached

administratively to two of the Highland’s national

forests.) In addition, they participate in the planning and

implementation of transportation plans, recreation plans,

and water and sewer projects for individual communities

within their jurisdictions. In some places where county

and municipal planning is rare, such as in the Ozark

Foothills District of Missouri, the P&DD’s serve as the

primary planning organizations for the area.

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)

councils are responsible for multicounty areas and are

dedicated to conserving resources and developing

economic health. The USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service directly oversees these councils,

but their full range of programs usually includes partnerships with other Federal, State, and private agencies.

Some of the most extensive interagency cooperation

comes from within the USDA through the Forest

Service, the partially USDA-funded Cooperative

Extension Service, and Rural Development. Most

RC&D councils aim to develop local land and water

resources for farming and industrial use, expand recreation and employment opportunities, and promote rural

development. The RC&D program’s function is to put

the planning process in motion but allow local efforts to

monitor plan implementation (USDA NRCS 1997c). In

the Assessment area, 13 RC&D councils (fig. 3.4) are

responsible for projects such as planning for forest

product and poultry waste management, promoting

alternative crop and pasture management, monitoring

water quality, and establishing rural fire protection for

previously vulnerable areas (USDA NRCS 1997b).

(Note that those areas numbered 8 and 15 on figure 3.4

88
Figure 3.2—Planning and Development (or Economic Development) Districts in the Assessment area (all shaded counties except two

southernmost counties in District 14 and one in District 21 that include national forest lands attached administratively to the Ozark

and Ouachita National Forests, respectively) and adjacent areas.

E

19 18

20 21

1 2 3

4

5

8 9 7

6

10

11

16 15

17

12

13

14

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

 1. Kaysinger Basin Regional Planning Commission 11. Eastern Oklahoma Development District Association

 2. Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Governments 12. Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District

 3. Meramec Regional Planning Commision 13. White River Planning & Development District

 4. East-West Gateway Coordination Council 14. Eastern Arkansas Planning & Development District

 5. Southeast Missouri Regional Planning & Economic 15. Southern Oklahoma Development Association

 Development Commission 16. Kiamichi Economic Development District of Oklahoma

 6. Harry S. Truman Coordination Council 17. Western Arkansas Planning & Development District

 7. Southwest Missouri Advisory Council of Governments 18. West Central Arkansas Planning & Development District

 8. South Central Ozarks Council of Governments 19. Central Arkansas Planning & Development District

 9. Ozark Foothills Regional Planning Commission 20. Southwest Arkansas Planning & Development District

10. Grand Gateway Economic Development Association 21. Southeast Arkansas Planning & Development District

89
Figure 3.3—Metropolitan Planning Organizations (shaded counties) in the Assessment area and adjacent portions of Arkansas,

Missouri, and Oklahoma.

are outside the Assessment area but include small units

attached administratively to two of the Highland’s

national forests.)

Community Development Block Grant Program

In 1974, several Federal assistance programs were

consolidated under a program administered by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) called the Community Development Block

Grant Program (CDBGP). This program now serves

two kinds of communities: (1) “entitlement communities” receive funding automatically as long as they

adhere to the program’s guidelines; (2) “nonentitlement

communities” may compete annually for grants administered by the States. The program targets low-income

communities, with an emphasis on economic development, and funds are used primarily for infrastructure

improvements. To be eligible for funding, competing

communities usually must demonstrate a concentration

of residents with low to moderate incomes in the entire

community or in target areas. For more information

about the CDBGP, see the following Web site: <http://

www.communitychange.org/cdbg.html>.

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

4 3

5

2

6 1

1. Little Rock/North Little Rock Metroplan

2. East-West Gateway Coordination Council

3. Springfield Area Transportation Study Organization

4. Joplin Area Transportation Study Organization

5. Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission

6. Arkhoma Regional Planning Commission

90
Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

10

11

14 15

1. Osage Valley RC&D 9. Cross Timbers RC&D

2. Southwest Missouri RC&D 10. Arkansas River Valley RC&D

3. Top of the Ozarks RC&D 11. Central Arkansas RC&D

4. Big Springs RC&D 12. Fun Country RC&D

5. Cherokee Hills RC&D 13. Ouachita Mountains RC&D 

6. Northwest Arkansas RC&D 14. Southwest Arkansas RC&D

7. Ozark Foothills RC&D 15. Southeast Arkansas RC&D

8. East Arkansas RC&D Council

1

2 3 4

8 7 6

5

9

12 13

Figure 3.4—Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D’s) areas in the Assessment area (all shaded

counties except those in RC&D areas 8 and 15) and adjacent portions of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; shaded counties in RC&D areas 8 and 15 include national forest lands attached administratively to

the Ozark and Ouachita National Forests, respectively.

91
Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community

(EZ/EC) Program

In December 1994, 105 areas were designated as

Empowerment Zones (EZ’s) or Enterprise Communities

(EC’s) in the national EZ/EC program. Six urban

Empowerment Zones (EZ’s) received grants of $100

million each; 3 rural EZ’s received $40 million each; and

60 urban and 30 rural EC’s received $2.95 million each.

In addition, two supplemental EZ’s and four enhanced

EC’s received funding. Finally, those that competed to

become part of the EZ/EC program but were not

selected were called “Champion Communities” and

were promised preferential treatment in both Federal

and State assistance programs. The USDA administers

the rural portion, and HUD administers the urban

portion of the program. Most of the funds actually come

from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Congress made funds available for the EZ/EC initiative

by modifying the Social Service Block Grants Program

administered by Health and Human Services, which

previously funded State government social service

activities. The EZ/EC effort resulted in a large amount

of intense planning during the first 6 months of 1994,

with a total of 500 rural and urban communities competing, including 7 in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands region.

Newton County, a Fort Smith group, and a fourcounty area containing the community of Marianna

(well outside the Assessment area but near the St.

Francis National Forest) applied for EZ or EC status in

Arkansas. The Marianna group succeeded and was

designated an Enterprise Community. Newton County

and the Fort Smith group were designated “Champions.” In Oklahoma, Choctaw and McCurtain Counties

(including Idabel and Broken Bow in the latter) applied

for and received Enterprise Community status. In

Missouri, Salem applied for EC status and was designated a Champion Community. Thus there are no

Enterprise Communities in the Highlands, but there are

three Champions (USDA and HUD 1997).

Various efforts are underway to support the Champion Communities, including assistance in updating,

expanding, and implementing their plans. Even though

Champions were not funded in the original competition,

the Kellogg and Levi Strauss Foundations now support a

major “Arkansas Champion Communities Initiative.”

This funding is being used to build cooperation among

Champion Communities and to assist them in community

planning and organizational development (Nonprofit

Resources, Inc. 1997).

The positive results of the EZ/EC program are being

used widely as evidence that a community-based approach, one in which community leaders and residents

identify their own priorities and design their own solutions,

is effective for both rural and urban development. The

report of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD 1996) endorses this strategy. For more

information on the EZ/EC Initiative, see the following

Web site: <http://www.hud.gov/cpd/ezec/ezecstat.html>.

Forest Service Assistance Programs

The Rural Community Assistance and Economic

Recovery programs are two of the most important

forms of partnerships that the Forest Service has with

local communities. They emerged in their current form

from a large package of rural development provisions in

the 1990 “Farm Bill.” In the past, the Forest Service

always had a stated objective of contributing to the

economic stability of communities near or dependent

upon national forests. Except for a policy of “nondeclining even flow of timber,” however, there was

never a clearly defined mechanism for achieving this

objective, and many would argue that national forest

management seldom actually contributed to community

economic stability (e.g., Vasquez 1994).

The 1990 Farm Bill gave the Forest Service broad

authority to assist rural development in communities

affected by national forests. The RCA programs that

emerged fall into two categories: Economic Recovery

Grants and Cooperative Forestry Assistance. Economic

Recovery Grants provide assistance to communities in

economic distress that are located near a national forest

and are dependent on forest resources. To be eligible, 15

percent or more of the labor and retail income in a county

must come from forestry and forest-related industries and

the county must lie no more than 100 miles from a

national forest. Communities applying for this type of

assistance must have a population of less than 10,000 and

be represented by a local government or a nonprofit

corporation. The Federal Government can contribute up

to 80 percent of the total cost of a community’s plan. This

program provided assistance to 185 communities in 1992

and more than 1,583 in 1996 (U.S. GSA FDACS 1997).

92
Cooperative Forestry Assistance is a broad-based

program that supports management of forest resources

on non-Federal lands. It provides communities with

programs for better utilization of wood products, forest

stewardship and planning, fire control technology,

technology transfer, and several other applications. State

and local agencies and governments as well as private

landowners are eligible to apply for grants. These grants

require 20 percent matching funds by State governments (U.S. GSA FDACS 1997).

Communities are normally required to organize a

local “Action Team” that represents the various interests of the community (e.g., local and regional government, businesses, schools, recreation, environmental

quality), and frequently these grants have been used to

support community strategic planning, usually for

economic development. Despite very limited resources,

the new programs have contributed in many instances to

very strong partnerships between national forests and

local communities. A good example is Iron County, MO,

where the Forest Service initiated a major county-wide

community development effort that continues to move

ahead with strong local leadership and support from

county government and the University of Missouri

Extension Service.

From 1990 to 1995, the Forest Service awarded 40

RCA Grants to benefit communities in the Highlands of

Arkansas and Oklahoma (table 3.3). In addition, during

fiscal years 1994 and 1995, Iron County in the Missouri

Highlands received four grants that focused primarily on

tourism and marketing. Typically, implementation of the

RCA grant program has occurred independently of

national forest land management planning efforts.

State Rural Development Councils

A renewed interest in rural development arose from

the agricultural and rural crisis of the early 1980’s. In

1988, the National Governor’s Association urged the

Federal Government to streamline programs that serve

rural America and make them more flexible. The

Federal Government’s response was to create State

Rural Development Councils, coordinated by the

USDA. The resources and leadership from several

Federal agencies and State and local governments

support the councils (USDA 1990, NRDP 1998). As of

this writing, there are 36 State Rural Development

Councils, a National Rural Development Council, and a

National Rural Development Partnership to support the

State Councils. The major objectives of these councils

are to bring together all of the major players with an

interest in rural development at the State level—Federal

agencies, State agencies, and the private sector—to

coordinate programmatic activities and to both stimulate

and support rural development in the State. The State

Rural Development Councils are formally charged with

the following four major tasks: (1) to serve as a catalyst

for cooperation among partner members, (2) to involve

the private sector in public and private sector collaboration, (3) to affect a broad range of rural life and people

by sharing the benefits of rural development, and (4) to

undertake a comprehensive, long-term, strategic approach to rural development (MO ROC 1998).

Missouri and Oklahoma have Rural Development

Councils. In spite of several efforts to do so, Arkansas

has not yet established its own, largely because the

Arkansas State Legislature established its own Office

of Rural Advocacy (which was to serve functions

similar to the councils’ tasks) at about the same time the

Rural Development Council initiative emerged at the

Federal level.

By virtue of their structure and function, the State

councils can and frequently do exert a strong positive

influence by integrating and coordinating rural development and planning efforts. The Missouri Rural Opportunities Council, for example, has been an active player in

several successful county-wide rural development and

strategic planning efforts and was the initiating agency

in an ongoing effort in Stone County, which is also one

of the communities selected by the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Communities Project (see p. 96).

Community-Development Activities of the

Cooperative Extension Service

Since the late 1950’s when the Cooperative Extension Service was regarded as USDA’s “lead agency” in

rural development, the Cooperative Extension Service

has engaged in some form of local planning. During the

late 1950’s and early 1960’s, planning included broadbased community development efforts in which local

volunteers performed needs analyses, conducted

strategic planning, and attempted to implement local

development plans. Through the 1960’s, when a variety

93
Table 3.3—Rural Community Assistance (RCA) grants awarded to communities in the Highlands of

Arkansas and Oklahoma in fiscal years 1990 through 1995a

 Fiscal

State and county Community Project year(s)

Arkansas

Clark County-wide Pellet Manufacturing Feasibility 1994

Conway Morrilton New Wood Products 1993

Faulkner County-wide Hilltop Dry Hydrants and Ponds 1995

Independence County-wide Small Sawmills 1990

Independence County-wide Forest Biomass Education 1995

Johnson Clarksville Lamar School District 1994

Logan Booneville Booneville Development Corporation 1994

Logan Booneville Booneville Economic Development 1995

Montgomery Mt. Ida Hickory Products 1991

Montgomery 4 communities Economic Stabilization: Oden 1994

Montgomery Norman Southern Montgomery Co. Development Council 1995

Newton County-wide Tree Project: Wood Caskets 1991

Newton Jasper Newton County 1992

Newton Jasper Newton County Rural Development 1992

Newton Jasper Rural Revitalization Through Forestry 1993

Perry Perryville Economic Development Specialist 1993

Pike Glenwood Railroad Depot Visitor Information Center 1994

Polk Mena Exploring Economic Diversification 1995

Polk Mena Promotion of Tourism in Ouachitas 1995

Saline Crow Crow Dry Hydrant 1995

Scott Mansfield City of Mansfield (two grants) 1993, 1995

Scott Mansfield Economic Development Specialist 1994

Van Buren Shirley Shiitake Mushroom Industry (three grants) 1993–95

Oklahoma

Cherokee County-wide Vengence Creek Rock Quarry 1994

Cherokee Tahlequah Hardwood Concentration Yard (two grants) 1994–1995

Cherokee Tahlequah Eastern Oklahoma Utilization Forester 1995

Cherokee Lake Tenkiller Lake Tenkiller Ecotourism 1995

Cherokee Lake Tenkiller Plan for Sustainable Tourism 1995

Le Flore County-wide OK Wood Manufacturing Association 1994

Le Flore Talihina Economic Recovery Proposal 1994

Le Flore Talihina Community Economic Recovery 1994

McCurtain Broken Bow Broken Bow Rural Development 1992

McCurtain 3 communities CPR for Rural Communities 1993

McCurtain Broken Bow Broken Bow Spirit Award 1994

Pushmataha Albion Cedar Oil Production 1993

Pushmataha Kiamichi Kiamichi Backroads 1994

a Other grants have been made to communities near but outside the Highlands, and additional grants to communities within the

Highlands have been made since 1995.

94
of Federally funded programs to assist localities was

available, these groups were responsible for the development of the Overall Economic Development Plans

required of all rural counties to be eligible for Federal

development assistance.

Subsequently, local planning efforts of the Cooperative Extension Service reverted to more highly focused

program planning, usually within the program areas of

Agriculture, Home Economics, Rural (or Community)

Development, and 4-H (or Youth). The Cooperative

Extension Services of all three States now engage in

comprehensive program planning at the county level,

usually including substantial public involvement.

The Cooperative Extension Services in the three

Assessment area States have specialists available to

work with local communities. The University of Missouri Extension Service supports several community

development specialists in the region, each of whom

operates on a multicounty basis. Arkansas’ community

development specialists are based in Little Rock and

Fayetteville. Oklahoma has community development

specialists in Stillwater and Ada. In Oklahoma and

Arkansas, the community development specialists in the

Extension Service have a history of partnerships with

the Forest Service, especially in the management and

administration of the Rural Community Assistance

program.

Local Community-Initiated Efforts

Support is available for a variety of local planning and

development efforts. Institutional and financial support

emerged from the USDA Rural Community Development efforts of the 1960’s, as well as similar efforts

supported by State governments and interested private

sector organizations such as cooperative and privately

owned utility companies and financial institutions. These

efforts are usually initiated at the local level but may be

carried out with technical or training assistance from

community development specialists in the Extension

Services, utility companies, and/or State agencies.

Typical efforts include local leadership training,

community strategic planning, community economic

impact analysis, community retail trade analysis, and

community planning for recreation and tourism development. Locally initiated community development efforts

frequently have led to other forms of community development, including participation in the RCA program.

Communities are most effective in achieving their

objectives when they use a variety of different programs.

Specialized State Planning

Two forms of State-mandated local planning have

emerged recently in the Assessment area. Oklahoma

now requires counties to prepare capital improvement

plans, and Missouri requires counties to prepare comprehensive health service plans. As part of the process

of preparing the latter, countywide surveys that focus

upon a broad range of human health-related issues have

already been completed in a number of counties in

Missouri.

Emerging transportation patterns are very important

for the future of the region and the demands placed

upon public land managers. One example of intensive,

participatory transportation planning in a small, but

highly stressed, part of the Assessment area is the

effort that was carried out recently in the Branson, MO,

area (Branson, City of, 1995). Under the leadership of

the Branson/Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, local

governments and business groups organized a Pilot

Committee of interested local citizens and government

technical staff to direct and participate in the study.

Professional consultants were engaged, and a highly

participatory process was used. The objective of the

study was to assess current transportation problems in

the area and to offer solutions that balance needed

economic growth with preservation of the Ozark

Mountains lifestyle, the very reason that the area

became so popular in the first place. A Key Leaders

group of approximately 60 interested community

members helped direct and gather public opinion via

individual interviews; a survey collected input from

some 1,000 visitors, residents, and area workers.

A number of organizations focus upon planning for

and promotion of recreation and tourism in various parts

of the Assessment area. All three States have their

versions of Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plans

(SCORP’s). Each State also has an agency that promotes recreation and tourism. One example of subregional planning for recreation and tourism was the effort

carried out collaboratively among a variety of agencies in

Northeastern Oklahoma to develop the Lake Tenkiller

Regional Plan (Lake Tenkiller Association 1995).

95
The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Communities Project

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Communities Project

is a joint undertaking of the University of Arkansas

Cooperative Extension Service and the Forest Service.

The objectives of this project are to engage selected

communities in the Highlands in ways that (1) strengthen

communication between communities and the Forest

Service prior to and during forest plan amendments and

revisions and (2) encourage communities to assess their

current and desired relationships with their natural

resource base, including public lands. Cooperators are

preparing public information and educational materials

on Assessment topics, the forest planning process,

public involvement opportunities, and conflict amelioration and resolution. Some communities may be stimulated to implement broad-based community development

efforts. Assistance is provided to communities depending upon the nature and level of involvement they seek.

The project leaders initially identified 30 communities in the region, ranging in size from the tiny Lone

Rock neighborhood of Baxter County (Sylamore

District of the Ozark National Forest) to entire counties

(e.g., Newton County in Arkansas and Stone and Iron

Counties in Missouri). A preliminary evaluation showed

that 19 of the 30 selected communities in the Assessment area had engaged in some local planning activity

beyond basic land use planning (e.g., for economic

development, health care, and/or tourism). Several of

the Missouri counties in the Assessment area have

already completed health plans, and in some instances,

these have been based upon extensive surveys of

health conditions, needs, services, and even general

environmental conditions that might affect public

health. In all, 19 of the communities have some kind of

plan in place that addresses economic development or

tourism.

Sixteen of the 30 communities have received RCA

grants from the Forest Service since 1990. Some of

these grants have been substantial and have helped to

fund local strategic planning. In Arkansas, these grants

have funded planning and development activity in

Mansfield, Perryville, Booneville, Paris, Oden, Marianna

(outside the Assessment area but close to the St.

Francis National Forest), Newton County, and Lamar.

Of these, Newton County and Booneville were the only

communities to receive grants directly for tourism

planning. However, a $30,000 RCA grant in 1995

funded regional ecotourism planning on a multicounty

basis in northwest Arkansas. Newton County alone

received over $100,000 in RCA grants from 1990 to

1997. In Oklahoma, RCA grants have funded planning

activity for Idabel (just outside the Highlands), Broken

Bow, and Talihina, which together have received

$75,500 since 1992. In 1992 and 1993, Idabel received

$15,000 for a 3-year city improvement plan. Broken

Bow and Talihina received a $5,000 RCA grant in 1993

to identify overall visions and goals for their communities. USDA grants have funded a comprehensive,

county-wide community development strategy that

focuses heavily upon tourism in Iron County, MO. The

Iron County group received nearly $50,000 in RCA

grants from 1994 to 1996 and requested about $30,000

more in 1997.

In at least 3 of the 30 communities—Iron County,

Stone County, and Salem, all in Missouri—major

strategic planning for community development is

underway. These efforts provide natural opportunities to

engage the respective communities positively in upcoming forest plan revision, and to use the community-based

effort to obtain input from the communities and their

citizens.

Among these 30 communities, a wide variety of

partnerships with the Forest Service exists. There is also

a very wide range of relationships between local ranger

districts and the communities with which they interact. It

appears that the closest partnerships follow one of four

basic patterns: (1) those in which ranger district leadership—usually the district ranger—is intimately involved

with community leadership in roles like chairing the local

Chamber of Commerce or participating actively (even

chairing) local development organizations; (2) those in

which there are “friends of” organizations dedicated to

supporting the ranger district as a whole or supporting

specific facilities; (3) those in which there are strong

external organizations with objectives that are parallel to

those of the Forest Service (e. g., the Scenic Rivers

Watershed Partnership in Missouri); and (4) those in

which the Forest Service has supported and stimulated

local community development efforts through its RCA

program (e. g., Iron County, MO).

96
Some types of partnerships are nearly universal (e.g.,

formal arrangements with rural fire districts for cooperative firefighting and with county governments for

cooperative road maintenance and law enforcement).

Other arrangements are specific to particular locales.

The potential to develop new partnerships, including

ones that help local communities participate in public

land management planning, is great, and there appears

to be strong support for such local participation (see the

“Forest Service Values Poll” section of Chapter 9).

Implications and Opportunities

The array of programs designed to assist planning

and development in the communities of the OzarkOuachita Highlands is impressive but also potentially

bewildering. With so many players and so many programs, it is difficult to see how, or even if the various

components mesh and, if they do, how well they

complement one another. Communities and planners

alike might benefit from having access to a Web site or

sites that provide links among the various programs and

agencies available to support community planning and

development.

Several community specialists mentioned that, in their

view, community planning and national forest planning

ought to be viewed as a system, with interdependencies

and linkages. With very few exceptions, though, neither

long-range national forest planning, more immediate

project planning, nor forest management issues in

general are included in the agendas of community

planning efforts. The greatest irony is that this is true

even when such efforts are funded by and implemented

in close cooperation with the Forest Service, as is the

case with the Rural Community Assistance grant

program.

In light of increased local interest in national forest

management, affected communities increasingly may

want to explore opportunities to link their local efforts

with upcoming forest plan revision or amendment

processes. Such opportunities may be especially attractive in communities undertaking strategic planning

efforts of their own and/or in which local citizens and

elected officials are increasingly interested in long-range

national forest (or other public lands) planning. The

adoption of county “land use plans” may be an important new development in the Highlands, although not one

having so much to do with local planning (as the document names imply) but with how strongly some people

feel traditional lifestyles and the rights of private land

ownership are threatened. If the intent of the county

ordinances is not to assert superior authority over

Federal lands but to express elected officials’ (or their

electorates’) desire to be more involved in Federal land

management planning, Federal land managers may find

that these local initiatives provide opportunities to build

stronger partnerships with local governments and

communities.

As the introduction to this chapter suggested, a study

of interest communities active in public land management issues in the Highlands would be worthwhile.

Communities of interest certainly will continue to have a

voice in Federal land management decisions and, in

many instances, will consider their constituents’ interests to be at least as important as those of local communities of place. Just as clearly, some interests will

continue to decry the degree of influence, real or

imagined, that other communities of interest exert. Some

individuals and groups will maintain that local communities of place should exert more influence over Federal

land decisionmaking than individuals or groups who live

or are headquartered far from the lands in question

(even though Federal lands are owned, by definition, by

all citizens of the United States).

The variety of interests and perspectives involved

makes for “messy” decisionmaking processes at best,

perpetual conflict and confusion at worst. Yet, as others

have pointed out, “messy” decisionmaking is often a

natural and necessary outgrowth of the kinds of liberties

guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and emphasized by

many laws concerning Federal land management.

Often, there simply are no easy solutions.

As Federal agencies continue to develop more

ecosystem-based approaches to public land management (Kessler and others 1992, U.S. GAO 1994), they

will face the ongoing challenge of fully integrating all

of the “human dimensions” of ecosystem management. Understanding the behavior and needs of communities and managing public lands as cooperatively as

possible with affected communities should become high

priority objectives for every public land manager. Both

97
communities of interest and local communities of place

will be important not only in terms of their ability to

challenge, thwart, or disrupt agency activities, but as

players in the entire goal setting, planning, and implementation process of public land management.

Nurturing the kinds of discourse and cooperation

needed may require the development of a genuine

community-based strategy, not only for the Forest

Service (the agency that manages by far the largest

amount of public land in the Highlands), but for all other

agencies of USDA and perhaps other Federal and State

agencies as well. Better interagency coordination of

community development programs would be a good

starting point. Finally, a greater focus on using community resources and community-based institutions has the

potential to supplement the increasingly limited human

resources available to Federal and State agencies. Such

an approach offers at least some potential for resolving

what may otherwise be irreconcilable conflicts over

natural resource management.

98
Chapter 4: Economic Profile

Question 4.1: What are the principal industrial

sectors of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, and how

do they influence the Highlands’ economy?

Question 4.2: What contributions do national

forest programs make to the Highlands’ economy?

This chapter begins with an analysis of the direct

economic effects of the 10 principal industrial sectors that

make up the economy of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

The forest products and minerals industries are analyzed

in more detail than other industries because of their

partial dependence on public lands (national forests in

particular) for their supply of raw materials. In addition,

the travel industries of Arkansas and Missouri are

analyzed in detail because they include significant components of the tourism and outdoor recreation-based

economy that are partially dependant on recreational

opportunities provided on public lands. Equivalent travel

data for Oklahoma were not available.

The second section of this chapter focuses on the role

that national forests play in the Assessment area’s

economy, specifically the economic effects of national

forest timber harvesting, mining, recreation use, Forest

Service expenditures, and “25 percent returns” to States.

The analysis includes calculations of the secondary

impacts or “ripple” effect in the economy of these

programs and an estimate of the amount that national

forest programs contribute to the Assessment area’s

Gross Regional Product (GRP).

 Key Findings

 1. Compared to the other major economic sectors,

manufacturing accounts for the largest share

(approximately one-third) of the Assessment area’s

total output and also leads other sectors in total

employee compensation.

 2. The service and trade sectors employ more people

than other sectors, but the jobs tend to be lower

paying than the average job in the Assessment area

or in the manufacturing sector.

 3. The Assessment area economy accounts for about

one-fourth of the total industrial output and one-third

of the employment and employee compensation

of the tri-state area (Arkansas, Missouri, and

Oklahoma).

 4. Between 1977 and 1993, the total industrial output in

the Assessment area grew (after adjusting for

inflation) 53 percent, and employee compensation

grew 40 percent. The construction sector had the

greatest increase in total industrial output.

 5. The number of jobs in the Assessment area increased 44.3 percent between 1977 and 1993, which

parallels the 48 percent increase in population over

approximately the same time period.

 6. The Assessment area accounts for approximately

2.4 percent of the total U.S. output of forest products and 1 percent of the U.S. industrial output

generated by the minerals industry.

 7. In the Assessment area, 5.1 percent of the industrial

output, 2.9 percent of the employment, and 3.4

percent of the employee compensation are directly

attributable to the forest products industry. The

minerals industry accounts for 5.0 percent, 2.2

percent, and 3.7 percent of the Assessment area’s

output, employment, and employee compensation,

respectively. The travel industry supports 5.7 percent

of the output, 7.0 percent of the employment, and 4.6

percent of the employee compensation in the

Arkansas and Missouri sections of the Assessment

area. (Equivalent travel industry data for Oklahoma

were not available.)

 8. Thirty-five of the 107 Assessment area counties had

at least double the Assessment area average

percentage output, employment, and/or employee

compensation from the forest products industry.

These counties derived an average 15.7 percent of

their output, 8.0 percent of their employment, and

11.0 percent of their employee compensation from

the forest products industry.

99
 9. Twenty-one counties in the Assessment area had

at least double the Assessment area average

percent of output, employment, and/or employee

compensation in the minerals industry. These

counties had an average 14.4 percent of their

output, 6.0 percent of their employment, and 12.1

percent of their employee compensation provided

by the minerals industry.

 10. Twenty three of the 93 counties in the Arkansas

and Missouri portion of the Assessment area were

identified as having at least double the average

percent of output, employment, and/or employee

compensation in travel-related business. In these

counties, travel-related business accounted for an

average of 25.5 percent of their output, 28.9

percent of their employment, and 24.7 percent of

their employee compensation.

 11. In 1996, the Gross Regional Product (GRP) for the

Highlands was $61,601 million. National forest

programs, payments to counties, and expenditures

accounted for less than 1 percent ($572.9 million)

of the area’s GRP.

 12. The national forests influence nearly 17,000 jobs,

about 0.9 percent of the Highlands’ overall employment (1.9 million jobs).

 13. Of the three principal national forest programs

affecting the Highlands’ economy (timber, minerals,

and recreation), timber has the greatest overall

influence on employment, employee compensation,

and total income when all three forests are considered together. However, the relative economic

importance of each resource program varies

significantly among the three forests. For the

economic sectors affected by the national forests,

the minerals program has the highest average

annual income per job and the recreation program

has the lowest.

Economic Overview

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

All industries in the region were grouped by Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to create 10 major

sectors of the region’s economy. More detailed analyses

were developed of the forest products (timber), minerals,

and travel industries, each of which include components

of several industrial sectors. Timber-based industry

includes portions of four SIC categories: forestry (SIC

8), lumber and wood products (SIC 24), furniture (SIC

25), and paper and allied products (SIC 26).

The minerals industry includes four components of

the mining sector [primary metal mining (SIC 10), coal

mining (SIC 12), natural gas and petroleum production

(SIC 13), and mineral mining and quarrying (SIC 14)]

and four components of the manufacturing sector

[primary and fabricated metal products (SIC 33 and SIC

34, respectively), petroleum refining (SIC 29), and stone,

clay, glass, and concrete products (SIC 32)].

Unlike the forest products and minerals industries,

the travel industry is not classified separately in the

Standard Industrial Classification system. The travel

industry consists of portions of many sectors that are

directly supported by the following expenditures (U.S.

TDC n.d.):

• Automobile transportation expenditures—the prorated

share of the fixed costs of owning an automobile,

truck, camper, or other recreational vehicle and all of

the variable costs of operating a vehicle on a trip;

• Entertainment/recreation expenditures—travel-related

spending on facility user fees, admissions, and other

forms of entertainment and recreation while traveling;

• Food expenditures—travel-related spending in

commercial food preparation facilities and grocery

stores;

• Incidental purchases—travel-related spending on

retail trade purchases such as gifts for others,

medicine, cosmetics, clothing, and personal services;

• Lodging purchases—travel-related spending at

hotels, motels, camps, and other lodging sources;

• Public transportation expenditures—travel-related

spending for air and ground transport, and

• Travel arrangement purchases—travel-related

spending at such businesses as travel agencies and

tour operations.

100
For the detailed analyses of the forest products,

minerals, and travel industries, counties were defined as

“significant” (relative to the economic importance of

these industries in that county) if they had at least twice

the Assessment area average percentage of industrial

output, employment, and/or employee compensation

from the industry in question. Data in each county of the

Assessment area were summed and compared to tristate totals (Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) and to

counties that had significant amounts of timber-based,

minerals-based, or travel-based output; employment; or

employee compensation. (In this report, the term

“output” means value of sales plus or minus inventory.)

The analysis was conducted using 1993 data generated by the Forest Service’s IMPact analysis for

PLANing (IMPLAN) computer model. Results of

IMPLAN analyses offer the best, most detailed, countyby-county economic data sets available. Census of

Manufactures, County Business Patterns, and other

government data are included in the IMPLAN data set

(MN IMPLAN 1997a, b). The IMPLAN data set also

includes estimates where data sources contain limitations on disclosures that prohibit their release. Such

estimates are required to analyze the multi-county

Assessment area adequately. IMPLAN data were used

to analyze both the Assessment area and the tri-state

area. For some analyses, 1977 and 1993 data were

compared to identify trends and changes in the area’s

economy.

For the analysis of the travel sector, IMPLAN data

were combined with county level data on travel expenditures (total output), jobs, and employee compensation

that were derived from separate studies conducted by

the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism (AR

DPT 1997) and Missouri Division of Tourism (Certec,

Inc. 1997). Although the two State travel studies are

designed differently and define person trips differently,

they provide a good idea of the economic importance of

the travel industry. The data in these studies were

compiled for 1996, but the output and employee compensation data were adjusted to 1993 price levels to be

comparable with other economic data presented in this

analysis. Unfortunately, similar county level data were

not available for Oklahoma; therefore, the travel sector

for the Oklahoma portion of the Assessment area was

not analyzed in detail.

All measures reported for this section of Chapter 4

consider only the direct “within industry” output, employment, and employee compensation associated with

each sector or industry. No attempt was made to

discover the interlinkages or interconnections within the

economy (such as by using an input-output model). Nor

were multipliers developed to calculate the secondary,

“ripple” effects in the economy for any industry.

Major Industrial Sectors and Selected Industries

In 1993, the Assessment area produced nearly $122

billion in goods and services (total industrial output),

provided jobs for nearly 1.9 million workers (total

employment), and paid over $36 billion in employee

compensation (table 4.1). The Assessment area has a

large and diverse economy that is dominated by manufacturing, services, construction, finance, and trade

when ranked according to total industrial output. With

$39.8 billion in total industrial output, the manufacturing

sector accounts for the largest share (approximately

one-third) of the Assessment area’s total economy. The

Assessment area economy represents slightly more than

one-fourth of the tri-state economy, using total industrial

output as a measure.

Industrial sectors providing the most jobs are, in

order, services, trade, manufacturing, and government.

Assessment area employment makes up nearly onethird of the total employment in the tri-state area. In

terms of total employee compensation, the ranking is

slightly different: manufacturing is first, followed by

government, services, and trade. Assessment area

employers accounted for approximately one-fourth of all

wages paid in the three States.

The Assessment area has a slightly higher proportion

of output, employment, and employee compensation in

the agriculture and construction industrial sectors than

the tri-state area as a whole (table 4.2). The three

States have somewhat higher proportions in mining,

finance, and services, while manufacturing and trade

are very comparable to the Assessment area.

The average 1993 employee compensation per job in

the Assessment area ($19,144) was 13 percent less than

in the tri-state area ($22,049) (table 4.3). The highest

paid industrial sector was transportation, where the

average wage was $31,135; the lowest paid sector was

agriculture, which likely includes a higher percentage of

101
Table 4.1—Total industrial output, employment, and employee income across 10 industrial sectors of the

tri-state (AR, MO, OK) and Assessment areas, 1993

 Total industrial output Employment (jobs) Employee compensation

Assessment Assessment Assessment

Industrial sector Tri-state area Tri-state area Tri-state area

 - - - - - - - Million $ - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million $ - - - - - - -

Agriculture and fisheries 14,372.8 5,813.0 317,682 127,527 1,051.4 422.4

Mining 9,171.4 912.4 49,814 4,886 1,467.0 144.0

Construction 42,283.8 14,114.6 416,147 139,972 7,713.3 2,259.9

Manufacturing 135,840.6 39,836.9 849,765 304,441 28,697.4 8,025.6

Transportation 36,653.5 9,349.6 307,591 89,604 10,714.1 2,789.8

Trade 44,206.2 12,725.7 1,283,850 397,244 21,855.2 6,065.0

Finance 52,929.9 13,388.7 347,032 85,422 8,282.6 1,728.4

Services 68,387.5 17,532.1 1,557,188 437,157 28,123.7 7,019.9

Government 28,450.2 8,093.4 940,314 284,981 26,683.2 7,568.3

Special industriesa 57.2 14.1 49,133 14,850 319.8 84.5

Total 432,353.2 121,780.5 6,118,516 1,886,084 134,907.7 36,107.8

a Scrap, used and secondhand goods, domestic services, and other minor sectors used to conduct the input-output analysis.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

Table 4.2—Proportions of industrial output, employment, and employee income associated with 10

industrial sectors of the tri-state (AR, MO, OK) and Assessment areas, 1993a

 Total industrial output Employment (jobs) Employee compensation

Assessment Assessment Assessment

Industrial sector Tri-state area Tri-state area Tri-state area

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Agriculture and fisheries 3.3 4.8 5.2 6.8 0.8 1.2

Mining 2.1 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.1 0.4

Construction 9.8 11.6 6.8 7.4 5.7 6.3

Manufacturing 31.4 32.7 13.9 16.1 21.3 22.2

Transportation 8.5 7.7 5.0 4.8 7.9 7.7

Trade 10.2 10.4 21.0 21.1 16.2 16.8

Finance 12.2 11.0 5.7 4.5 6.1 4.8

Services 15.8 14.4 25.5 23.2 20.8 19.4

Government 6.6 6.6 15.4 15.1 19.8 21.0

Special industriesb 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a Totals may differ from sum of columns due to rounding.

b Scrap, used and secondhand goods, domestic services, and other minor sectors used to conduct the input-output analysis.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

102
Table 4.3—Average annual wages by industrial sector for the

Assessment and tri-state (AR, MO, OK) areas, 1993

 Average annual wage

Industrial sector Assessment area Tri-state area

 - - - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - -

Agriculture and fisheries 3,312 3,310

Mining 29,472 29,450

Construction 16,145 18,535

Manufacturing 26,362 33,771

Transportation 31,135 34,832

Trade 15,268 17,023

Finance 20,234 23,867

Services 16,058 18,061

Government and special

industriesa 25,524 27,291

Overall average 19,144 22,049

a Available wage data combine government and special industries sectors

in such a way that they could not be readily differentiated; special

industries include scrap, used and secondhand goods, domestic services,

and other minor sectors used to conduct the input-output analysis.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

part-time and seasonal workers. Wages in the manufacturing sector were 38 percent higher than the overall

average for the Assessment area. Although jobs were

plentiful in the services sector, wages were low. The

average wage in the services sector was 84 percent of

the Assessment area average and 61 percent of the

average wage for the manufacturing sector. The

creation of transportation, manufacturing, mining,

finance, and government jobs has more impact on the

regional economy than the equivalent number of services sector jobs. Higher paying jobs, especially those

that do not have a high educational requirement, support

a larger number of additional workers, as ripple effects

occur when workers spend their pay in the local

economy. The average annual incomes of people

working in industries affected by national forest programs are presented in a later section of this chapter.

Changes in the Economy, 1977 to 1993

Total industrial output, total employment, and total

employee compensation in the Assessment area grew

by 146.1 percent, 44.3 percent, and 133.1 percent,

respectively, between 1977 and 1993 (table 4.4). The

Table 4.4—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation across selected industrial sectors of the Assessment area,

1977 and 1993, and percent change in these measures from 1977 to 1993

Industrial output Employment (jobs) Employee compensation

Industrial sector 1977 1993 Change 1977 1993 Change 1977 1993 Change

 - - - - Million dollars - - - Percent Percent - - - Million dollars - - - Percent

Agriculture and

fisheries 2,553.3 5,813.0 127.7 30,307 127,527 320.8 167.8 422.4 151.7

Mining 606.2 912.4 50.5 6,917 4,886 -29.4 192.0 144.0 -25.0

Construction 3,607.0 14,114.6 291.3 80,621 139,972 73.6 1,307.2 2,259.9 72.9

Manufacturing 18,941.8 39,836.9 110.3 314,490 304,441 -3.2 4,421.2 8,025.6 81.5

Transportation 3,830.9 9,349.6 144.1 65,939 89,604 35.9 1,154.2 2,789.8 141.7

Trade 5,452.1 12,725.7 133.4 236,291 397,244 68.1 2,347.1 6,065.0 158.4

Finance 5,436.6 13,388.7 146.3 49,744 85,422 71.7 657.7 1,728.4 162.8

Services 6,013.8 17,532.1 191.5 286,688 437,157 52.5 2,483.2 7,019.9 182.7

Government and

special industriesa 3,035.4 8,107.5 167.1 236,242 299,831 26.9 2,758.0 7,652.8 177.5

Total 49,477.1 121,780.5 146.1 1,307,239 1,886,084 44.3 15,488.4 36,107.8 133.1

a Government and special industries sectors are combined due to differences in sector definitions between 1977 and 1993; only the combined totals of the

two sectors are comparable.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a).

103
increase due to inflation over this period was 93 percent. Thus, after inflation is considered, real growth in

total output was 53.1 percent and real growth in employee compensation was 40.1 percent. Total output

grew at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent and

employee compensation grew at an average annual rate

of 1.2 percent. In terms of total industrial output, the

construction sector grew the most between 1977 and

1993: total output increased from $3.6 billion to $14.1

billion (291.3 percent). Manufacturing was the largest

sector in both 1977 and 1993, but its growth in output

and employee compensation (110.3 percent and 81.5

percent, respectively) was below the average increase

in the Assessment area. The mining sector had the least

growth (50.5 percent) of all sectors, while the construction, government, and services sectors had output gains

greater than Assessment area averages. Output, jobs,

and wages of the trade, finance, and services sectors

increased significantly during the period, although

average wages in these sectors lagged behind the

growth in the transportation and manufacturing sectors.

The number of jobs in the Assessment area increased; 44.3 percent more people were employed in

1993 than in 1977. The percent increase in employment

parallels the real increase in total industrial output and

employee compensation over this 16-year period and is

comparable to the 48 percent population increase in the

Assessment area between 1977 and 1996 (see Chapter

2). During this period, construction, finance, and trade

jobs grew about 70 percent. Mining and manufacturing

jobs fell by 29.4 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively.

The gain of 321 percent in the agricultural sector may

be misleading. It is difficult to make estimates of

agricultural employment, and changes in estimation

techniques between the 1977 and 1993 data sets

account for most of the difference.

The Forest Products Industry

In 1993, the forest products industry of the Assessment area accounted for 2.4 percent of total U.S. output

from that industry ($6.3 billion of $266.6 billion) (table

4.5). In the tri-state area, approximately one-half of the

total industrial output, employment, and employee

compensation from the forest products industry occurred

in the Assessment area. Timber-related output represents 5.1 percent of total industrial output (fig. 4.1) in the

Assessment area and 3.0 percent of total output in the

three States. In the Assessment area, 2.9 percent of all

jobs are timber related (fig. 4.2), whereas in the tri-state

area, only 1.9 percent of all jobs are in the forest products sector. The timber industry provides 3.4 percent of

all employee compensation in the Assessment area (fig.

4.3), compared to only 2.1 percent of employee compensation in the three States. In all three measures, the

Assessment area is more dependent upon the forest

products industry than the tri-state area as a whole.

The forest products industry plays a larger role in the

economies of some counties than in others. Those

counties where the forest products industry is especially

important are here termed “timber significant.” Examining counties that have at least twice the Assessment

area average percent of total output (2 x 5.1 percent =

10.2 percent), employment (2 x 2.9 percent = 5.8

percent), and/or employee compensation (2 x 3.4

percent = 6.8 percent) yields 35 of the 107 Assessment

area counties where the forest products industry

Figure 4.1—Percent of total

industrial output by selected

industries in the Assessment area

(travel for AR and MO only)

(from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b).

Timber

5.1%

Minerals

5.0%

Travel

5.2%

Other

84.6%

104
Table 4.5—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation of the forest products industry and

its share of total output, employment, and employee compensation for timber-significant counties in the

Assessment area, the entire Assessment area, the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), and the U.S.A., 1993

Geographic area Industrial output Employment (jobs) Employee compensation

Percent of Percent of Percent of

Million $ county/area county/area Million $ county/area

Arkansas

Boone 103.7 11.7 1,116 6.9 28.4 10.2

Clark 146.3 21.6 1,424 12.0 33.5 16.5

Conway 59.6 9.8 348 3.9 12.0 7.8

Faulkner 737.7 30.0 3,775 11.1 107.1 16.6

Hot Springs 111.1 17.1 668 6.9 17.0 9.7

Howard 125.9 12.3 1,247 12.4 26.0 14.3

Izard 38.1 17.1 555 11.8 9.2 14.6

Madison 20.6 5.8 347 6.8 4.4 6.3

Montgomery 19.7 12.2 220 7.3 2.7 7.1

Newton 4.0 3.9 179 7.6 1.6 6.4

Pike 65.1 24.0 501 11.7 9.3 14.9

Polk 81.5 13.6 682 7.6 10.5 7.9

Randolph 44.4 9.4 745 9.7 11.7 9.4

Scott 40.4 11.1 569 11.9 8.6 11.9

Searcy 34.2 19.3 388 10.9 5.2 12.9

Sevier 91.0 13.3 582 8.1 12.9 10.4

Stone 24.4 10.6 337 7.7 4.3 7.9

Missouri

Barton 124.6 36.1 1,690 25.7 43.8 44.0

Butler 103.4 8.8 1,242 6.2 27.1 7.1

Carter 27.9 21.0 258 11.2 4.4 11.3

Dade 9.7 6.9 328 9.4 4.1 12.0

Franklin 216.7 7.6 1,763 4.3 58.9 7.3

Madison 37.7 15.2 318 6.5 5.6 8.4

Newton 115.5 7.7 1,659 7.7 41.5 10.5

Oregon 21.7 10.2 240 5.9 2.9 5.3

Reynolds 49.0 23.7 487 16.7 7.0 14.2

Ripley 26.4 13.9 309 8.0 3.6 6.9

Shannon 37.0 20.7 452 12.6 5.4 11.9

Ste. Genevieve 40.1 7.2 452 5.8 10.1 7.4

Wayne 19.3 8.3 262 6.4 3.1 5.8

Oklahoma

Atoka 17.0 7.8 246 4.9 5.6 7.9

Mayes 166.7 13.1 529 3.7 17.2 6.4

McCurtain 335.4 30.7 2,148 14.2 53.4 21.0

Muskogee 486.5 21.3 1,326 4.0 55.7 8.4

Pushmataha 32.6 15.9 210 4.6 3.2 5.7

Total (timbersignificant counties) 3,614.9 15.7 27,602 8.0 657.1 11.0

Assessment area 6,261.7 5.1 55,450 2.9 1,220.9 3.4

Tri-state 13,100.0 3.0 115,891 1.9 2,776.7 2.1

U.S.A. 266,639.0 2.4 2,466,505 1.7 66,337.0 1.8

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

105
represents a significant share of the economy (fig. 4.4,

table 4.5). Faulkner Co., AR, Barton Co., MO, and

McCurtain Co., OK, stand out as having more than 30

percent of their total industrial output generated by the

forest products industry. In addition, Barton Co. has

over 25 percent of its workforce in the forest products

sector. The 35 timber-significant counties have a total

production of approximately $3.6 billion, which is about

half the $6.3 billion total forest products output in the

Assessment area and a third of total forest products

output in the tri-state area (table 4.5). About one-half of

the jobs and employee compensation attributable to the

forest products sector in the Assessment area are

concentrated in the timber-significant counties.

The forest products industry can be subdivided into

three subsectors—timber management and harvesting,

primary forest products manufacturing, and secondary

forest products processing. Timber management and

harvesting includes forestry services and logging.

Primary forest products manufacturing includes the

initial stage of converting logs into wood products such

as lumber, veneer, plywood, pulp, and bulk paper.

Secondary forest products processing includes all

further processing. Table 4.6 shows total industrial

output, employment, and employee compensation

represented in the three stages of production for the

timber-significant counties. Most of the output, jobs, and

employee compensation occurs in the manufacturing

portions of the industry.

Timber management and harvesting account for

averages of 0.3 percent, 0.7 percent, and 0.3 percent of

total output, employment, and employee compensation,

respectively, in these counties (table 4.7). Primary forest

products manufacturing accounts for an average of 4.4

percent of the total output in these counties,

significantly more than the 1.3 percent of total

Assessment area output or the 1.0 percent of tri-state

output. This is not to say that the forest products sector

is unimportant in many other counties of the Assessment area. Twenty additional counties have forest

product output, employment, or employee compensation

shares greater than the Assessment area average for

the industry, and some counties may have high output

and employment values but represent a lower than

average share of the counties’ economy due to the

greater importance of other industrial sectors.

Figure 4.2—Percent of total

employment by selected

industries in the Assessment area

(travel for AR and MO only)

(from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b).

Figure 4.3—Percent of total

employee compensation by

selected industries in the Assessment area (travel for AR and MO

only) (from MN IMPLAN

(1997a, b).

Timber

2.9%

Minerals

2.2%

Travel

6.4%

Other

88.4%

Timber

3.4%

Minerals

3.7%

Travel

4.2%

Other

88.7%

106
Figure 4.4—Timber-significant counties in the Assessment area (see “Glossary

of Terms” for definition; data from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b).

Table 4.6—Total industrial output, employment, and employee compensation generated by

components of the forest products industry in the tri-state (AR, MO, OK) and Assessment

areas and in timber-significant counties in the Assessment area, 1993a

Timber-

 Unit of Tri-state Assessment significant

Industry component measure area area counties

Timber management and harvesting

Total industrial output Million $ 424.6 171.3 61.7

Employment Jobs 19,981 7,507 2,474

Employee compensation Million $ 169.4 59.5 18.8

Primary forest products manufacturing

Total industrial output Million $ 4,148.5 1,587.3 1,019.8

Employment Jobs 31,402 13,727 9,014

Employee compensation Million $ 860.4 284.5 185.8

Secondary forest products processing

Total industrial output Million $ 8,526.9 4,503.1 2,533.4

Employment Jobs 64,508 34,216 16,114

Employee compensation Million $ 1,746.9 876.9 452.5

Forest products (total)

Total industrial output Million $ 13,100.0 6,261.7 3,614.9

Employment Jobs 115,891 55,450 27,602

Employee compensation Million $ 2,776.7 1,220.9 657.1

a See “Glossary of Terms” for definition of timber-significant county.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

107
A discussion of the national forest role in the timber

industry is presented later in this chapter, and Chapter 6,

“Timber Resources,” provides additional discussion of

the forest products industry.

The Minerals Industry

The minerals industry in the Assessment area

produced almost $6.1 billion in total industrial output and

employed nearly 42,000 workers who were paid over

$1.3 billion in 1993 (table 4.8). These levels represented

5.0 percent of total industrial output, 2.2 percent of total

jobs, and 3.7 percent of total employee compensation in

the Assessment area (figs. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and table 4.9).

The largest extraction activity was nonmetallic mineral

mining, which represents approximately two-thirds of

the total output from extraction activities in the Assessment area ($607.9 million of $912.6 million). The total of

all extraction activities (metal mining, coal mining, oil

and gas extraction, and nonmetallic mineral mining)

represents about one-seventh of the total mineralsrelated industrial output and one ninth of the total

minerals-related employment and employee compensation in the Assessment area.

The minerals industry tends to be concentrated in

certain parts of the Assessment area. Based on 1993

data, 21 counties have at least twice the Assessment

area average percent of minerals-related output,

Table 4.7—Relative contributions of components of the forest products

industry to the total output, employment, and employee compensation of the

timber-significant counties in the Assessment area, the Assessment area as a

whole, and the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), 1993a

Total

Industry component industrial Employee

Geographic area output Employment compensation

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - -

Timber management and harvesting

Timber-significant counties 0.3 0.7 0.3

Assessment area 0.1 0.4 0.2

Tri-state area 0.1 0.3 0.1

Primary forest products manufacturing

Timber-significant counties 4.4 2.6 3.1

Assessment area 1.3 0.7 0.8

Tri-state area 1.0 0.5 0.6

Secondary forest products processing

Timber-significant counties 11.0 4.7 7.6

Assessment area 3.7 1.8 2.4

Tri-state area 2.0 1.1 1.3

Forest products industry (total)

Timber-significant counties 15.7 8.0 11.0

Assessment area 5.1 2.9 3.4

Tri-state area 3.1 1.9 2.0

a See “Glossary of Terms” for definition of “timber-significant county.”

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

108
Table 4.8—Total industrial output, employment, and employee compensation in

components of the minerals industry in the Assessment area, 1993

Total

industrial Employee

Industry component output Employment compensation

Million $ Million $

Extraction activities

Metal mining 182.1 852 37.6

Coal mining 28.9 137 9.1

Oil and gas extraction 93.7 1,091 15.3

Nonmetallic mineral mining 607.9 2,806 82.8

Total 912.6 4,886 144.7

Minerals manufacturing

Primary metal industries 1,608.6 8,763 316.2

Fabricated metal industries 2,087.7 17,147 536.7

Petroleum refining and related industries 318.4 979 44.9

Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 1,004.6 8,592 252.2

Total 5,167.4 37,047 1,190.5

Total mineral industry 6,080.0 41,933 1,335.2

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

Table 4.9—Percentage of total industrial output, employment, and employee

compensation in the Assessment area produced by components of the minerals

industry, 1993a

Total

industrial Employee

Industry component output Employment compensation

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - -

Extraction activities

Metal mining 0.2 0.1 0.1

Coal mining 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oil and gas extraction 0.1 0.1 0.1

Nonmetallic mineral mining 0.5 0.1 0.2

Total 0.7 0.3 0.4

Minerals manufacturing

Primary metal industries 1.3 0.5 0.9

Fabricated metal industries 1.7 0.9 1.5

Petroleum refining and related industries 0.3 0.1 0.1

Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 0.8 0.5 0.7

Total 4.2 2.0 3.3

Total mineral industry 5.0 2.2 3.7

a Totals may differ from sum of columns due to rounding.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

109
employment, and/or employee compensation (fig. 4.5,

table 4.10). These counties produced a total of about

$2.4 billion of output, 15,500 jobs, and $535 million in

employee compensation (14.4 percent of total output,

6.0 percent of jobs, and 12.1 percent of employee

compensation, respectively, in these counties). Particularly noteworthy are Iron, Reynolds, and Ste. Genevieve

Counties in Missouri, which have between 33 percent

and 52 percent of their total output attributed to the

minerals industry. The employee compensation generated by the minerals industry in the minerals-significant

counties is disproportionately high (12.1 percent) relative

to the percentage of jobs the industry supports (6

percent), reflecting the generally high wages of the

minerals industry.

Mineral extraction activities in the Assessment area

account for over $900 million in total industrial output,

which is approximately one-tenth of the total mineral

extraction output of the tri-state area (table 4.11).

Among other factors, oil and gas extraction in the tristate area is considerably greater outside the Assessment area than inside. In the minerals-significant

counties, output from extraction activities has a significantly higher share (1.9 percent) of total industrial

output than the average for the Assessment area (0.7

percent) but a similar share compared to the three

States together (2.1 percent) (table 4.12). The proportion of total output, employment, and employee compensation generated by the minerals industry as a whole in

these counties is approximately two and three times

greater than the comparable proportions in the tri-state

area and the Assessment area, respectively.

A discussion of the national forest’s role in the

minerals industry is presented later in this chapter, and

Chapter 7, “Mineral Resources,” provides additional

discussion of this industry.

Figure 4.5—Minerals-significant counties in the Assessment area in 1993 (see

“Glossary of Terms” for definition; data from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b).

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

110
Table 4.10—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation of the minerals industry, and its

share of total output, employment, and employee compensation, for minerals-significant counties in the

Assessment area, the entire Assessment area, the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), and the U.S.A., 1993

Geographic area Industrial output Employment (jobs) Employee compensation

Million Percent of Percent of Million Percent of

dollars county/area county/area dollars county/area

Arkansas

Boone 70.9 8.0 742 4.6 21.2 7.6

Crawford 150.1 10.9 857 4.5 27.7 8.0

Hot Springs 101.6 15.6 751 7.8 27.8 15.9

Jackson 113.6 19.7 563 6.8 23.0 15.7

Lawrence 77.6 15.5 436 5.5 11.0 9.3

Lonoke 104.8 12.3 835 6.0 29.6 13.7

Randolph 83.6 17.6 720 9.4 23.3 18.7

White 247.5 13.5 1,749 6.4 58.5 11.5

Missouri

Barry 237.1 18.3 1,822 10.7 52.6 17.7

Iron 182.0 51.7 654 13.6 31.8 36.1

Jefferson 354.9 10.4 1,655 3.3 83.1 8.3

Morgan 27.2 8.3 266 4.2 6.4 8.1

Osage 32.1 7.9 342 6.2 7.0 8.1

Reynolds 68.5 33.1 322 11.0 12.2 24.9

Ripley 33.3 17.5 284 7.4 7.4 14.2

Ste. Genevieve 208.0 37.3 1,114 14.3 40.2 29.3

Webster 50.0 9.0 464 4.7 12.1 9.0

Oklahoma

Atoka 37.8 17.4 325 6.4 7.9 11.1

Haskell 19.5 9.4 121 2.7 4.5 7.8

Mayes 123.1 9.7 977 6.9 34.6 12.9

Ottawa 112.3 15.0 458 3.5 13.1 6.6

All mining-significant

counties 2,435.5 14.4 15,457 6.0 535.1 12.1

Assessment area 6,080.0 5.0 41,933 2.2 1,335.2 3.7

Tri-state 31,335.7 7.2 180,262 3.0 6,272.0 4.7

U.S.A. 595,127.0 5.4 3,129,550 2.2 114,686.0 3.0

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

111
Table 4.11— Total industrial output, employment, and employee compensation generated

by components of the minerals industry in the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), the Assessment area, and the minerals-significant counties in the Assessment area, 1993a

MineralsIndustry component Unit of Assessment significant

Economic measure measure Tri-state area area counties

Extraction

Total industrial output Million $ 9,171.3 912.6 325.4

Employment Jobs 49,814 4,886 1,494

Employee compensation Million $ 1,467.0 144.7 49.1

Minerals manufacturing

Total industrial output Million $ 22,164.4 5,167.4 2,110.1

Employment Jobs 130,448 37,047 13,963

Employee compensation Million $ 4,805.0 1,190.5 486.1

Total industrial components

Total industrial output Million $ 31,335.7 6,080 2,435.5

Employment Jobs 180,262 41,933 15,457

Employee compensation Million $ 6,272.0 1,335.2 535.1

a Totals may differ from sum of columns due to rounding.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

Table 4.12—Percentage that the minerals industry comprises of total output,

employment, and employee compensation in the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), the

Assessment area as a whole, and the minerals-significant counties of the Assessment

area, 1993a

MineralsIndustry component Assessment significant

Economic measure Tri-state area area counties

Extraction

Total industrial output 2.1 0.7 1.9

Employment 0.8 0.3 0.6

Employee compensation 1.1 0.4 1.1

Minerals manufacturing

Total industrial output 5.1 4.2 12.5

Employment 2.1 2.0 5.5

Employee compensation 3.6 3.3 10.9

Total industry components

Total industrial output 7.2 5.0 14.4

Employment 2.9 2.2 6.0

Employee compensation 4.6 3.7 12.1

a Totals may differ from sum of columns due to rounding.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

112
The Travel Industry

Travel for recreation, business, entertainment, and

other purposes is a significant industry in the Highlands.

In this analysis, no attempt was made to differentiate

among the variety of purposes for travel (e.g., business,

recreation, visiting family) since data to make these

distinctions were not available. In general, many of the

trips within and to the Assessment area are multipurpose. For example, people traveling mainly for

business or to visit family often also participate in

recreational activities and make recreational expenditures. It is difficult to categorize or separate these

expenditures and economic effects. However, a study in

Arkansas found that travelers in the State participated in

the following outdoor recreation activities that depend to

some extent on public lands: sightseeing (87 percent of

travelers), camping (13 percent of travelers), fishing/

hunting (10 percent of travelers), water sports (6

percent of travelers), and bird watching (3 percent of

travelers) (AR DPT 1998).

Data for the Arkansas and Missouri counties of the

Assessment area show that total travel expenditures

were nearly $6.4 billion in 1996 (adjusted to 1993

dollars), which is 5.7 percent of the total output for the

Arkansas and Missouri portions of the Assessment area

(table 4.13) and 5.2 percent of the output of the entire

Assessment area (fig. 4.1). Travel expenditures in the

Arkansas and Missouri portions of the Assessment area

represented 48 percent of the $13 billion travel-related

expenditures of the two States combined.

Travel expenditures support more than 120,000 jobs

and over $1.5 billion in wages, which represents 7.0

percent of total jobs and 4.6 percent of total employee

compensation for the Arkansas-Missouri portion of the

Assessment area. The average annual wage of these

travel-related jobs in 1996 was $12,666 (AR DPT 1997,

Certec, Inc. 1997).

Certain counties in the Highlands have high concentrations of output, employment, and income provided by

the travel industry. Examining only the counties that

have at least twice the Assessment area’s average

percent of total output (2 x 5.7 percent = 11.4 percent),

employment (2 x 7.0 percent = 14.0 percent), and/or

employee compensation (2 x 4.6 percent = 9.2 percent)

yields 23 counties that have high concentrations of

travel-related employment, output, or incomes (table

4.13, fig. 4.6). The travel industry’s share of the

economy in these counties averages 25.5 percent of

industrial output, 28.9 percent of employment, and 24.7

percent of employee compensation. These counties—4

in Arkansas and 19 in Missouri—combined account for

almost half the total travel-related output, employment,

and employee compensation in the Arkansas-Missouri

portion of the Assessment area. Taney County, MO,

where Branson is located, has an incredible 83.7

percent of its jobs related to travel. Camden, Hickory,

and Stone Counties in Missouri have more than 40

percent of their jobs associated with the travel industry;

Carroll County, AR, has the highest percentage (20

percent) of travel-related employment in that State.

A discussion of the national forests’ role in the

recreation elements of the economy is presented later in

this chapter; Chapter 5, “Recreation,” provides additional discussion of recreation in the Assessment area.

113
Table 4.13—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation of the travel industry and its share of

total output, employment, and employee compensation for travel-significant counties of the Assessment area

of Arkansas and Missouri, for the entire Arkansas-Missouri portion of the Assessment area, and for the

two-State area (AR, MO)a

 (1996 dollars adjusted for inflation to 1993 dollars)

Geographic area Industrial output Employment (jobs) Employee compensation

Million Percent of Percent of Million Percent of

dollars county/area county/area dollars county/area

Arkansas

Carroll 126.2 13.9 2,590 20.0 25.1 12.8

Cleburne 67.1 12.8 976 11.3 10.6 7.9

Garland 291.1 12.4 5,143 12.9 52.9 7.8

Stone 36.7 15.9 612 13.9 6.6 12.1

Missouri

Benton 81.2 30.7 1,672 30.5 22.5 33.6

Camden 458.1 46.7 9,446 53.8 126.8 45.5

Carter 23.0 17.3 476 20.6 6.3 16.3

Cedar 39.9 16.0 822 15.4 11.1 16.7

Crawford 54.9 10.7 1,138 13.0 15.2 10.8

Dade 14.7 10.5 302 8.7 4.1 12.0

Dallas 23.5 9.4 485 9.6 6.5 11.2

Dent 32.2 10.8 668 11.3 8.9 10.7

Douglas 24.6 8.9 506 9.7 6.8 10.3

Hickory 47.7 45.5 982 40.5 13.2 54.1

Laclede 93.0 9.5 1,917 12.8 25.8 10.3

Miller 142.1 24.7 2,928 29.5 39.3 24.6

Morgan 42.2 12.9 872 13.6 11.7 14.9

Ozark 39.7 25.2 808 22.9 11.0 31.3

Reynolds 26.4 12.8 546 18.7 7.3 14.9

Shannon 20.9 11.7 434 12.1 5.8 12.7

Stone 272.4 51.0 5,625 56.5 75.4 54.8

Taney 966.3 81.4 19,931 83.7 267.4 69.6

Wayne 37.8 16.3 782 19.2 10.4 19.2

All travel-significant

counties 2,961.6 25.5 59,661 28.9 770.8 24.7

Assessment area of

AR and MO 6,362.9 5.7 120,533 7.0 1,526.7 4.6

AR and MO (entire States) 13,248.3 4.2 258,683 5.9 3,358.5 3.4

U.S.A. N/A N/A N/A

N/A = not available.

a Equivalent travel data for Oklahoma not available.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b), AR DPT (1997), Certec, Inc. (1997).

114
Figure 4.6—Travel-significant counties in the Assessment area (see “Glossary of

Terms” for definition; data from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b; AR DPT 1997; Certec, Inc.

1997).

Contributions of National Forest

Programs to the Economy

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The Social-Economic Team used data from each

national forest about its annual programs of work,

including volume of timber harvested, estimates of

recreation use, value of minerals extracted, expenditures, and payments to States and counties. Using the

IMPLAN computer model (an input-output model that

estimates total effects of economic changes in an area;

see “Glossary of Terms”) combined with detailed data

on the local economy, the team estimated the effects of

the three national forests on the overall Highlands’

economy. The economic multipliers (sometimes referred

to as response coefficients) that represent the economic

effects per unit of forest output were developed in

consultation with the staff of the Forest Service’s Rocky

Mountain Research Station (Alward 1998). (For further

information on the model and data, see MN IMPLAN

1997a, b.)

There are some special considerations and caveats to

using this type of model. First, the model is designed to

assess marginal changes (small changes in final demand

from the current situation). Second, the model does not

allow for substitution in production. For example, if labor

becomes expensive, the model does not allow an

industry to substitute machinery for labor. Also, the

model assumes that the supply of raw materials and

other inputs is unconstrained. Finally, the composition of

the regions used in developing the model can have a

significant effect on the model’s outcome. For instance,

very small regions (e.g. single counties), will export

most of their production and import most of the goods

and services they consume. Larger regions will contain

more secondary processing, causing more money to

remain in the economy longer before “leaking” out.

When considering the economic effects of national

Travel significant areas

No information

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

115
Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Mark Twain National Forest

Ozark National Forest

Ouachita National Forest

forests, the larger the region analyzed, the less important

the forests will appear.

The regions used in this analysis include (1) the timber

market zones for the three national forests (for estimating

contributions from timber-related programs) (fig. 4.7),

(2) the counties that have national forest lands (for

estimating effects of recreation, minerals, national forest

expenditures, and payments to counties) (Chapter 2,

fig. 2.1), and (3) all the counties of the Assessment area

(for estimating GRP) (fig. 1.1). The timber market zones

represent the primary zone of influence for basic economic effects of the national forests on the wood processing sector. These zones are comprised of counties

with national forest lands plus those counties that have

Figure 4.7—Timber market zones for Highlands’ national forests.

116
mills that purchase national forest timber. Some mills

purchase timber from the Ouachita and Ozark National

Forests and, therefore, their market zones overlap.

Additional information concerning data sources and

methods of analysis is included below in the timber,

recreation, and minerals subsections.

National Forest Programs That

Affect the Economy

This section will discuss three ways in which national

forest programs influence the regional and local economies: (1) through the production and provision of goods

and services (e.g., timber, minerals, recreation),

(2) through the return of a portion of receipts to counties

with national forest lands, and (3) through expenditures

the Forest Service makes for management and administration. The total effect of these three influences is the

national forests’ contributions to regional employment

and the GRP. The GRP, which is equivalent to total

value added, measures total income to a particular area,

including employee compensation, proprietary income

(income from self-employment), and other property

income plus indirect business taxes. GRP is the local

equivalent of the national measure of economic growth,

the gross domestic product.

Goods and services produced by the national forests

have a direct effect on the economy, either through the

industry that extracts the good (e.g., the logging or

mining industry) or through the person who consumes

the services (such as a camper or hunter). Indirect or

secondary effects occur when the industries producing

goods or services purchase goods or services from

other producers who, in turn, also produce goods and

services. Another effect, called an “induced” effect,

occurs through the payment of wages to the employees

of the directly and indirectly affected industries, which

will then be spent in the local economy.

Production and Provision of Goods and Services

Timber, minerals, and recreation are the principal

national forest programs that contribute to the Highlands’

economy. The range program on the three forests is

quite small (see Chapter 8) and was not included in this

analysis. Timber outputs are expressed in million board

feet; recreation use is expressed in recreation visitor

days (RVD’s); and minerals are in million dollars of

extracted materials. The effects displayed for these

programs include direct, indirect, and induced effects.

Timber. Calculations for timber impacts shown in

table 4.14 are based on the 1996 harvest and timber

Table 4.14—Economic impacts of national forest timber harvesting for fiscal year 1996

Impacts per mmbfb Total impact of 1996 harvestb

National forest Timber Employee Total Employment Employee Total Employment

Timber product harvesteda compensation income (jobs) compensation income (jobs)

mmbf - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million $ - - - - - -

Ouachita

Sawtimber 104.0 694,346 1,536,791 47.6 72.2 159.9 4,953

Roundwood 47.6 298,860 596,439 18.0 14.2 28.4 857

Ozark-St. Francis

Sawtimber 28.4 392,459 1,062,926 27.7 11.2 30.2 787

Roundwood 16.9 203,356 381,904 10.8 3.4 6.5 183

Mark Twain

Sawtimber 30.0 489,502 951,262 34.9 14.7 28.6 1,048

Roundwood 8.9 343,760 868,329 25.3 3.1 7.7 224

Total 235.8 — —— 118.8 261.2 8,052

mmbf = million board feet; — = not applicable. a Roundwood values were converted from cubic feet.

b Impacts reported differ from those in respective 1996 annual reports of the national forests due to the Assessment Team’s use of more recent (1993)

input-output data; timber harvested represents actual figures for 1996.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

117
revenue data supplied by the national forests. For all 3

forests, the timber harvests in 1996 affected an estimated 8,052 jobs, yielding employee compensation of

$118.8 million and total income of $261.2 million. The

Ouachita National Forest had a larger timber program

than the other two forests, accounting for 104 of the

162 million board feet of sawtimber harvested and 47.6

million board feet of roundwood. The Ouachita’s timber

harvest program supported 5,810 jobs, with resulting

employee compensation of over $86 million and total

income of $188.3 million.

The harvest on the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests affected 970 jobs and produced $14.6 million in

employee compensation and $36.7 million in total

income. The Mark Twain National Forest had the least

harvest volume of the three forests but influenced 1,272

jobs and accounted for $17.8 million in employee

compensation and $3.63 million in total income. The

differences among the three forests result from differences in the size of their respective timber harvest

programs, type of timber removed, final processing

used, and amount of material exported out of each

forest’s market zone.

When the three national forests are considered

together, the timber program accounts for around half of

their economic effects for all indicators—employee

compensation, total income, and employment (fig. 4.8).

However, there is considerable variation among the

three forests. Notably, the timber program on the

Ouachita National Forest accounted for about 81

percent, 87 percent, and 79 percent of that forest’s 1996

contributions to employee compensation, total income,

and jobs, respectively, in the Assessment area (table

4.15). In contrast, the timber program on the Mark

Twain accounted for only 17 percent of employee

compensation, 19 percent of total income and 22

percent of the jobs influenced by the forest’s resource

programs in that year.

Recreation. Recreation impacts occur through the

purchase of goods and services by consumers (e.g.,

Figure 4.8—Percentages that the timber, recreation, and minerals programs comprise of employee

compensation, total income, and employment generated by the production of goods and services on

the Highlands’ national forests (from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b).

Timber

52%

Recreation

38%

Minerals

10%

Recreation

32%

Timber

48%

Minerals

20%

Employment

Recreation

26%

Timber

54%

Minerals

20%

Total income

Employee compensation

118
Table 4.15—Economic impacts of national forest timber, recreation, and minerals programs by national forest and resource,

fiscal year 1996a

Economic indicator

National forest Timber Recreation Minerals Total

Million % of row Million % of row Million % of row Million

dollars total dollars total dollars total dollars Percent

Employee compensation

Ouachita 86.4 80.7 19.8 18.5 0.8 0.7 107.0 100.0

Ozark-St. Francis 14.6 43.6 18.4 54.9 0.5 1.5 33.5 100.0

Mark Twain 17.8 16.5 41.2 38.1 49.1 45.4 108.1 100.0

Totalb 118.8 47.8 79.4 31.9 50.5 20.3 248.7 100.0

Total income

Ouachita 188.3 86.6 27.7 12.7 1.5 0.7 217.5 100.0

Ozark-St. Francis 36.7 52.8 31.4 45.2 1.4 2.0 69.5 100.0

Mark Twain 36.3 18.5 67.2 34.2 93.2 47.4 196.7 100.0

Totalb 261.3 54.0 126.3 26.1 96.0 19.9 483.6 100.0

% of row % of row % of row

Number total Number total Number total Number Percent

Employment (jobs)

Ouachita 5,810 79.3 1,477 20.2 35 0.5 7,322 100.0

Ozark-St. Francis 970 39.8 1,438 58.9 32 1.3 2,440 100.0

Mark Twain 1,272 22.1 2,933 51.1 1,535 26.7 5,740 100.0

Total 8,052 51.9 5,848 37.7 1,602 10.3 15,502 100.0

a Values for timber and minerals are based on annual records of timber volume harvested and minerals receipts, respectively, while recreation values are

based on estimates of recreation use; values shown here are based on tables 4.14, 4.16, and 4.17 of this chapter.

b Totals may differ from sum of columns or rows due to rounding.

Source: MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

equipment, food, lodging, and transportation). From

studies of people engaging in outdoor recreation,

researchers have determined the average expenditures

associated with trips for different types of recreation

activities. This information was used in the IMPLAN

model together with estimates of recreation activity

occurring on the national forests in 1996 to calculate the

overall economic effects of national forest recreation

use (table 4.16). While the estimates of national forest

recreation activity (derived from annual reports of each

forest) are not based on statistically reliable data, they

represented the best information available to the authors

of this chapter. More statistically reliable estimates of

recreation use will be developed for the three national

forests in the Highlands in the years 2000 through 2004.

Recreation on the national forests affected an

estimated 5,848 jobs in the region. The Mark Twain

National Forest had the largest impact (over 2,900 jobs),

while the Ouachita and Ozark each affected over 1,400

recreation-related jobs. Wages totaled $79.4 million and

contributions to total income were $126.3 million.

Overall, recreation use on the three national forests

combined generates 32 percent of employee compensation, 26 percent of total income, and 38 percent of jobs

attributable to national forest resource programs (fig.

4.8). Recreation accounts for the greatest effects of the

three programs on the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests, influencing 55 percent of employee compensation, 45 percent of total income, and 59 percent of jobs

(table 4.15). Relative to the other resource programs,

119
Table 4.16—Economic impacts of national forest recreation use in fiscal year 1996

 Impacts per 10,000 trips Total impact from recreation tripsb

National forest RVD’s Employee Total Employ- Employee Total EmployRecreation activity RVD’s

a per trip compensation income ment (jobs) compensation income ment (jobs)

 - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - Million dollars - - -

Ouachita

Developed site use 332,200 1.17 189,760 133,597 13.7 5.4 3.8 389

Mechanical travel 375,400 1.17 251,130 411,701 18.4 8.1 13.2 590

Trail use 143,400 1.17 209,335 345,228 15.0 2.6 4.2 184

Big game hunting 125,600 1.39 24,183 40,655 2.6 0.2 0.4 23

Small game hunting 150,500 1.39 13,666 23,387 1.4 0.2 0.3 15

Freshwater fishing 64,600 1.39 23,143 42,164 2.3 0.1 0.2 11

Viewing wildlife 19,800 0.96 22,819 39,860 2.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 5

All other recreation 96,800 0.96 321,578 551,473 25.7 3.2 5.6 259

Total 19.8 27.7 1,477

Ozark-St. Francis

Developed site use 442,600 1.17 177,011 304,531 13.3 6.7 11.5 503

Mechanical travel 246,100 1.17 237,738 393,984 18.1 5.0 8.3 381

Trail use 67,200 1.17 198,633 331,634 14.7 1.1 1.9 84

Big game hunting 172,900 1.39 24,183 40,655 2.6 0.3 0.5 32

Small game hunting 124,300 1.39 13,666 23,387 1.4 0.1 0.2 13

Freshwater fishing 55,800 1.39 23,143 42,164 2.3 < 0.1 0.2 9

Viewing wildlife 18,100 0.96 22,819 39,860 2.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 5

All other recreation 159,100 0.96 304,154 526,042 24.8 5.0 8.8 411

Total 18.4 31.4 1,438

Mark Twain

Developed site use 641,200 1.17 196,822 324,589 13.8 10.8 17.8 756

Mechanical travel 538,300 1.17 263,893 418,987 18.4 12.1 19.3 847

Trail use 216,300 1.17 219,498 350,548 15.0 4.1 6.5 277

Big game hunting 133,100 1.39 24,183 40,655 2.6 0.2 0.4 25

Small game hunting 145,200 1.39 13,666 23,387 1.4 0.1 0.2 15

Freshwater fishing 144,900 1.39 23,143 42,164 2.3 0.2 0.4 24

Viewing wildlife 19,800 0.96 22,819 39,860 2.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 5

All other recreation 378,000 0.96 344,799 570,338 25.0 13.6 22.5 984

Total 41.2 67.2 2,933

All forests 79.4 126.3 5,848

RVD = recreation visitor day; see ”Glossary of Terms” for definition. a The Forest Service calculates RVD’s annually for each national forest based on data from fee collections at developed sites and estimates of other

recreation use.

b Totals may differ from sum of columns due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN impact model (using 1993 input-output data and 1996 forest estimates of recreation use), MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

120
recreation has the lowest economic effect on the

Ouachita National Forest, accounting for 20 percent or

less of employee compensation, total income, and jobs.

Minerals. The economic effects of national forest

minerals programs are based on the sales value of

minerals extracted from the national forests. Except for

quartz crystal on the Ouachita, the sales values were

obtained from Forest Service records maintained in the

regional offices in Milwaukee and Atlanta and were

derived from annual production reports of the Minerals

Management Service of the U.S. Department of the

Interior (USDI). The estimated market value of quartz

crystal extraction from national forest lands was

developed from information maintained at the Ouachita

National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

The minerals program of the 3 national forests

accounts for over $50 million in employee compensation,

$96 million in total income, and more than 1,600 jobs in

the Assessment area (table 4.17). Lead, zinc, and

copper mining on the Mark Twain National Forest

account for more than 95 percent of the total national

forest impact from minerals for all three economic

measures. The programs on the Ozark and Ouachita

are much smaller and consist largely of mining quartz

and common variety minerals on the Ouachita and oil

and gas leases on the Ozark.

Relative to the other resource programs for all

Assessment area national forests, the minerals program

accounts for 20 percent of employee compensation, 20

percent of total income, and 10 percent of employment

(fig. 4.8, table 4.15). The economic contributions of the

minerals industry are most significant on the Mark

Twain National Forest where the minerals program

generates 45 percent of employee compensation, 47

percent of total income, and about 27 percent of jobs.

On the Ouachita and Ozark National Forests, the

minerals program represents 2 percent or less of the

national forest economic effects for all economic

indicators (table 4.15).

Returns to Counties

The Federal Government pays a percentage of the

revenues generated from the use of national forest lands

and resources to States and counties rather than making

property tax payments. The following are the principal

Federal laws that provide authority for payments to

States.

Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act, May 23, 1908

(P.L. 60-136, Ch. 192, 35 Stat. 260, as amended). This

act requires that 25 percent of the revenues generated

from national forest lands be returned to the States.

States distribute these payments based on the acreage

of national forest lands in each county and other factors

that may vary from State to State. This money is

restricted to use for county roads and schools, but the

States determine how the money is divided between

Table 4.17—Economic impacts of mineral extraction from national forests in fiscal year 1996

 Impacts per million dollars extracted Total impact for mineral receipts

Minerals

National forest sales’ Employee Total Employment Employee Total Employment

Minerals extracted value compensation income (jobs) compensation income (jobs)

 Million $ - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million $ - - - - - -

Ouachita

Oil and gas 0.001 354,355 920,763 21.2 < .001 < .001 0

Quartz and common variety 1.524 544,040 951,427 22.7 .829 1.450 35

Ozark-St. Francis

Oil and gas 1.503 348,050 919,386 21.3 .523 1.382 32

Mark Twain

Lead, zinc, copper 161.604 303,882 576,559 9.5 49.109 93.174 1,535

Total 164.632 50.461 96.007 1,602

Source: IMPLAN impact model (using 1993 input-output data and 1996 minerals data from the national forests), MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

121
these uses. This act applies to most revenues generated

on a national forest, including revenues from the sale of

forest products, fees for special use permits, range

permits and use of recreation areas, and the sale of

leases for extraction of some but not all minerals, as

described below.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, October 20,

1976 (P.L. 94-565, 90 Stat. 2662; and P.L. 97-258, 96

Stat. 1031, Ch. 69). This law provides for payments to

counties that contain most categories of Federal lands,

including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and

national forests. Payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) are

limited to the funds available from the annual Interior

appropriations bill. The PILT rates for national forest

lands are determined by a formula that accounts for the

25 percent fund payments, other Federal grants and

payments, and county population. PILT payments help

reduce variations caused by year-to-year changes in 25

percent fund payments. However, neither PILT rates

nor payments are made through the Forest Service, and

these payments will not be further analyzed in this

report.

Mineral Materials Act of 1947, July 31, 1947

(P.L. 80-291, Ch. 406, 61 Stat. 681, as amended). This

law provides that any revenues generated from the sale

from national forests of common variety minerals, such

as sand, gravel, and building stone, be distributed to the

States in accordance with the Twenty-five Percent

Fund law.

Mineral Leasing Act, February 25, 1920 (P.L.

66-146, 41 Stat. 437, sect. 35, as amended). This act

requires 50 percent of the revenues generated from oil,

gas, coal, and other energy mineral leases on national

forest lands that was reserved from the public domain to

be paid back to the States for planning, construction, and

maintenance of public facilities and provision of public

services.

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands,

August 7, 1947 (P.L. 80-382, Ch. 513, 61 Stat. 913,

sect. 6, as amended). This law provides that any

revenues generated from the sale of leases for the

extraction of hard rock minerals (i.e., not common

variety), oil, gas, and coal from national forests be

distributed to the States in accordance with the TwentyFive Percent Fund Law.

Quartz Contracts on the Ouachita National

Forest in Arkansas, September 27, 1988 (P.L. 100-

446, sect. 323). This act requires that 50 percent of the

revenues generated from the sale of quartz on the

Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas be returned to the

State of Arkansas.

Tables 4.18a and 4.18b show the payments (in actual

year dollars) from Highlands’ national forests to counties with national forest lands for fiscal years 1987

through 1996. Payments are distributed to the counties

according to the amount of national forest acreage

within the county. The values in table 4.18a do not

reflect PILT or payments made by the Minerals Management Service to counties that have lands of the

Ozark-St. Francis and/or Ouachita National Forests.

Similarly, table 4.18b does not include PILT, but it does

reflect payments from the Minerals Management

Service to counties that include parts of the Mark Twain

National Forest.

Payments from individual forests to counties have

varied somewhat from fiscal year 1987 through 1996,

particularly for the Ouachita National Forest (fig. 4.9).

Such variability can be caused by changes in agency

policies, fluctuations in national forest program levels,

and market variations that affect the value of national

forest resources. For example, payments to counties

Figure 4.9—Payments to counties by national forests for

fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted for inflation).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

Fiscal Year

Million 1992 dollars

Ouachita

Mark Twain

Ozark

122
Table 4.18a—Payments to Arkansas and Oklahoma counties with national forest land, fiscal years 1987 through 1996a

Geographic area NF landb 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

 Acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Arkansas

Ashleyc 1,675 5,007 3,468 8,063 7,669 3,277 1,752 3,098 3,920 4,227 5,770

Baxter 62,990 69,419 60,725 95,890 89,663 92,723 43,053 56,502 68,226 75,575 99,774

Benton 8,197 9,226 8,070 12,582 11,625 12,037 5,617 7,353 8,878 9,835 12,984

Conway 6,954 7,844 6,861 10,697 9,884 10,234 4,635 6,135 7,532 8,343 11,015

Crawford 86,184 95,766 83,773 130,774 120,998 125,212 59,182 77,377 93,433 103,403 136,512

Franklin 103,962 116,230 101,674 159,268 147,331 152,611 71,073 93,254 112,604 124,733 164,672

Garland 114,632 319,814 212,093 519,781 489,461 211,403 113,032 210,100 266,829 289,280 394,931

Hot Spring 320 957 662 1,540 1,465 626 334 592 749 808 1,102

Howard 1,246 3,725 2,579 5,998 5,705 2,438 1,303 2,304 2,916 3,144 4,292

Johnson 180,802 198,354 173,513 271,233 250,615 260,510 120,479 160,007 195,680 216,739 286,383

Leec 11,653 23,316 7,805 53,775 63,160 27,213 4,887 40,067 24,205 29,042 21,503

Logan 86,264 131,398 104,838 192,863 180,620 135,390 65,660 95,079 116,803 128,100 171,222

Madison 48,001 54,397 47,585 73,328 67,811 70,214 33,035 43,097 52,040 57,645 76,032

Marion 3,360 3,760 3,289 5,096 4,709 4,934 2,302 3,014 3,639 4,031 5,322

Montgomery 334,014 919,039 643,573 1,509,630 1,447,775 631,506 337,650 617,794 781,595 842,903 1,151,050

Newton 197,523 221,225 193,519 301,856 279,696 289,607 135,174 177,711 213,943 236,987 303,743

Perry 98,179 279,237 193,621 450,244 428,216 182,979 97,834 178,935 226,449 247,760 338,214

Phillipsc 9,548 19,259 6,447 44,418 52,170 22,297 4,004 32,829 19,833 23,796 17,619

Pike 2,778 6,861 4,751 11,048 12,531 5,355 2,863 5,140 6,502 7,010 9,570

Polk 202,392 591,527 410,302 958,231 912,828 390,208 208,634 373,671 473,708 510,747 697,891

Pope 191,762 206,013 180,213 281,033 259,671 269,223 126,633 166,935 207,636 230,001 303,743

Saline 53,703 159,740 110,676 257,366 244,774 104,593 55,923 99,321 125,695 135,522 185,000

Scott 363,926 1,068,140 742,381 1,728,080 1,645,182 703,252 376,011 670,751 851,795 918,387 1,253,673

Searcy 31,326 35,029 30,642 47,771 44,140 45,821 21,438 28,064 33,887 37,537 49,619

Sebastian 14,888 44,506 30,820 71,669 68,163 29,126 15,573 27,534 34,846 37,571 51,287

Stone 61,315 69,228 60,558 94,409 87,232 90,324 42,026 54,964 66,455 73,613 97,120

Van Buren 32,256 35,452 31,012 48,348 44,673 46,256 21,835 28,709 34,937 38,701 51,092

Washington 21,921 36,602 22,837 35,602 32,896 34,062 14,912 19,555 23,613 26,301 34,722

Yell 221,743 585,088 418,801 950,201 902,361 413,779 217,934 377,483 477,638 516,430 703,399

Total 2,553,514 5,316,159 3,897,098 8,330,794 7,913,024 4,367,210 2,204,788 3,657,375 4,535,986 4,938,171 6,639,256

Oklahoma

Le Flore 212,541 616,390 427,184 993,292 944,836 402,873 215,257 390,091 494,445 534,709 734,907

McCurtain 43,270 129,054 89,370 207,503 197,333 83,998 44,880 79,482 100,598 108,858 148,509

Total 255,811 745,444 516,554 1,200,795 1,142,169 486,871 260,137 469,573 595,043 643,567 883,416

NF = national forest.

a Not included are payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) and payments made by the Minerals Management Service.

b NF acres do not include lands acquired since mid-1996.

c

 These counties are outside the Assessment area but are presented to provide a complete picture of national forest payments.

from the Ouachita National Forest were high in fiscal

years 1989 and 1990 because revenues from oil and gas

leases (“minerals”) on that forest were exceptionally

high in those years (fig. 4.10). Variations in the value of

lead-zinc ore mined on the Mark Twain National Forest

caused the fluctuations in minerals receipts from 1987

through 1996 from a high of slightly more than $2 million

to a low of $0.5 million (fig. 4.11). Recreation receipts

are a relatively steady component of the 25 percent

fund payments from the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests (fig. 4.12), due primarily to fees charged for

visiting Blanchard Springs Caverns, but receipts from

timber harvests on the Ozark National Forest varied

widely in these years.

Based on the 10-year (1987 through 1996) average

for all three forests combined, the sale of national forest

123
Table 4.18b—Payments to counties with national forest land in Missouri and total for the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), fiscal years

1987 through 1996a

Geographic area NF landb 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

 Acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Missouri

Barry 54,751 58,159 78,881 97,598 95,888 74,288 50,655 50,694 68,296 80,413 90,350

Bollinger 1,566 1,684 2,284 2,821 2,770 2,142 1,461 1,476 1,969 2,315 2,592

Boonec 3,762 572 776 959 950 735 501 2,149 3,655 4,912 5,862

Butler 48,307 51,489 69,819 86,222 85,249 65,921 44,912 44,949 60,755 71,589 80,094

Callawayc 12,167 1,528 2,072 2,560 2,664 2,119 1,519 7,559 13,096 17,666 19,959

Carter 91,018 96,728 131,558 162,733 160,715 124,453 84,873 84,883 114,383 134,560 150,671

Christian 51,692 55,172 74,830 92,449 90,771 70,190 48,073 48,196 64,951 76,436 85,576

Crawford 49,824 53,161 72,043 89,006 87,390 67,786 46,231 46,383 62,570 73,657 82,474

Dent 72,291 73,122 99,327 122,682 120,525 94,292 65,815 66,426 90,350 106,753 119,671

Douglas 40,946 44,284 60,063 74,205 72,435 56,012 38,192 38,184 51,467 60,542 67,783

Howell 49,276 52,731 71,520 88,363 86,620 66,981 45,672 45,682 61,549 72,399 81,315

Iron 94,746 104,080 141,256 174,515 169,976 130,397 88,420 88,458 119,190 140,216 156,921

Laclede 28,769 30,847 41,838 51,689 50,827 39,299 26,834 26,828 36,162 42,537 47,625

Madison 50,448 53,144 72,955 90,132 88,496 68,529 46,728 46,752 63,104 74,367 83,420

Oregon 105,553 105,528 143,128 176,828 173,705 134,320 91,734 95,798 131,125 155,806 174,603

Ozark 38,512 41,726 56,594 69,919 68,649 53,084 36,215 36,232 48,804 57,409 64,015

Phelps 64,782 67,847 92,065 114,606 112,908 87,620 59,988 60,016 81,162 95,664 107,224

Pulaski 47,824 50,329 68,320 84,406 82,716 64,669 44,586 44,591 60,082 70,694 79,163

Reynolds 89,768 95,682 129,683 160,216 157,355 121,838 83,078 83,118 112,254 132,432 148,528

Ripley 96,552 102,283 138,727 171,219 168,091 129,913 88,825 89,010 120,240 142,186 159,669

St. Francois 813 960 1,302 1,608 1,580 1,112 758 781 1,022 1,203 1,346

Ste. Genevieve 10,254 11,025 14,593 18,474 18,139 14,026 9,564 9,568 12,889 15,160 16,974

Shannon 83,385 90,130 121,886 150,584 147,428 114,063 77,776 77,803 104,811 123,291 138,038

Stone 15,595 17,486 23,717 29,258 28,240 21,837 14,886 14,896 20,061 23,598 26,119

Taney 64,266 68,471 92,868 114,734 113,040 87,410 59,640 59,551 80,199 94,685 106,277

Texas 48,807 51,652 70,058 86,842 85,188 66,399 45,524 45,537 61,349 72,165 80,796

Washington 82,304 88,985 120,723 148,480 145,784 111,609 76,252 76,404 102,971 121,170 135,955

Wayne 88,061 93,029 126,272 155,927 153,923 119,077 81,325 81,432 110,150 129,833 145,632

Wright 7,159 7,526 10,207 12,610 12,664 9,793 6,678 6,686 8,998 10,585 11,851

Total 1,493,198 1,569,360 2,129,365 2,631,645 2,584,686 1,999,914 1,366,715 1,380,042 1,867,614 2,204,243 2,470,503

Total (AR,

MO, OK) 4,302,523 7,110,370 7,063,601 12,133,234 11,639,879 6,853,995 3,831,640 5,506,990 6,998,643 7,785,981 9,993,175

NF = national forest.

a Values reported here include payments made by the Minerals Management Service to counties that include lands of the Mark Twain National Forest but

do not include payments in lieu of taxes (PILT); the latter are reported in annual reports of the Mark Twain National Forest.

b NF acres do not include lands acquired since mid-1996.

c These counties are outside the Assessment area but are presented to provide a complete picture of national forest payments.

timber generates 69 percent of the payments to counties, and the sale and leasing of minerals generates 28

percent (see table 4.19). Recreation fees generate

slightly more than 2 percent of the payments, and

grazing and special uses account for less than 1 percent.

The percentage distribution varies by forest with

recreation accounting for nearly 10 percent of payments

on the Ozark National Forest, minerals accounting for

57 percent of payments on the Mark Twain, and timber

accounting for 79 percent on the Ouachita.

Similar to the production of goods and services,

payments to local governments also have a multiplying

effect in the economy. The economic multipliers (impacts) and the total impacts for 1996 payments to

counties are shown in table 4.20. As described above,

counties use their share of payments for improvements

124
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

Fiscal year

Million dollars

Minerals

Timber

Figure 4.10—Payments to counties from the Ouachita National Forest by revenue generating resource program for

fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted for inflation). (Payments from grazing, recreation, and special land uses

totaled less than $75,000 per year and are not shown.)

Figure 4.11—Payments to counties from the Mark Twain National Forest by revenue generating resource program

for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted for inflation). (Payments from grazing, recreation, and special land

uses totaled less than $30,000 per year and are not shown.)

0

1

2

3

4

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Fiscal year

Million dollars

Minerals

Timber

0

1

2

3

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Fiscal year

Million dollars

Recreation

Minerals

Timber

Figure 4.12— Payments to counties from the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests by revenue generating resource

program for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted for inflation). (Payments from grazing and special land uses

totaled less than $30,000 per year and are not shown.)

Minerals

Timber

125
Table 4.19—Average payments to counties by revenue-generating resource program and national forest, 1987−1996

Program Ozark-St. Francis NF’s Ouachita NF Mark Twain NF Total

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Timber 1,052,330 74.98 3,542,065 79.23 849,699 42.03 5,444,095 68.95

Grazing 6,259 0.45 2,443 0.05 5,664 0.28 14,366 0.18

Special land uses 15,608 1.11 20,325 0.45 6,845 0.34 42,778 0.54

Minerals 193,013 13.75 879,194 19.66 1,144,803 56.63 2,217,010 28.08

Recreation 136,251 9.71 26,839 0.60 14,461 0.72 177,551 2.25

Total 1,403,462 100.00 4,470,866 100.0 2,021,472 100.00 7,895,800 100.00

NF = national forest.

Table 4.20—Economic impacts of national forest payments to counties for fiscal year 1996

 Impacts per million dollars Total impact for 1996 paymentsa

National forest Payments to Employee Total Employment Employee Total Employment

County program countiesb compensation income (jobs) compensation income (jobs)

 Million $ - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million $ - - - - - -

Ouachita

County roads 1.81 335,094 611,195 19.8 .606 1.106 36

County schools 3.88 1,059,696 1,236,451 47.7 4.112 4.797 186

Ozark-St. Francis

County roads .46 353,345 641,897 20.2 .162 .294 9

County schools 1.37 1,076,659 1,263,618 46.1 1.478 1.735 63

Mark Twain

County roads .62 354,258 631,324 19.3 .219 .390 12

County schools 1.85 969,067 1,142,791 45.6 1.796 2.117 84

Total 9.99 8.372 10.440 390

a Due to rounding, some totals may differ from the product of “payments to counties” times “impacts per million dollars,” and totals may differ from

sum of columns.

b In 1996, counties in Arkansas and Missouri allocated 75 percent of the payments for schools and 25 percent for roads. In Oklahoma, the allocation was

25 percent for schools and 75 percent to roads, except that in 1996, 81 percent of the payments in McCurtain County were allocated as follows: 67

percent to schools and 33 percent to roads.

Source: IMPLAN impact model (using 1993 input-output data and 1996 national forest data); MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

to roads and operation of schools. Funds used to operate

schools have a much higher multiplying effect in the

economy than those used for road improvements. In

1996, the payments to counties of nearly $10 million

affected about $8.4 million in wages, $10.4 million in

total income, and 390 jobs.

National Forest Expenditures

Expenditures by the three national forests in the

Assessment area for salaries, supplies, utilities, contracts, and other costs associated with the operation and

maintenance of the forests put $49.6 million into the

economy in 1996. Figures 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15 show the

126
Figure 4.13—Expenditures by program categories of the Ouachita National Forest for fiscal years 1989 through 1996

(adjusted to 1992 dollars). (“Other” category includes land uses, range, soil, water, air, minerals, construction, fire,

law enforcement, and ecosystem management.)

Figure 4.14—Expenditures by program categories on the Mark Twain National Forest for fiscal years 1989 through

1996 (adjusted to 1992 dollars). (“Other” category includes land uses, range, soil, water, air, minerals, construction,

fire, law enforcement, and ecosystem management.)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1989 1991 1993 1995

Fiscal year

Million 1992 dollars 

Other

Wildlife

Timber

Recreation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1989 1991 1993 1995

Fiscal year

Million 1992 dollars

Other

Wildlife

Timber

Recreation

127
Figure 4.15—Expenditures by program categories on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests for fiscal years 1989

through 1996 (adjusted to 1992 dollars). (“Other” category includes land uses, range, soil, water, air, minerals,

construction, fire, law enforcement, and ecosystem management.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1989 1991 1993 1995

Fiscal year

Million 1992 dollars 

Other

Wildlife

Timber

Recreation

expenditures (adjusted to 1992 dollars) by major program categories for the three forests in fiscal years

1989 through 1996. Note that expenditures are more

stable than receipts for all the forests. These expenditures affected the region’s economy by supporting 978

jobs (including approximately 780 employees of the

three national forests) and generating $16.06 million in

employee compensation, and $27.54 million in total

income (tables 4.20 and 4.21).

Average Annual Income

The average annual income for each employment

category (based on the analysis areas described previously, i.e., timber market zones and counties with

national forest lands) is presented in figure 4.16. Relative

to other program areas, jobs influenced by the national

forest minerals program stand out as the highest paying.

This high income level for “minerals jobs” related to

national forests is consistent with the high income rates

throughout the Assessment area for the mining sector

(presented earlier in this chapter, also see table 4.3).

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

Timber Recreation Minerals

National forest program

Average annual income 1996

Figure 4.16—Average annual wages of workers

affected by each national forest program in fiscal year

1996 (from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b).

128
Table 4.21—Economic impacts of national forest expenditures for fiscal year 1996a

 Total impacts from 1996 NFS expenditures

Employment Employee Total

National forest 1996 expenditures (jobs) compensation income

Million $ - - - - - Million dollars - - - - -

Ouachita 24.7 490 8.18 14.04

Ozark-St. Francis 11.8 218 3.55 6.21

Mark Twain 13.1 270 4.34 7.29

Total 49.6 978 16.06 27.54

NFS = National Forest System.

a National forest expenditures impact numerous industrial sectors; economic multipliers developed

for this table (but not shown here) are included in the IMPLAN model.

Source: IMPLAN impact model (using 1993 input-output data and 1996 expenditures from the

USDA National Finance Center), MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

Overall Contributions to the Highlands’ Economy

The overall contributions to the Highlands’ economy

from the goods and services the national forests

provide, the payments to States, and the forests’

expenditures are measured in terms of both employment and the GRP (table 4.22). The forests influence

nearly 17,000 jobs or 0.9 percent of total employment

in the Assessment area of nearly 1.9 million. This

influence is concentrated in the counties closest to the

forests; county-level proportions will be much greater

than average in many counties. In 1996, the Highlands’

national forests and their programs generated a GRP

of about $572 million. This equals approximately 0.9

percent of the total GRP of the Assessment area

($61,601 million).

Table 4.22—Economic contributions of national forests to the Assessment area economy

in 1996

Economic contribution Employment (jobs) Gross regional product

% of area % of area

economy Million $ economy

National forest goods and services

Timber 8,052 0.43 290.21 0.47

Recreation 5,848 0.31 138.81 0.23

Minerals 1,602 0.09 101.77 0.17

Total 15,502 0.83 530.79 0.86

Payments to counties 390 0.02 10.90 0.02

National forest expenditures 978 0.05 30.28 0.05

Total national forest

contributiona 16,870 0.90 571.97 0.93

Assessment area economy 1,875,503 100.00 61,600.70 100.00

a Totals may differ from sum of column due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN impact planning model (using 1993 input-output data and 1996 national forest data);

MN IMPLAN (1997a, b).

129
Implications and Opportunities

The economic growth of the Assessment area, which

outpaced inflation in almost all industrial sectors between 1977 and 1993, contributes to the attractiveness

of the Highlands as an area for population growth. This

positive economic situation is likely one reason for and,

to a certain extent, is generated by the high in-migration

rate of people that the Highlands has experienced over

the past decade. As described in Chapter 2, nearly 80

percent of the area’s population increase between 1990

and 1996 was due to people moving to the region from

some other part of the country. Continued economic

growth coupled with an increase in population will place

additional demands on public land managers to supply

goods and services.

Although national forest programs are a small part of

the total regional economy, their effects are significant

in counties that (1) are nearest the national forests,

(2) have mills or processing plants, and/or (3) are tourist

destinations. Thus, while decisions made about national

forest management may have only a small impact on the

overall regional economy, they take on much more

significance at local levels and in certain market sectors.

For example, fluctuations in a national forest’s annual

timber sale program will have a minimal effect on the

overall economy of the Highlands but could significantly

affect the production of a particular sawmill and the

associated jobs and incomes from that sawmill. Individual national forests may need to evaluate these local

effects of national forest timber, recreation, and minerals programs during the revision of forest management

plans.

130
Chapter 5: Recreation

Question 5.1: What are the current supply of and

projected demands for outdoor recreation in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, and what is the

economic importance of recreation?

Outdoor recreation plays important roles in American

society. A 1994 survey found that people who participate

in outdoor recreation lead more satisfying and fulfilling

lives (Roper Starch, Inc. 1994). People engage in outdoor

recreation because it is fun, relaxing, fosters good health,

reduces stress, contributes to family togetherness,

increases knowledge of the environment and, for many

activities, is affordable, regardless of income level.

Recreation-based business is a significant factor in

national, regional, and local economies, and recreation

amenities can be an advantage for communities interested in attracting new industry and creating jobs. This

chapter addresses the economic importance, current

supply, and projected demand for outdoor recreation in

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. The report focuses on

those natural-resource-based activities such as camping,

hiking, fishing, and hunting that typically take place on

public lands but occur on private lands as well.

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands provide outstanding

resources for outdoor recreation and tourism. The natural

scenic beauty and the culture and folklore of the inhabitants contribute to the region’s charm. The Highlands

contain the only mountainous terrain in the Midwestern

United States. The large areas of public lands within the

Highlands have long been important recreation settings

for the inhabitants of the Midwest and the lowlands of

Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (Rafferty 1980). One

consultant to the State of Arkansas recommended that

the State market itself as a park “in the middle of”

Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, and other major

Middle Western, Southwestern, and Southern metropolitan areas (NABFCB 1998).

The Highlands are within a day’s drive of approximately 58 million people—21 percent of the Nation’s

population (USDC BC 1993, 1997c)—that live in rural

settings as well as the metropolitan areas of Des Moines,

IA; Omaha, NE; St. Louis and Kansas City, MO; Memphis, TN; Little Rock, AR; New Orleans and Shreveport,

LA; Houston, Dallas, and Ft. Worth, TX; Tulsa and

Oklahoma City, OK; Kansas City, Topeka, and Wichita,

KS; and Chicago, IL. Many inhabitants of these cities

and surrounding areas look to the public lands of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands to provide settings for outdoor

recreation.

The national forests, national and State parks, and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ lakes, combined with the

mild climate and scenic quality of the Highlands region,

attract tourists and people looking for a place to retire or

to have a vacation home. As described in Chapter 2, the

population of the Highlands has increased dramatically

over the last three decades. From 1970 to 1996, the

population grew by 1.2 million people (48 percent); most

of this increase was due to in-migration, i.e., people

moving into the Highlands. Some of the fastest growth

occurred in counties with major tourist attractions, such

as Taney County, MO (Branson music and tourism

community), and retirement communities such as Baxter

County, AR (Mt. Home recreation and retirement

community). Sixteen counties in the Highlands, including

eight with national forest land, have been designated

“retirement-destination” counties by the Economic

Research Service (see Chapter 2).

Individuals moving to the area bring with them expectations for recreation activities other than (or in addition

to) the traditional hunting and fishing that have been a

part of the lifestyle of many of the lifelong inhabitants.

Developers have built golf courses, marinas, and resorts

across the region, and demand for such facilities continues to grow.

131
 Key Findings

 1. Approximately 58 million people (21 percent of the

U. S. population) live within a 1-day drive of

outdoor recreation opportunities in the OzarkOuachita Highlands.

 2. In 1996, travel expenditures in the Assessment

area counties of Arkansas and Missouri totaled

over $9 billion and accounted for nearly 167,000

jobs. A 1995 study for Oklahoma indicated that

statewide, travel-related expenditures totaled over

$3 billion. Public lands, by providing many of the

settings for outdoor recreation, are important to

maintaining and enhancing a strong tourism industry. Private lands that dominate the forested

landscape and influence scenic quality in a large

part of the Highlands are also important to the

region’s tourism industry.

 3. State and national parks, national forests, national

wildlife refuges, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer

lands and waters account for 13 percent of the

Highlands’ area and provide the principal settings

for many kinds of outdoor recreational activities

that are based on natural resources. National

forests total 4.4 million acres (ac), more than any

other public land category.

 4. The three national forests provide recreation

opportunities principally in roaded-natural (75

percent) and semi-primitive (20 percent) settings.

There is very little national forest land in the

primitive setting class.

 5. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides 51

percent and State parks provide 30 percent of the

developed campsites in the Assessment area.

National forests account for only 6 percent of the

area’s campsites, while the private sector makes up

12 percent.

 6. Among the public land-managing agencies, the

USDA Forest Service is the principal provider of

dispersed recreation opportunities (e.g., primitive

camping, hunting, trails). Approximately 63 percent

of the trail miles in the Assessment area are

located in the national forests.

 7. Nonindustrial, private forest lands dominate the

forested landscape of the Highlands. These lands

account for between 65 and 85 percent of the

forests (timberland) in three of the Highlands’ four

ecological sections—the Ozark Highlands, Boston

Mountains, and Arkansas Valley. In the Ouachita

Mountains, forest ownership is almost evenly split

among industrial forest lands, national forests, and

non-industrial, private lands.

 8. There are 238,012 ac of federally designated

wilderness in the Highlands that represent 5

percent of the land area managed by the Forest

Service, USDI National Park Service, and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilderness accounts for

4.4 percent of all national forest lands. Wilderness

areas occur in all four ecological sections of the

Highlands.

 9. Approximately 523 miles of rivers in the Highlands

have received Federal designations based on their

exceptional scenic and recreational value. More

than 2,000 additional miles of rivers may merit a

special designation for their recreational values but

lack either complete studies to determine their

suitability for inclusion in the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System or legislative action to

formalize State designation.

 10. Annually, more than 7 million people travel over the

9 national forest and State scenic byways in the

Assessment area.

 11. Residents of the Highlands’ “draw area” exceed

the national average in percent of population

participating in every major category of outdoor

recreation available in the Highlands. More than 90

percent of the draw area population participates in

activities associated with viewing and learning

about nature and human history, such as sightseeing, bird watching, and visiting historic sites.

Approximately 40 percent participate in fishing, 41

percent participate in outdoor adventure activities

(such as hiking or off-road driving), about 35

percent participate in boating, 31 percent participate

in camping, and 14 percent participate in hunting.

 12. Nationally, demand for nearly all categories of

recreational activities is expected to increase in

the next decade. For the southern Renewable

Resources Planning Act (RPA) region, participation in most recreational activities is projected to

increase significantly more than the Nation as a

whole and/or the northern RPA region.

132
 13. Because of their age and heavy use, many public

recreational facilities are deteriorating. Lack of

funds to maintain and repair these facilities is a

widespread concern among land managers in the

Assessment area.

 14. Recreation overuse, particularly off-road vehicle

driving, dispersed (primitive) camping, and river

use, is occurring in some areas, resulting in resource damage and conflicts among users.

Economic Importance of Outdoor

Recreation

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

Data were not available to quantify the full economic

impact of all aspects of outdoor recreation occurring in

the Highlands. However, to provide some idea of the

magnitude and importance of the recreation-based

economy, the Social-Economic team analyzed information related to economic aspects of travel and tourism,

fish and wildlife activities, and retail sales. An additional

analysis of the travel sector of the economy is provided

in Chapter 4, which also focuses on the economic

impact of recreation that occurs on national forest land.

The departments of tourism of the three Highlands’

States provided data used in the analysis of tourism’s

economic importance. For Arkansas and Missouri, the

availability of county-level travel data allowed estimates

to be made specifically for the Assessment area.

However, only statewide travel statistics were available

for Oklahoma. The travel studies from the three States

differ somewhat in their design as well as their definition

of “person trip” (see “Glossary of Terms”). While not

completely comparable, the studies provide a good idea

of the economic importance of the travel industry, one

component of which is tourist travel.

Information related to expenditures for fish and

wildlife recreational activities was obtained from the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 1996 National Survey

of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (USDI FWS 1997) and consists of statewide

estimates for each of the three States. Information from

the Arkansas SCORP ’95: Statewide Comprehensive

Outdoor Recreation Plan (Turner 1995) provided an

insight to the magnitude of retail sales for outdoor

recreation products. Although tourism, activities associated with wildlife, and retail sales are discussed separately, there is some overlap among the three since

many tourists participate in fishing, hunting, or wildlife

viewing as part of their travel activities, and their

expenditures include retail purchases associated with

outdoor recreation pursuits.

Since many of the region’s recreation participants

come from outside the Highlands, the Social-Economic

Team defined a larger “draw area” as the basis for

analyzing some elements of the demand for outdoor

recreation within the Assessment area. A number of

studies and surveys show that most outdoor recreation

activities take place within a day’s drive (approximately

300 miles (mi)) of the participant’s home (AR DPT 1997,

SYNERGY Group 1996, MO DT 1995, Turner 1995).

Therefore, the draw area for this Assessment includes

all counties within approximately 300 mi of the outer

boundaries of the Mark Twain, Ouachita, and Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests (fig. 5.1). While the Highlands

does have visitors from across the country and abroad,

most people participating in outdoor recreation within the

Assessment area reside within the draw area.

Tourism

The natural and cultural settings of the Highlands are

important to the area’s tourism industry, as suggested by

the States’ promotional logos: Arkansas—“The Natural

State,” Oklahoma—“Native America,” and Missouri—

“Where the river runs.” In an assessment of tourism for

Arkansas, Economic Research Associates concluded

that the State’s “. . . greatest tourism asset is clearly its

natural beauty . . .” (NABFCB 1998).

The culture and folklore of the Highlands’ people are

part of the region’s charm. The traditional music played

on handmade instruments, the toys and children’s games,

the traditional clothing styles, and the native crafts—from

basket-making to quilts—have become attractions for

tourists. Craft fairs abound in the fall and spring, drawing

thousands of tourists each year. There are music halls

and craft shops along almost every major road (and

many back roads) throughout the region. These give local

inhabitants a source of income and tourists a place to

absorb “mountain culture” and buy regional handicrafts

(Rafferty 1980). The Ozark-Ouachita region is rich in

133
#

#

Tulsa

Chicago

St. Paul

 Oklahoma

City

ia

Jonesboro

ayetteville

Springfield

Joplin

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment Area

Draw area

Fort Worth Dallas

Austin

San Antonio

Corpus Christi

New Orleans

Houston

Atlanta

Memphis

Nashville

Hot

Springs

Little

Rock

Kansas City

Wichita

St. Louis

Milwaukee

Fort Smith

F

Omaha

Ind napolis

Birmingham

Louisville

Shreveport

Figure 5.1—Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area and draw area (latter includes the Assessment area;

selected cities shown for perspective).

historic and scenic sites, making it a prime area for auto

tours. The agencies that manage public lands work with

tourism associations to develop brochures, videos, selfguided auto tours, and maps that emphasize what to see

and do while driving through the Highlands.

In 1996, nearly 35 million “person trips” (table 5.1)

were taken in the Assessment area of Arkansas and

Missouri, accounting for 77 percent of all travelers

visiting the entire State of Arkansas and 37 percent of

those visiting Missouri. Travel expenditures in the

Assessment area of these two States totaled over $9

billion and generated over $800 million in State and local

taxes. More than 166,000 jobs are attributable to

businesses related to travel generating over $2 billion in

134
Table 5.1—1996 travel-related expenditures, payroll, tax receipts, jobs, and “person trips” in Arkansas, Missouri, and portions of

those States lying within the Assessment areaa

Total travel Travel- State tax Local tax Travel- Person

Geographic area expenditures generated payroll receipts receipts generated jobs tripsb

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Assessment area

Arkansas portion 2,455,617,389 427,492,407 107,345,178 47,096,419 36,392 13,876,550

Missouri portion 6,783,241,577 1,877,614,014 426,848,970 226,452,318 130,166 20,894,290

Total 9,238,858,966 2,305,106,421 534,194,148 273,548,737 166,558 34,770,840

States (entire)

Arkansas 3,153,293,000 542,366,000 141,898,000 59,913,000 46,774 18,066,000

Missouri 17,153,685,363 4,746,439,238 1,079,429,776 572,660,101 294,554 56,765,358

Total 20,306,978,363 5,288,805,238 1,221,327,776 632,573,101 341,328 74,831,358

a Equivalent data were not available for Oklahoma.

b See the “Glossary of Terms” for definitions of “a person trip” in the three Assessment area States.

Source: AR DPT (1997), Certec, Inc. (1997).

annual payroll in the Arkansas and Missouri portion of

the Assessment area (AR DPT 1997, Certec, Inc.

1997). Equivalent county-level data were not available

for Oklahoma, but a 1995 statewide study indicates that

over 15 million person trips were taken in the State,

accounting for approximately $3 billion in expenditures

(TIAA 1995). Not all travel is for purposes of tourism

or outdoor recreation. As described in Chapter 4 of this

report, a study in Arkansas found that travelers in the

State participated in the following outdoor recreation

activities: sightseeing (87 percent), camping (13 percent)

fishing/hunting (10 percent), water sports (6 percent)

and bird watching (3 percent) (AR DPT 1998). The

1995 Arkansas SCORP estimated that people participating in outdoor recreation account for as much as 40

percent of expenditures related to travel (Turner 1995).

The importance of public lands to the tourism industry is evident. A study by D.K. Shifflet and Associates

(1998) found that visiting national and State parks,

hunting, and fishing were among the top five most

popular leisure activities of visitors in Arkansas and

Oklahoma. Sightseeing and visiting historic sites were

among the top five in all three Assessment area States.

State tourism agencies have recognized the importance

of public lands in maintaining and enhancing a strong

tourism industry and have stressed the importance of

protecting scenic quality and improving outdoor recreation facilities and amenities. One study in Arkansas

encouraged the development of joint public and private

ventures on public lands such as national forests as a

means of increasing the availability of recreation

resources (NABFCB 1998).

Private lands also are important in maintaining a

robust tourism industry, particularly through their

influence on scenic quality and the recreation opportunities that are available on them. As is discussed later in

this chapter, private lands dominate the forested landscape of most areas of the Highlands.

Ecotourism is a relatively recent form of recreation

that involves visiting places to learn about the cultural

and natural history of an area in ways that minimize

effects on the land and ensures the maintenance of

ecosystem integrity. The ecotourism concept includes

providing economic opportunities for local people

through tourism based on natural resources (Romund

1997). Public lands can play a role in the development

of this industry by providing the settings and natural

attractions for tourists to visit. Ozark Ecotours in

Newton County, AR, is an example of a local business

developing around ecotourism opportunities on nearby

public land. Guided tours are provided that include hikes

to natural areas, canoe trips, cave exploration, and

visiting Native American sites. Most of the tours are

conducted on public lands (the Buffalo National River

and the Ozark National Forest) in cooperation with the

National Park Service and the USDA Forest Service.

135
“Ecotourists” contribute to the local Jasper, AR,

economy through their spending for lodging, food, crafts,

and other travel-related items, and area residents are

employed as tour guides (Romund 1997).

Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

The 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation indicates that over

$5 billion in expenditures were attributable to recreation

related to wildlife in the three Highlands’ States (table

5.2) (USDI FWS 1997). Approximately 75 percent of

these expenditures are due to hunting and fishing; the

remainder are attributable to wildlife viewing activities

such as bird watching. Missouri has 50 percent and 90

percent more expenditures for recreation related to

wildlife than Arkansas and Oklahoma, respectively.

These expenditures represent statewide values, but the

public lands of the Highlands, managed, in part, to

maintain and enhance wildlife habitats, provide some of

the most significant opportunities and settings for

viewing and photographing wildlife.

Retail Sales for Outdoor Recreation

The 1995 Arkansas SCORP (Turner 1995) reported

that 1993 retail sales of outdoor recreation products in the

State totaled $246 million. Of that total, sales of products

used for typical activities on Federal and State public

lands included $79.8 million for boating, $52.1 million for

hunting and fishing, $13.4 million for mountain biking,

$11.9 million for walking, and $5.5 million for camping.

County-level data were not available to allow an analysis

of sales specifically for the Highlands area nor were

equivalent data available for Oklahoma and Missouri.

Supply Status of Recreation

Opportunities

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

To characterize the nature and availability of recreational opportunities, the Social-Economic Team examined the following indicators: (1) acres of land available

to the public, (2) acres of national forest land by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class, (3) scenic

character, (4) number of developed and dispersed public

recreation facilities, and (5) number of areas with

special designations. Team members used the Southern

Research Station’s Social, Economic, Environmental,

Leisure, and Attitudes (SEELA) data set for information

about the amount of public lands in the Highlands and

their distribution among managing agencies (Cordell

1995c). Data from Forest Service records and the

National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information

System (NORSIS) were used to estimate the availability

of recreation facilities, and the 1995 National Private

Landowner Survey (NPLOS) was used to estimate the

availability of private land for public use (Cordell 1995a,

b). Data regarding timberland ownership, developed by

the Southern Research Station’s Forest Inventory and

Analysis (FIA) unit, were used to analyze forest

ownership distribution (USDA FS 1997a).

Availability of Land for Public Recreation

State and national parks, national forests, national

wildlife refuges, and Corps of Engineers’ lakes and

surrounding lands provide the principal areas of public

Table 5.2—1996 expenditures for wildlife-related recreation

in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma by individuals 16

years old and oldera

Total

Hunting and Wildlife wildlife

State fishing watching recreation

 - - - - - - - - -Thousand dollars - - - - - - - - - - -

Arkansas 1,038,109 579,845 1,617,954

Missouri 1,957,959 507,926 2,465,885

Oklahoma 1,090,143 201,797 1,291,940

Total 4,086,211 1,289,568 5,375,779

a Includes expenses related to travel and equipment; values are for

entire States (not the Assessment area alone).

Source: USDI FWS (1997).

136
lands and water available for outdoor recreation. (See

fig. 1.5 and Chapter 1—tables 1.1 through 1.4—for

displays and listings of public lands). These public lands

comprise 6,487,000 acres (ac) or 13 percent of the

Assessment area’s land base (Cordell 1995a). This

acreage includes the 673,000 ac of water surface in the

Corps of Engineers’ reservoirs, which, when combined

with the Corps land area adjacent to reservoirs, accounts

for 26 percent of the public lands. The national forests

account for the largest area (4,359,337 ac or 67 percent)

of all public lands managed by these agencies (fig. 5.2).

Providing high-quality, natural-resource-based recreation

is one of the missions of the agencies responsible for

managing these public lands.

Private lands also play a role in the recreation setting

through their influence on the scenic character of the

landscape and their availability for recreational activities.

Recreation opportunities available on private lands are a

function of the landowners’ objectives and willingness to

permit access. Some large tracts of industrial forest

lands are open to the public for hunting and fishing;

however, it is increasingly common for access to be

restricted to lease holders. The 1995 NPLOS (Cordell

1995b) found that for all Highlands counties, at least 47

percent of an average tract of private land is either

completely closed to public use for recreation or is open

only to leaseholders or available only to family and

friends of the landowners. Less than 8 percent of the

private land in the Assessment area was identified by

owners as available for use by the general public

Figure 5.2—Percent distribution of public lands among managing

agencies (Cordell 1995c).

(table 5.3), emphasizing the importance of public lands

for meeting the demand for outdoor recreation.

Having vehicle access to public forest lands for

recreation activities, such as hunting and fishing, is

important to many people. An extensive road network

provides access to a large part of the national forests.

Sometimes it is necessary to close public roads to meet

management objectives for wildlife and recreation and

to control the cost of road maintenance. Proposals to

close roads can be controversial when people who once

used those roads are no longer able to drive to traditional public areas. This controversy becomes more

acute as trends to close access to private land increase.

Table 5.3—Availability of private land for recreation expressed as a percent of an average

private tract of land in the Assessment area

Reserved

Geographic for family Closed to Open only to Open to Not

area or friends public leaseholders public designated

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Arkansas 35.7 7.7 6.0 6.1 44.5

Missouri 34.2 9.2 1.7 9.2 45.7

Oklahoma 33.8 8.7 5.2 7.1 45.2

Assessment area 34.6 8.6 3.9 7.7 45.2

Source: Cordell (1995b).

National Park Service

3%

Corps of Engineers

26%

State Parks

3%

Fish and Wildlife Service

1%

Forest Service

67%

137
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

People engage in a particular recreational activity in

a specific surrounding or setting because they desire a

certain experience. Recreation supply is defined in

terms of opportunities to participate in a preferred

recreation activity in a chosen setting to realize desired

and expected experiences.

The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) to categorize and inventory the variety

of recreation settings in an area. ROS defines six

recreation opportunity classes that characterize different

settings for recreational use arranged along a continuum

from heavily developed and maintained to undeveloped,

natural settings. ROS is a tool to inventory and describe

the existing recreational opportunities, as well as to plan

for future management. For this Assessment, the

Social-Economic Team used ROS strictly to inventory

and describe current recreation settings on national

forests in the Assessment area.

The ROS classes are based on seven indicators:

(1) access, (2) remoteness, (3) naturalness, (4) facilities

and site management, (5) social encounters, (6) visitor

impacts, and (7) visitor management. Depending on the

condition and combinations of these seven indicators, a

specific land area is classified as (1) urban, (2) rural,

(3) roaded-natural, (4) semi-primitive motorized,

(5) semi-primitive nonmotorized, or (6) primitive. A brief

description of these classes follows:

• Urban—high levels of human activity and concentrated development. Levels of recreation use vary

and can be extremely high or condensed in a small

area. There is a high amount of interaction with other

people. Many conveniences are available to the user.

Human-built structures dominate the landscape. City

parks, play fields, cemeteries, and small undeveloped

areas provide the only open space.

• Rural—often described as pastoral; sights and

sounds of human activity are readily evident. Levels

of use vary from moderate to high, with a moderate

amount of interaction with others. While humanconstructed features such as fields, pastures, and

roads may dominate the landscape, there is still a

strong sense of open space.

• Roaded-natural—predominantly natural-appearing

settings, with moderate sights and sounds of human

activities and structures. While roaded-natural areas

have a natural appearance, the amount of evidence

of human activity varies from area to area and can

include improvements such as highways, railroads,

developed campgrounds, small resorts, livestock

grazing, and timber harvesting. Roads and motorized

vehicles and equipment are common in this setting.

The density of use is moderate except at specific

developed sites; interaction with others and user

conveniences are less common than in the urban and

rural classes.

• Semi-primitive motorized—also characterized by

predominantly natural or natural-appearing landscapes and large enough to impart a strong feeling of

remoteness. There are few, if any, facilities provided

for user convenience. Roads are low standard and

used primarily by four-wheel drive and off-highway

vehicles. Interaction with other visitors is infrequent.

• Semi-primitive nonmotorized—in size and landscape

features, this setting is similar to the semi-primitive

motorized. The user has ample opportunities to

practice outdoor skills and self-reliance. Roads are

either closed or used only in case of emergencies and

are visually unobtrusive. The user can expect few

encounters with others. There are no user conveniences other than trails.

• Primitive—naturally evolving, unmodified environments. Their size and configuration ensure remoteness from the sights and sounds of human activity.

The use of motor vehicles and equipment is forbidden

except in extreme emergencies. The user is forced to

be self-reliant and does not expect to encounter other

people or evidence of human activity.

Table 5.4 shows the amount of land in each ROS

class for the national forests in the Assessment area as

listed in the existing forest plans. The three national

forests principally provide recreational opportunities in

roaded-natural (about 74 percent) and semi-primitive

(about 20 percent) settings.

Data were not available to evaluate the ROS distribution on other lands in the Assessment area. However,

most of the private lands in the region appear to have

the characteristics of the roaded-natural or rural classes,

with some scattered areas classed as urban. Most of

the semi-primitive areas within the Assessment region

are found on public lands.

138
Table 5.4—Acresa

 and percent of national forest land by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classb

Mark Ozark- Portion of

ROS class Twain St. Francis Ouachita Total NF land

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent

Primitive 64,000c 0 0 64,000 1.5

Semi-primitive nonmotorized 4,000 71,000 63,245 138,245 3.3

Semi-primitive motorized 88,000 400,000 193,826 681,826 16.3

Roaded-natural 1,132,000 663,000 1,287,023 3,082,023 73.5

Rural 170,000 6,000 47,755 223,755 5.3

Urban 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.1

Total 1,398,000 1,140,000 1,591,849 4,193,849 100.0

NF = national forest.

a Acres are from forest plans and generally do not reflect adjustments in land ownership since 1986 or in the case of the Ouachita NF,

since 1990; 53,983 acres of national forest land outside the Highlands are included.

b See the “Glossary of Terms” for explanations of the six ROS classes. c The forest plan for the Mark Twain National Forest classifies wilderness as primitive; the forest plans of the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests do not.

Source: USDA FS (1986a, b; 1990).

Scenic Character

The natural beauty of the Highlands is a major factor

in the region’s appeal to visitors. Mountainous terrain,

upland hardwood and mixed pine forests, towering

limestone bluffs, caves, clear mountain streams, and an

abundance of lakes support a variety of recreation

activities. The contrasting colors of hardwood and pine

forests add scenic variety to the landscape. Pine forests

tend to dominate more of the landscape in the southern

part of the Highlands while hardwood forests are more

common in the north (see fig. 5.3). The hardwood and

mixed pine-hardwood forests draw tourists to the region

during two seasons of the year: the spring, when white

dogwood blossoms seem to cover the hills, and the fall,

when the mountains blaze with color. Hundreds of

thousands of visitors make special trips to view these

natural displays of color.

Esthetic values within the Assessment area are

based on scenic character. Scenic character is a casual

description of the overall impression created by a

landscape. Changes in one or more of the salient

attributes that make up the character of a given landscape can have a predictable effect on the state of its

scenery. The attributes used for assessing scenic

character in the Assessment area are landform, vegetation, and water (USDA FS 1996).

Ecosystems provide the environmental context for

characterizing scenery. By combining the environmental

elements of an area with cultural attributes, one can

develop a narrative “picture” of the existing scenery.

The scenic character of the four ecological sections

(Keys and others 1995) found in the Assessment area is

described below. A more detailed description of forest

vegetation by ecological subsection can be found in this

Assessment’s “terrestrial” report (USDA FS 1999b).

Ouachita Mountains

Most of the Ouachita Mountains section appears

as a naturally occurring forest where the landscape

varies from low, rounded hills to steep mountains of 500

to 2,700 feet (ft) in elevation. Subsections range from

78 to 91 percent forested. Ridges predominantly run

east and west, resulting in contrasting vegetation

patterns on north- and south-facing slopes. The vegetation varies from continuous stands of pine (large

plantations as well as natural stands) to mixed pinehardwood and oak-hickory forests. The loblolly-shortleaf pine type is most common, but higher concentrations of oak-pine forests are found in the western part

of this section and larger areas of oak-hickory forests

are found in the eastern end, in the central Ouachita

Mountains subsection (fig. 5.3). Stream courses, small

139
Figure 5.3—Ecological sections and subsections (modified from Keys and others 1995) and forest types of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Ecological section Map code Subsection 

Ozark Highlands 1 St. Francis Knobs & Basins 

2 Central Plateau 

3 Osage River Hills 

4 Gasconade River Hills 

5 Meramec River Hills 

6 Current River Hills 

7 White River Hills 

8 Elk River Hills 

9 Black River Ozark Border 

10 Springfield Plain

11 Springfield Plateau 

Boston Mountains 12 Upper Boston Mountains 

13 Lower Boston Mountains 

Arkansas Valley 14 Eastern Arkansas Valley 

15 Western Arkansas Valley Mountains

16 Western Arkansas Valley 

Ouachita Mountains 17 Fourche Mountains 

18 Western Ouachita Mountains 

19 Central Ouachita Mountains 

20 Athens Piedmont Plateau 

Forest types

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Oak-pine

Oak-hickory

Oak-gum-cypress

Elm-ash-cottonwood

Nonforest

Water

2

140
lakes, several large reservoirs, pasturelands, and historic

homesteads break the tree canopy. Although there is a

diversity of deciduous tree and shrub species, they are

intermixed to the point that the scenic effect is one of

overall similarity. Vegetation density prevents most

views beyond the immediate foreground except for

panoramic vistas from ridgetop roads.

Small communities, rural areas, and agricultural lands

occupy mainly valley bottoms, with natural appearing

ridges and mountain landscapes acting as backdrops.

Roads are commonly found in the valleys and along

ridges throughout most of this area. Narrow ridges limit

the amount of ridgetop development common to the

other sections of the Assessment area.

Arkansas Valley

The Arkansas Valley ecological section (fig. 5.3) is

made up of plains with low, tree-covered hills and

isolated mountains reaching nearly 3,000 ft. This section

is a mix of natural forest, agricultural lands, and urban

areas. Geometric patterns due to pastures, croplands,

roads, and other human influences dominate these lands.

The three subsections making up this ecological section

range from only 20 percent forested in the western

Arkansas Valley (the largest subsection) to 77 percent

forested in the western Arkansas Valley Mountains (the

smallest subsection). The primary landscape feature is

the Arkansas River and its major tributaries. Perennial

streams are common, as are pastures and agricultural

fields. The tree canopy is broken by stream courses,

powerline corridors, pasturelands, and highway corridors

throughout the valley. Rock bluffs are visible in many

areas from travel routes. The forest vegetation is

primarily a mixture of shortleaf pine stands and occasional loblolly pine plantations (both mainly in the

western Arkansas Valley Mountains) and oak-hickory

forests; prairie was once common in western portions of

the Valley.

Agricultural, urban, and rural areas are more common throughout the valley than in the adjacent Ouachita

Mountains or Boston Mountains sections. These areas

range from small, developed areas with only a single

store to larger towns and cities with gridded street

patterns and commercial developments. Major Federal

and State highway systems are located in this section.

Boston Mountains

The Boston Mountains (fig. 5.3) ecological section is

made up of broad rounded ridges, benches or terraces,

bluff tops, and rugged mountains with sharply defined

narrow valleys. Most of the area appears as a natural

forested landscape with little evidence of human

development other than roads, pastures, and small

towns. The tree canopy is broken only slightly by stream

courses and rock bluffs. Subsections range from 65 to

85 percent forested. Vegetation density prevents most

views beyond the immediate foreground. Extensive

hardwood stands are broken by occasional pine forests

formed on abandoned homesteads, where pastures

regenerated naturally into pine. Oak-hickory is the most

common forest type, but pine forests are found in

slightly greater concentrations in the southern part of the

Lower Boston Mountains subsection.

Rural areas and agricultural lands occur mainly in the

valley bottoms and on benches within this area, but are

not as common as in other ecological sections of the

Highlands. Geometric patterns in the form of pastures,

fence rows, and structures are generally seen as

positive attributes contributing to the landscape character of the area.

Ozark Highlands

The Ozark Highlands ecological section (fig. 5.3) has

a highly diverse mix of irregular plains and high, treecovered hills with entrenched valleys and steep slopes.

The 12 ecological subsections making up this area range

from 10 percent forested in the Springfield Plain to 94

percent forested in the Current River Hills. Natural

forest patterns are contrasted with agricultural patterns

such as fences and pastures. Water features include

large reservoirs, spring-fed streams, lakes, and ponds

that contrast with the continuous canopy of softtextured, rounded tree forms, creating a near naturalappearing landscape character. Vegetation varies from

little bluestem grass plains to shortleaf pine stands to oak

and hickory forests. Oak-hickory is the principal forest

type throughout most of the forested area of this section.

The viewer perceives a primarily natural landscape

mixed with farmlands predominantly on the rounded

ridge tops and flat valley bottoms. Pine forests are

relatively open, interrupted by dense hardwood patches.

141
Croplands, pastures, and rural developments ranging

from small communities to larger commercial centers

occur in this area. Geometric patterns of development

contrasted with natural-appearing forest lands add to the

diversity of this landscape.

Ownership of Forest Landscapes

Using data from the Southern Research Station’s

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) (USDA FS FIA

1997), the Social-Economic Team reviewed the distribution of timberland among ownership categories and

ecological sections (fig. 5.4). Timberland, as defined in

the FIA survey (see “Glossary of Terms”), does not

encompass all forest land but does include most of it

and, for the purpose of this analysis, is an adequate

measure of the distribution of the Highlands’ forests

among landowner categories.

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners, who

own 65 to 87 percent of the timberland, control the

scenic character of forested landscapes in three of the

Highlands’ four ecological sections—the Ozark Highlands, Arkansas Valley, and Boston Mountains. In the

Boston Mountains, national forests also account for a

substantial portion (27 percent) of the timberland. In the

Ouachita Mountains, while NIPF lands account for a

significant portion of the area (34 percent), forest

industry with 37 percent and national forests with 25

percent of the timberland also have a large influence on

the scenic character of the forested landscape. Land

management actions have greater potential to affect

scenic character and esthetic values when they occur in

areas of high visual sensitivity. Such areas include those

lands within view of major tourist routes, Federal or

State scenic byways, popular vista points, or high-use

recreation areas such as Lake Ouachita.

Figure 5.4—Percent distribution of timberland by ecological section and landowner category (USDA FS

1997a).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ozark Highlands Arkansas Valley Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains

Ecological section

Percent of timberland

National forests

Other public

Forest industry

Nonindustrial private

142
Developed Recreation Opportunities

Developed recreation activities are those supported

by constructed facilities and usually involve frequent

encounters with other users. Examples of developed

recreation facilities include campgrounds, picnic areas,

roadside vistas, observation sites, interpretive areas, and

visitor centers. Figure 5.5 shows the distribution of the

developed campsites among ownership categories

(Cordell 1995a). The Corps of Engineers provides the

most developed camping, managing 51 percent of the

developed campsites in the Highlands. Private campgrounds account for about 12 percent of the campsites

that complement those available on public lands. Only 6

percent of the area’s developed campsites are on

national forests and are managed by the Forest Service.

Forty-two counties with national forest lands have

national forest campgrounds or picnic areas in them as

shown in table 5.5. Montgomery and Polk Counties, AR,

Madison County, MO, and Le Flore County, OK, have

the most camping opportunities; each has over 100

campsites and camping capacity for well over 500

“persons at one time” (PAOT—see “Glossary of

Terms”). Thirteen “national forest” counties (not shown

in table 5.5) have no national forest developed sites.

Figure 5.5—Percent distribution of developed campsites

by ownership category (Cordell 1995a).

Table 5.5—Number and capacity of national forest

campgrounds and picnic areas by State and county

 Campgrounds Picnic areas

Geographic Picnic

area Campsitesa Capacityb sitesa Capacityb

Arkansas

Crawford 0 0 5 25

Franklin 62 310 50 250

Garland 67 370 12 60

Johnson 33 165 8 40

Lee 44 305 13 65

Logan 51 255 45 225

Montgomery 104 520 22 110

Newton 11 55 7 35

Perry 37 215 0 0

Phillips 12 60 0 0

Polk 108 590 5 25

Pope 24 120 26 130

Scott 56 230 8 40

Searcy 12 60 0 0

Stone 70 350 22 110

Van Buren 6 30 0 0

Washington 18 90 22 110

Yell 13 65 24 120

Total 728 3,790 269 1,345

Missouri

Barry 0 0 5 34

Callaway 15 106 4 32

Carter 35 198 57 338

Christian 27 210 5 25

Crawford 59 345 14 209

Dent 15 97 28 107

Douglas 29 158 29 280

Iron 66 420 0 0

Laclede 0 0 3 15

Madison 106 630 21 180

Oregon 46 230 37 228

Ozark 2 122 33 257

Phelps 39 164 50 310

Pulaski 0 0 2 8

Reynolds 35 175 17 70

Ripley 36 190 43 290

Shannon 41 229 17 65

Stone 38 244 18 111

Taney 0 0 3 27

Texas 26 145 24 120

Washington 27 135 11 55

Wayne 49 307 26 130

Total 691 4,105 447 2,891

Oklahoma

Le Flore 125 685 56 280

McCurtain 0 0 7 35

Total 125 685 63 315

Total 1,544 8,580 779 4,551

a Total number of campsites or picnic tables within developed

campgrounds and picnic areas.

b Measured as “persons at one time” (PAOT).

Private

12%

National 

Park Service

1%

Forest 

Service

6%

State parks

30% Corps of 

Engineers

51%

143
Most of the developed sites on national forests are

products of the public works programs of the 1930’s and

1960’s and are characterized by rustic facilities in

natural, forested settings. These aging facilities suffer

from the wear and tear of many years of use. The

increasing need for repair and maintenance of the basic

infrastructure of these recreation areas is a serious

concern to users, land managers, and those in the

tourism industry. The most recent Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORP’s) of

Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma all identified inadequate funding for maintenance of existing recreation

facilities as one of their most critical issues (OK TRD

1992, SYNERGY Group 1996, Turner 1995). Many

agencies are concerned because the cost of maintaining

recreation facilities increases with age, while available

funds for this work are decreasing over time. Funding

for national forest recreation programs in the Highlands

declined by 35 percent (adjusted for inflation) between

1992 and 1996.

National forest recreation sites are often less developed than Corps of Engineers’ sites, State parks, and

private enterprise sites. In recent years, the trend on

national forests has been to upgrade facilities to include

conveniences such as hot showers, playgrounds, and

longer campsite parking pads and utility hookups to

accommodate modern travel trailers. The upgrading of

facilities has not resulted in significant changes in overall

availability of less-developed sites but could do so in the

future if this trend continues.

To better serve the needs of people with disabilities

and to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act,

State and Federal agencies are working to modify their

developed recreation sites to provide barrier-free

facilities. Approximately 5.5 percent (3 million people)

of the draw area population have some form of mobility

or self care limitation that might limit their access to

recreation facilities (USDC BC 1993). The Arkansas

Department of Parks and Tourism identified improving

accessibility as one of their top priorities (Turner 1995),

and public land-management agencies routinely include

accessibility modifications when upgrading their developed sites. In spite of these efforts, insufficient funding

has limited progress. The majority of developed sites

managed by the Forest Service still do not provide

adequate access for people with disabilities. The cost of

modifying all national forest recreation facilities in the

Assessment area to meet accessibility standards is

estimated to be $15 million (Jerrels and Moore 1994,

Talbert 1994, USDA FS 1994).

Dispersed Recreation Opportunities

Dispersed recreation activities are those that do not

require constructed facilities, usually occur in more

remote settings, and entail only occasional encounters

with other people. Activities include primitive (dispersed)

camping, sightseeing, canoeing, floating on rivers (in

kayaks and on rafts), wildlife observation, rock climbing,

hunting, and fishing. Hiking, horseback riding, mountain

biking, off-road driving, and driving for pleasure are also

considered dispersed activities, even though they are

supported by constructed trails or roads. The Forest

Service, with about 4.4 million ac open to public use, is

the leading provider of land available for dispersed

recreation in the Assessment area (Cordell 1995c).

Rock cliffs located on the national forests are popular

sites for rock climbing and hang gliding. Sam’s Throne on

the Ozark National Forest is one of the leading climbing

sites in the Highlands. Climbers travel from as far away

as Kansas City, MO, and Dallas, TX, on a regular basis

to climb this giant rock formation. Enthusiasts use Mt.

Magazine in Arkansas and the western Ouachitas near

Talihina, OK, as launch sites for hang gliding.

Of the approximately 3,000 mi of trails available on

public lands in the Assessment area (Cordell 1995a), 63

percent are located on lands managed by the Forest

Service (fig. 5.6). Opportunities for a variety of trail

uses are available on national forests (table 5.6). Some

Figure 5.6—Percent of total trail system in the Assessment

area by managing agency (Cordell 1995a).

Other

4%

National Park 

Service

5%

Forest Service

63%

State parks

28%

144
Table 5.6—Miles of national forest trails in States of the Assessment area by trail-use category

Horseback- Off-road

State All trailsa Hiking Biking riding Interpretive vehicle Accessible Water

Arkansas 988 847 279 312 9 188 3 45

Missouri 708 669 464 461 1 145 2 0

Oklahoma 192 192 95 93 3 0 0 0

Total 1,888 1,708 838 866 13 333 5 45

a Trails are counted under each use allowed; thus, trails serving multiple-use categories are counted more than once. Therefore, State totals are less than

the sum of their respective rows.

trails serve multiple uses while others are restricted to

foot travel. Nearly twice as many miles of national

forest trails are available for hiking as are open to

horses and mountain bikes.

National forests and, to a limited extent, Corps of

Engineers’ lands are the only public lands in Arkansas

and Oklahoma where off-road vehicles (ORV’s) are

allowed (Turner 1995). In Missouri, national forests

provide about two-thirds of the public lands available for

ORV’s. Lands managed by the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources and Corps of Engineers provide the

rest of the space for ORV use (SYNERGY Group

1996). Since ORV use is managed differently on the

three national forests, there are some misunderstandings

among forest users about where ORV’s are allowed.

The Ouachita National Forest is open for ORV travel

everywhere except in areas specifically designated as

closed to their use. With a few exceptions, trails on the

Ouachita National Forest are closed to ORV’s, however, most of the forest is open to cross country ORV

travel. The Ozark and Mark Twain National Forests are

closed to ORV use except in those areas specifically

designated open for their use. Overall within the Assessment area, the number of trails open to ORV’s is

very limited.

The extensive system of trails requires regular

maintenance, and many sections require reconstruction

to keep them from deteriorating and causing resource

damage. Land managers rely, in part, on the volunteer

work of many individuals and user groups to maintain

some trails at their present levels. As the Arkansas

SCORP points out (Turner 1995) and as discussed

above, declining funds available for recreation management limit agencies’ ability to maintain their trail systems

at acceptable levels.

Recreation Sites with National or State

Significance

There are numerous opportunities for a great variety

of outdoor recreation activities throughout the Assessment area. Some places such as Blanchard Springs

Caverns are so extraordinary they stand out as areas

with special recreational significance. Many of these

areas have received Federal or State recognition

through either legislative action or agency designation.

Other areas are significant simply because of their

uniqueness. These specially designated areas serve

multiple purposes, with recreation an important goal. All

together, specially designated areas make up only a

small percentage of the public lands in the Highlands

region, yet they contribute tremendously to the region’s

character and recreation opportunities.

Wilderness Areas

Federal wilderness areas, part of the National

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), are managed

under the guidance of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the

Eastern Wilderness Act, and individual State acts. The

1964 Wilderness Act established guidelines for managing wilderness areas (1) for the use and enjoyment of

the American people, (2) to assure the continuation of

natural ecological processes, (3) to protect ecosystems,

and (4) to preserve natural resources for scientific,

educational, and historic purposes. Wilderness areas

provide opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation experiences where all motorized and

mechanized vehicles are prohibited. Recreation facilities

such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and interpretive

sites are also prohibited within wilderness areas.

145
The Forest Service manages 194,319 ac of congressionally designated wilderness within the three national

forests of the Highlands (table 5.7). The National Park

Service and Fish and Wildlife Service manage 43,693 ac

of designated wilderness within the Assessment area

counties (Mingo Wilderness in Missouri is outside the

Highlands). These 238,012 ac represent 5 percent of the

land that the three Federal agencies manage in the

region. Wilderness accounts for 4.4 percent of all

national forest lands in the Highlands. The State of

Oklahoma manages the McCurtain County Wilderness

(which has 14,087 ac) in the Ouachita Mountains. Since

this area is not part of the NWPS, it is managed under

the guidelines of the State of Oklahoma.

The Social-Economic Team analyzed the amounts

and distributions of wilderness among Highlands’

counties to respond to an interest expressed by citizens

who attended the team’s working meetings. Of the 56

Assessment area counties that have national forests,

national parks, or national wildlife refuges, 24 include

some area of designated wilderness (table 5.8). Wilderness accounts for 0.2 to 10.4 percent of national forest

acreage in 11 counties and 11.6 to 21.2 percent in 8

more. Wilderness makes up 25.4 and 38.1 percent,

respectively, of national forest lands in Logan and

Sebastian Counties, AR (but Sebastian has relatively

little national forest land). Almost all of the national

forest land in Marion County (84.5 percent) is within the

Leatherwood Wilderness. Relative to a county’s total

land base (public and private), nearly all counties have

less than 4 percent of their land in designated wilderness. The exception is Newton County, AR, where over

12 percent of its land is designated as wilderness. An

estimated 2,213 ac of private land inholdings—not

subject to wilderness regulations—are located within the

boundaries of designated wilderness areas.

There are 174 mi of trails in wilderness areas of the

national forests, about 9 percent of all national forest

trails. Not all wilderness areas contain developed trails,

but those that do exist are usually maintained at primitive standards (e.g., they have few directional signs and

paths are often not marked with tree blazes). Wilderness areas occur in all four ecological sections of the

Highlands and in 11 of the 20 ecological subsections

(table 5.9). The following subsections are especially

well represented in the NWPS: White River Hills,

Springfield Plateau, Upper Boston Mountains, Western

Arkansas Valley Mountains, and Fourche Mountains. Of

the 30 federally listed endangered and threatened

species in the Highlands, four are in the region’s wilderness areas (table 5.10). The aquatic and terrestrial

Table 5.7—Federal wilderness in the Assessment area

Managing unit

Wilderness name Area

Acres

Mark Twain National Forest (FS)

Bell Mountain 8,977

Devil’s Backbone 6,595

Hercules Glade 12,314

Irish 16,117

Paddy Creek 7,019

Piney Creek 8,087

Rock Pile Mountain 4,089

Total 63,198

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests (FS)

East Fork 10,688

Hurricane Creek 15,307

Leatherwood 16,838

Richland Creek 11,801

Upper Buffalo 12,018

Total 66,652

Ouachita National Forest (FS)

Black Fork Mountain 13,139

Caney Creek 14,460

Dry Creek 6,310

Flatside 9,507

Poteau Mountain 11,299

Upper Kiamichi 9,754

Total 64,469

Total NF wilderness 194,319

Buffalo National River (NPS)

Lower Buffalo 22,338

Ponca 11,300

Upper Buffalo 2,200

Total NR wilderness 35,838

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)

Mingoa 7,855

Total Assessment area wilderness 238,012

FS = Forest Service; NF = national forest; NPS = National Park Service;

NR = national river; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

a Mingo Wilderness is within an Assessment area county but lies just

outside the Highlands.

146
Table 5.8—Acres of Federal wilderness in the Assessment area by State, county, and managing agency

 Managing agency

Portion of

Private Total NF land in county in

Geographic area FS NPS FWS inholdingsa wilderness wildernessb wildernessc

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - -

Arkansas

Baxter 13,345 320 0 142 13,807 21.2 3.6

Johnson 5,703 0 0 120 5,823 3.1 1.3

Logan 4,730 0 0 0 4,730 25.4 1.0

Marion 2,841 2,218 0 0 5,059 84.5 1.2

Newton 31,021 33,300 0 17 64,338 15.7 12.2

Perry 3,042 0 0 0 3,042 3.0 0.8

Polk 21,333 0 0 80 21,413 10.4 3.8

Pope 11,332 0 0 0 11,332 6.0 2.1

Saline 6,465 0 0 0 6,465 11.6 1.3

Scott 6,675 0 0 0 6,675 1.8 1.1

Searcy 2,410 0 0 0 2,410 7.6 0.5

Sebastian 7,231 0 0 0 7,231 38.1 2.0

Yell 450 0 0 0 450 0.2 0.0

Total 116,578 35,838 0 359 152,775 4.6 —

Missouri

Barry 6,965 0 0 37 7,002 12.7 1.3

Iron 8,977 0 0 50 9,027 9.4 2.5

Madison 4,089 0 0 42 4,131 8.1 1.2

Oregon 16,117 0 0 241 16,358 15.4 3.2

Ozark 6,595 0 0 0 6,595 17.1 1.3

Stoddard 0 0 3,669 0 3,669 0.0 0.6

Stone 1,122 0 0 18 1,140 7.1 0.3

Taney 12,314 0 0 1 12,315 19.1 2.9

Texas 7,019 0 0 40 7,059 14.3 0.9

Wayne 0 0 4,186 0 4,186 0.0 0.8

Total 63,198 0 7,855 429 71,482 4.3 —

Oklahoma

Le Flore 14,543 0 0 1,425 15,968 6.6d 1.5

Assessment area 194,319 35,838 7,855 2,213 240,225 4.4 —

FS = Forest Service; NPS = National Park Service; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NF = national forest; — = not applicable. a Private land within wilderness boundaries (not subject to the restrictions of the Wilderness Act).

b Percent of national forest land within a county or State that has been designated as wilderness.

c Percent of all land within a county lying inside designated wilderness areas (includes privately owned land).

d National forest wilderness in Le Flore County represents 4.1 percent of all NF land in the Assessment area portion of Oklahoma.

Source: National forest records, USDA NRCS (1992).

147
Table 5.9—Representation of Federal wilderness areas in

ecological sections and subsections of the Assessment area

Section

Subsection Wilderness Area

Acres

Ozark Highlands

St. Francis Knobs and

Basins Rock Pile Mountain 4,089

Bell Mountain 8,777

Central Plateau Irish 8,140

Paddy Creek 2,000

Osage River Hills 0

Gasconade River Hills Paddy Creek 5,019

Meramec River Hills 0

Current River Hills Irish 7,977

Bell Mountain 200

White River Hills Piney Creek 8,087

Hercules Glade 12,314

Devil’s Backbone 6,595

Leatherwood 6,452

Lower Buffalo 22,338

Elk River Hills 0

Black River Ozark Border 0

Springfield Plain 0

Springfield Plateau Leatherwood 10,386

Upper Buffalo (NF) 362

Ponca 5,727

Upper Buffalo (NR) 2,024

Total 110,487

Boston Mountains

Upper Boston Mts. Upper Buffalo (NR) 176

Upper Buffalo (NF) 11,656

Ponca 5,573

Hurricane Creek 15,307

Richland Creek 11,801

Lower Boston Mts. East Fork 10,688

Total 55,201

Arkansas Valley

Eastern AR Valley 0

Western AR Valley 0

Western AR Valley Mts. Poteau Mountain 11,299

Dry Creek 6,310

Total 17,609

Ouachita Mountains

Fourche Mountains Black Fork Mountain 13,139

Upper Kiamichi 9,754

Flatside 9,507

Western Ouachita Mts. 0

Central Ouachita Mts. Caney Creek 14,460

Athens Piedmont Plateau 0

Total 46,860

NF = national forest; NR = national river.

Table 5.10—Endangered and threatened species found in

wilderness areas in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Species Wilderness Management unit

Bald eagle Hercules Mark Twain NF

Gray bat Lower Buffalo Buffalo National River

Gray bat Ponca Buffalo National River

Indiana bat Ponca Buffalo National River

Indiana bat Irish Mark Twain NF

Mead’s milkweed Bell Mountain Mark Twain NF

NF = national forest.

reports of this Assessment provide further discussion

of endangered and threatened species (USDA FS

1999a, b).

Wilderness areas are so well distributed throughout

the Assessment area that only 7 of the 107 principal

cities (those with a population of 50,000 or greater)

within the draw area are more than 250 mi from a

congressionally designated wilderness. These cities, all

located in the northwestern portion of the draw area,

are Omaha, NE, and Cedar Rapids, Council Bluff,

Davenport, Des Moines, Iowa City, and Waterloo, IA.

Nationally Designated Trails

The National Trail System Act of 1968 established a

system of trails designated as National Scenic, National

Historic, and National Recreation Trails. There are no

designated National Scenic Trails within the Assessment

area.

The National Park Service manages the Trail of

Tears, the only National Historic Trail that crosses the

Assessment area. The trail commemorates the U.S.

Army’s forced relocation of the Cherokee Indians in the

1830’s from their homelands in the Southeastern States.

Thousands died on the long journey to lands west of the

Mississippi River. The trail follows two routes: a water

trail along the Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, and Arkansas Rivers, and an overland route from Chattanooga,

TN, to Tahlequah, OK.

More than 800 trails across the United States are

designated National Recreation Trails. The Assessment

area includes 41 (590 mi) of these trails (table 5.11)

(USDI NPS 1993). The two longest National Recreation Trails are the 165-mi Ozark Highlands Trail that

runs north to south between Mountainburg, AR, and the

148
Table 5.11—National Recreation Trails in the Assessment area, their lengths, and

respective administering agencies or units, by State

Trail name Length Administering unit or agency

Miles

Arkansas

Alum Cove Natural Bridge 1.1 Ozark-St. Francis National Forests

Bona Dea 5.6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Bridge Rock 1.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Buckeye 0.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Buckskin Nature 0.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Cedar Creek 1.5 Petit Jean State Park

Cedar Falls 2.2 Petit Jean State Park

Dam Mountain 4.5 Lake Catherine State Park

Devil’s Den 1.5 Devil’s Den State Park

Dripstone 0.7 Ozark-St. Francis National Forests

Falls Branch 2.0 Lake Catherine State Park

Feaster 1.1 Arkadelphia Parks and Recreation

Forest Hills 1.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Grand Promenade 0.5 Hot Springs National Park

Horseshoe Mountain 3.5 Lake Catherine State Park

Kingfisher 0.5 Pinnacle Mountain State Park

Lost Bridge Hiking 5.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mossy Bluff 0.7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ouachita National Recreationa 225.0 State park agencies and Ouachita NF

Ouachita Geo-Float 16.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ozark Highlands 165.0 Ozark-St. Francis National Forests

Prairie Creek Jogging 1.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

River Bluff 1.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Robinson Point Nature 3.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Rocky Valley 2.0 Pinnacle Mountain State Park

Seven Hollows 3.5 Petit Jean State Park

Sugar Loaf Mountain 1.0 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

Summit Park 1.7 Mount Nebo State Park

Tollantusky 1.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Woodpecker Hollow Nature 0.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Missouri

Berryman 24.0 Mark Twain National Forest

Crane Lake 5.0 Mark Twain National Forest

Elephant Rocks Braille 1.0 Missouri Div. of Parks and Recreation

Johnson Tract 5.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lost Creek 1.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mingo Boardwalk Nature 1.0 Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)

Mudlick 10.2 Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources

Pine Ridge 0.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ridge Runner 23.0 Mark Twain National Forest

Oklahoma

Jean Pierre Choteau Hiking 64.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Struggle for Survival 0.7 Ouachita National Forest

Total 590.0

NF = national forest; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

a Occurs in AR and OK; managed by Arkansas and Oklahoma State park agencies and the

Forest Service.

Source: USDI NPS (1993).

149
Buffalo National River and the 225-mi Ouachita

National Recreation Trail that runs east and west from

Pinnacle Mt. State Park near Little Rock, AR, to

Talimena State Park in Oklahoma.

Rivers with National and/or State Designations

Rivers provide some of the most enjoyable recreation

settings in the Highlands. Viewing the spectacular

scenery along the Buffalo National River, whitewater

floating on the Cossatot and Big Piney Rivers, and

smallmouth bass fishing on many Highland streams

exemplify the variety of river-based recreation opportunities available and reflect the importance of river

corridors to the area’s recreation opportunities. Remarkably, some 523 mi of river have received Federal

recognition for their exceptional scenic, recreational,

geologic, cultural, and environmental values (see table

5.12 and fig. 5.7). Nine rivers totaling 254 mi in length

are included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System (NWSRS). The Buffalo National River and the

Ozark National Scenic Riverways add another 269 mi

of nationally significant rivers.

State governments have also “designated” rivers to

protect their recreational, scenic, and other values (table

5.13). The Oklahoma Legislature has designated about

169 mi of rivers within the Highlands as Oklahoma

Table 5.12—Assessment area streams having Federal legislative designation(s) by State, managing unit or agency, and length

National Wild and Scenic

Rivers Systema

Other

Recre- Federal Total

Stream State Managing agency or unit Wild Scenic ational designation length

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Miles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Big Piney Creek AR Ozark NF 45.2 45.2

Buffalo River AR Ozark NF 9.4 6.4 15.8

Cossatot River AR Ouachita NF 11.3 4.2 15.5

Cossatot River AR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4.6 4.6

Cossatot River AR Cossatot State Park-Natural Area 10.7 10.7

Hurricane Creek AR Ozark NF 2.4 13.1 15.5

Little Missouri River AR Ouachita NF 4.4 11.3 15.7

Mulberry River AR Ozark NF 19.4 36.6 56.0

North Sylamore Creek AR Ozark NF 14.5 14.5

Richland Creek AR Ozark NF 5.3 11.2 16.5

Eleven Point River M O Mark Twain NF 44.4 44.4

Total 21.5 192.1 40.8 254.4

Buffalo River AR Buffalo NR (NPS) 135.0 135.0

Current River M O Ozark NSR (NPS) 100.0 100.0

Jacks Fork M O Ozark NSR (NPS) 34.0 34.0

Total 269.0 269.0

Total 523.4

NF = national forest; NR = national river; NPS = National Park Service; NSR = National Scenic Riverways.

a See “Glossary of Terms” for definitions of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers.

Source: IWSRCC (1997), USDI NPS (1997a, b).

150
D

E

F G H

I

J K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

A B

C

Flint Creek

Illinois River

Barren Fork Creek

Big Lee's Creek

Little Lee's Creek

Upper Mountain Fork River

Cossatot River

Little Missouri River

Mulberry River

Buffalo River

Richland Creek

Big Piney Creek

Hurricane Creek

North Sylamore Creek

Strawberry River

Eleven Point River

Current River

Jacks Fork River

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

State designation

Federal designation

State and Federal designations

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

Figure 5.7—River segments with Federal and/or State legislative designation(s) for protection of their recreational values (IWSRCC

1997, OK SRC 1997, AR NSRC 1997, USDI NPS 1997a, b).

151
Table 5.13—Assessment area rivers with State legislative

protection, by State classification and length

State-protected rivers Length

Miles

Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivera

Cossatot 26.0

Little Missouri 29.0

Strawberry 43.0

Total 98.0

Oklahoma Scenic Rivera

Barren Fork 27.6

Big Lee 17.5

Flint 11.9

Illinois 70.5

Little Lee 15.3

Upper Mountain Fork 26.0

Total 168.8

Total 266.8

a

 See “Glossary of Terms” for definitions of Natural and Scenic River

and Oklahoma Scenic Rivers; in Arkansas, portions of the Cossatot and

Little Missouri Rivers also have a Federal designation as part of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Source: AR NSRC (1997), OK SRC (1997).

Scenic Rivers and established restrictions on activities to

preserve their scenic qualities (OK SRC 1997). The

Arkansas General Assembly has designated 98 mi of

rivers within the Highlands as part of the Arkansas

System of Natural and Scenic Rivers. This designation

protects these rivers from permanent dams or structures

and actions that would harm their scenic and recreational qualities (AR NSRC 1997). Missouri has no

State-designated rivers.

More than 2,000 mi of rivers in the Highlands may

merit special designation but lack either complete

studies to determine their suitability for wild and scenic

status or legislative action to formalize a State designation (table 5.14). Forty-two of the Highlands’ rivers are

listed in the National Park Service’s 1982 Nationwide

Rivers Inventory (NRI) (USDI NPS 1982). The State

of Arkansas lists 19 rivers in the Highlands on its

registry of rivers qualifying for State system designation

(AR NSRC 1997). In 1990, the Forest Service determined that sections of the Ouachita and Saline Rivers

(North Fork, Alum Fork, and Middle Fork) were eligible

for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,

but, due to limited miles within the national forest

boundary, deferred the suitability determination to the

State of Arkansas or other agencies (USDA FS 1990).

Through land exchange legislation in 1996, Congress

added stretches of three NRI-listed rivers to the

Ouachita National Forest—the Glover and the Mountain

Fork Rivers in Oklahoma and a short section of the

Little Missouri River in Arkansas. The Forest Service

will study these rivers to determine whether they are

eligible and suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS.

Some people are concerned that giving any kind of

Federal or State designation to rivers will affect private

property rights. This issue surfaced during the process of

deciding the boundaries and appropriate width of

corridors for Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Ozark

National Forest. Some citizens expressed similar concerns in response to the President’s American Heritage

Rivers Program that is aimed at providing Federal

support to community efforts to restore or stimulate

economic, environmental, and historic values focused on

riverways. Ten rivers were selected for this designation;

the Arkansas, Ouachita, and Osage Rivers in the

Highlands were among the 126 that were nominated but

were not among those selected.

Scenic Byways

The Forest Service has designated nine scenic

byways to highlight and enhance opportunities for scenic

viewing. The Forest Service’s designations apply only to

those sections of highway passing through national

forest lands. In addition, Arkansas has designated four

State scenic byways: Scenic Highway 7 from

Arkadelphia to Harrison, Mt. Magazine Highway

(Highway 309) from Webb City to Havana, U.S.

Highway 71 from Alma to Fayetteville, and Talimena

Scenic Byway (Highway 88) from Mena to the Oklahoma border (table 5.15).

Sightseeing is one of the most popular outdoor

recreational activities of people in the Assessment area

as well as the Nation (AR DPT 1997; Cordell and

others 1997a, b; D.K. Shifflet 1998; Turner 1995). The

scenic byways that traverse 11 of the Highlands’ 20

ecological subsections provide access to much of the

region’s diversity of landscapes and some of the area’s

most scenic countryside (fig. 5.8). Scenic Highway 7, so

designated by both the Forest Service and the State of

152
Table 5.14—Assessment area streams with potential for special designation but requiring further

study and/or legislative action by State, length, and current status

Stream Length Status Stream Length Status

Miles Miles

Arkansas Oklahoma

Big Creek 37 NRI Glover 32 NRI

Little Buffalo 27 NRI Lee Creek 49 NRI

Cadron 59 NRI/R Kiamichi 102 NRI

North Fork Cadron 29 NRI/R Mountain Fork 25 NRI

East Fork Cadron 52 NRI/R Total 208 Eleven Point 35 NRI/R

Illinois Bayou 43 NRI/R Missouri

East Fork Illinois Bayou 15 NRI/R Spring 53 NRI

Middle Fork Illinois Bayou 29 NRI/R Black 14 NRI

Kings River 90 NRI/R Bourbeuse 74 NRI

Little Red 30 NRI Bryant Creek 40 NRI

Middle Fork Little Red 77 NRI Meramec 80 NRI

Ouachita 70 NRI/R Mineral Fork 14 NRI

Big Piney Creek 51 NRI/R Big Piney 85 NRI

Richland and Falling Water 37 NRI/R Cedar Creek 36 NRI

North Fork Saline 35 NRI/R Gasconade 265 NRI

Alum Fork Saline 44 NRI/R Huzzah Creek 30 NRI

Middle Fork Saline 51 NRI/R St. Francis 63 NRI

South Fork Saline 26 NRI/R North Fork White 62 NRI

Spring River and Warm Fork 81 NRI/R Shoal Creek 69 NRI

N. Fork Sylamore/Cole Creek 58 NRI Cedar Creek 45 NRI

War Eagle Creek 65 NRI/R Courtois Creek 21 NRI

White River (upper) 48 NRI Total 885 Black River 121 R

Little Black River 12 R Highlands total 2,352

Total 1,258

NRI = Nationwide Rivers Inventory; R = registry of the Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers Commission.

Source: USDI NPS (1982), AR NSRC (1997).

Arkansas, rates as one of the 10 most scenic

highways in the United States (Turner 1995). Estimates

from the highway departments of Arkansas, Oklahoma,

and Missouri indicate that well over 7 million people

travel these roads each year (AR SHTD 1995, MO

HTD 1995, OK DT 1995). According to the Arkansas

Department of Parks and Tourism (Turner 1995), the

public needs more information about the opportunities

available for scenic driving.

Lake of the Ozarks

Missouri’s largest lake is a major recreation destination site. More than 200 resorts, ranging from luxurious

to rustic, surround the 58,000-ac lake. The area is

popular for water-based outdoor recreation as well as

shopping, crafts, and live performance shows.

Hot Springs National Park

The 47 hot springs in the Hot Springs National Park

have attracted people since prehistoric times. Located

within and surrounding downtown Hot Springs, AR, the

park is one of the State’s and the Highlands’ top tourist

destinations. The park features historic Bathhouse

Row, hiking trails, roads for mountain driving, and a

campground.

153
Table 5.15—National forest and State scenic byways by designating entity, traffic counts, and ecological subsection

Thousands of

 Highway vehicles per

Byway name number(s) Designating entity year (1994) Ecological subsection(s)

Blue Buck MO 181 Forest Service (MTNF) 120 White River Hills

Glade Top Trail MO 147, 149 Forest Service (MTNF) — White River Hills

Mt. Magazine AR 309 Forest Service (OzNF) and 22 Western AR Valley Mountains and

State of Arkansas Western AR Valley

Ozark Highlands AR 21 Forest Service (OzNF) 143 Upper Boston Mountains and Lower

Boston Montains

Pig Trail AR 23 Forest Service (OzNF) 572 Upper Boston Mountains and Lower

Boston Mountains

Scenic Highway 7 AR 7a Forest Service (OzNF and 1,158b Springfield Plateau, Upper Boston Mountains

OuNF) and State of AR (Mts.), Lower Boston Mts., Eastern AR

Valley, Western AR Valley, Fourche Mts.,

Central Ouachita Mts., and Athens Piedmont

Plateau

Sugar Camp MO 76, 86 Forest Service (MTNF) — Springfield Plain

MO 112, 197 Forest Service (MTNF) — White River Hills

Sylamore AR 5, 14 Forest Service (OzNF) 457 White River Hills

Talimena Scenic Drive AR 88, OK 1 Forest Service (OuNF) and 92 Fourche Mountains

State of Arkansas

U.S. 71 U.S. 71 State of Arkansas 4,745 Lower Boston Mountains and Upper

Boston Mountains

Total 7,309

MTNF = Mark Twain National Forest; OzNF = Ozark National Forest; OuNF = Ouachita National Forest; — = not available. a Entire length of Highway 7 from Arkadelphia to Harrison, AR, is designated a State scenic byway by the State of Arkansas; parts that run through the

Ouachita and Ozark National Forests also are designated national forest scenic byways.

b Does not include traffic counts within cities of Arkadelphia, Hot Springs, Russellville, and Harrison, AR.

Source: AR SHTD (1995), MO HTD (1995), OK DT (1995).

Winding Stair Mountain National Recreation Area

The Winding Stair Mountain National Recreation

Area encompasses 83,422 ac of the Ouachita National

Forest in eastern Oklahoma, one of many National

Recreation Areas (NRA’s) established by Congress in

1989 (PL-100-499) to enhance opportunities for recreation and wildlife. The following designated areas are

included within the NRA: (1) Winding Stair Mountain

National Recreation Area (26,445 ac), (2) Robert S.

Kerr Memorial Arboretum, Nature Center and Botanical Area (8,026 ac), (3) Beech Creek Botanical Area

(400 ac), (4) Beech Creek Scenic Area (7,500 ac), and

(5) Indian Nations Scenic and Wildlife Area (41,051 ac).

Since 1990, a major construction program has been

carried out to rehabilitate and enhance the NRA’s

recreational facilities. These include the new Cedar

Lake Equestrian Campground that has quickly become

a well-known attraction for horseback riders in the draw

area.

Blanchard Springs Caverns

The Blanchard Springs Caverns, located on the

Ozark National Forest, are one of the premier underground attractions open to the public in the United

States. Discovered in the 1930’s, Blanchard Caverns

have been described as one of the most extraordinary

cave finds of the century. Thousands of visitors go

through the caves on guided tours each year.

154
Figure 5.8—National forest and State scenic byways.

Special Interest Areas and Scenic Areas

The Ozark-St. Francis National Forests recognize 17

special interest areas totaling 23,100 ac. Similarly, the

Mark Twain National Forest has 47 areas totaling 8,500

ac. These areas include sites with unique scenic,

geological, botanical, or cultural values. The Ouachita

National Forest manages five scenic areas, totaling

4,195 ac, where large, old-growth trees are preserved

for their esthetic value.

Demand for Outdoor Recreation

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The Social-Economic Team used data from the 1994

to 1995 National Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE) (Cordell and others 1997a, b) as

a source of information about current participation in

recreational activities by residents of the Assessment

area and Highlands draw area. The NSRE is the latest

in a series of national recreation surveys the Federal

Government has conducted since 1960. The Forest

Service uses the information gained in these surveys to

prepare the National Renewable Resources Planning

Act (RPA) assessment every 10 years. This survey

provides a method for determining demand for outdoor

recreation in the Highlands that is consistent with

national and regional assessments.

In conducting the NSRE in quarterly samples between

January 1994 and April 1995, researchers surveyed

approximately 17,000 individuals that were 16 years of

age and older. The survey developed information about

people’s outdoor recreation activities and preferences,

including (1) the amount of participation in over 80

recreational activities, (2) constraints on participation,

(3) accessibility of facilities, (4) attitudes and values

Oklahoma

Arkansas

55

70

30

40

44

35

A

B

C D

E

F

G

H I

J

State designation

National forest designation

Both

Talimena Drive

Mt. Magazine

Pig Trail

Ozark Highlands

Scenic Highway 7

Sylamore

Blue Buck

Glade Top Trail

Sugar Camp

U. S. 71

Missouri

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

155
toward outdoor recreation, (5) typical trip profiles, and

(6) user characteristics. The Social-Economic Team

analyzed the NSRE data for the Nation as a whole, for

the draw area, and for the two RPA regions that encompass the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. Missouri is in the

northern RPA region, which is identical to the Eastern

Region of the Forest Service, and Arkansas and Oklahoma are in the southern RPA region, which is identical

to the Forest Service’s Southern Region. It should be

noted that, while the survey developed data about

recreation activities of residents of different regions of

the country, there is no information about where their

activities actually took place, i.e., whether they took place

in the residents’ own region or in another (Cordell and

others 1997a, b). The team also used recreation activity

information from national forests, State tourism commissions, State wildlife agencies, and the private sector to

supplement the NSRE data for addressing specific areas

or issues within the Assessment area. National forest

data includes estimates of annual recreation activity

measured in recreation visitor days (RVD’s). An RVD is

equivalent to 12 hours of participation in an activity by

one person. While the estimates of national forest

recreation activity (derived from annual reports of each

forest) are not based on statistically reliable data, they

represent the best information available to the SocialEconomic Team. More statistically reliable estimates of

recreation use will be developed for the three national

forests in the Highlands in the years 2000 through 2004.

The team analyzed attributes of 38 of the NSRE

activities that typically occur on public lands within the

Assessment area. (One activity not specifically included

in the NSRE is mountain biking as separate from biking

in general.) The attributes reviewed were (1) the

number of people participating in specific recreation

activities, (2) the average number of primary purpose

trips per year by participants in an activity, and (3) the

average number of days of participation. A trip is

defined as a person traveling more than 15 minutes from

home for the primary purpose of participating in a

certain activity. The number of participation days

represents the average number of days on which

participants engaged in the activity for any length of

time over the 12-month survey period.

Researchers at the Southern Research Station used

NSRE data on recreation participation and available

recreation opportunities combined with 1990 Census

data on projected changes in population demographics

(age, income, race, percent males, and population

density) to develop projections of future recreation

demand (Bowker and others 1999).

Trends in Recreation Participation

In every major category of recreation activity available in the Highlands, the residents of the draw area

exceed the national average in percentage of population

participating in these activities (table 5.16). The most

popular activities, with more than 90 percent of the draw

area population 16 years and older participating (approximately 40 million people), are those associated with

viewing and learning about nature and human history.

Sightseeing, wildlife viewing, bird watching, and visiting

nature centers and historic sites fall into this category. In

the Highlands, public lands provide the landscape

backdrop and, in many cases, the actual sites for these

relatively low-impact, low-cost activities. Some outdoor

recreation activities such as developed area camping,

picnicking, and trail use require special sites or facilities

most commonly found on public lands. Nearly 60 percent

of the draw area population (about 25 million people)

participate in picnicking, and about 40 percent (about 17

million people) participate in fishing; swimming in a lake,

river, or ocean; or an outdoor adventure activity (e.g.,

hiking, off-road driving, and horseback riding). About 35

percent (15.5 million people) participate in some form of

boating, especially motor boating. Approximately 31

percent (14 million people) participate in camping, and

about 14 percent (6 million people) engage in hunting.

When considering the average number of trips

typically taken per year by participants in an activity and

the average number of days of participation, the draw

area is equal to or lower than the national average for

many activities (tables 5.17 and 5.18). However, the

people of the draw area exceed the national average by

at least one trip per year for visiting prehistoric sites,

bird watching, sightseeing, primitive area (dispersed)

camping, and fresh water and warm water fishing. The

draw area also exceeds the national average by at least

2.5 days of participation per year for people that engage

in hiking, visiting a prehistoric site, bird watching, fresh

water and warm water fishing, and motor boating.

The magnitude, relative importance, and potential

impact of different recreational activities can be seen by

analyzing the total amount of time per year that all

participants engage in different activities (table 5.19).

156
Table 5.16—Percent of population and number of people in the Nation and the

draw area, 16 years of age and older, participating in selected outdoor recreation

activities

Activitya National participants Draw area participantsb

Percent Millions Percent Millions

Outdoor adventure 36.8 73.6 41.4 18.2

Hiking 23.8 47.8 23.5 10.3

Orienteering 2.4 4.8 2.3 1.0

Backpacking 7.6 15.2 6.2 2.7

Rock climbing 3.7 7.5 4.0 1.8

Off-road driving 13.9 27.9 17.4 7.6

Horseback riding 7.1 14.3 10.1 4.4

Viewing activities 76.2 152.6 90.5 39.7

Visiting a nature center 46.4 93.1 56.8 24.9

Visiting a visitor center 34.6 69.4 42.2 18.5

Visiting a prehistoric site 17.4 34.9 19.6 8.6

Visiting a historic site 44.1 88.4 51.7 22.7

Bird watching 27.0 54.1 31.0 13.6

Wildlife viewing 31.2 62.6 36.8 16.2

Fish viewing 13.7 27.4 15.0 6.6

Sightseeing 56.6 113.4 67.0 29.4

Visit beach or waterside 62.1 124.4 69.8 30.6

Water-based nature study 27.6 55.4 28.5 12.5

Camping 26.3 52.8 31.3 13.7

Developed area 20.7 41.5 24.4 10.7

Developed area (vehicle) 8.6 17.2 9.9 4.3

Developed area (tent) 14.7 29.4 17.2 7.6

Primitive area 14.0 28.0 17.2 7.6

Primitive area (vehicle) 3.5 7.0 4.0 1.8

Primitive area (tent) 10.7 21.4 13.4 5.9

Hunting 9.3 18.6 14.0 6.1

Big game hunting 7.1 14.2 10.1 4.4

Small game hunting 6.5 13.0 10.3 4.5

Migratory bird 2.1 4.3 3.3 1.4

Fishing 28.9 57.8 39.3 17.3

Fresh water 24.4 48.8 35.6 15.6

Warm water 20.4 40.8 33.3 14.6

Cold water 10.4 20.8 8.1 3.6

Catch and release 7.7 15.5 11.5 5.0

Boating 29.0 68.1 35.2 15.5

Sailing 4.8 9.6 3.4 1.5

Canoeing 7.0 14.1 8.2 3.6

Kayaking 1.3 2.6 1.0 0.4

Rowing 4.2 8.4 3.1 1.4

Floating, rafting 7.6 15.2 9.0 4.0

Motor boating 23.5 47.0 30.2 13.3

Swimming (lake, river, ocean) 39.0 78.1 42.8 18.8

Social activities(picnicking) 49.1 98.3 57.1 25.1

Fitness activities (e.g., biking) 28.7 57.4 31.2 13.7

a Summary categories, e.g., fishing, do not equal total of individual activities because many people

participate in more than one activity and summaries also include activities not listed (e.g., saltwater fishing) that do not occur in the Assessment area.

b See “Glossary of Terms” for a definition of draw area.

157
Table 5.17—Average number of trips per participant per

year in the Nation and the draw area by activity

Activity Nation Draw areaa

Outdoor adventure

Hiking 9.1 7.9

Orienteering — —

Backpacking 4.5 3.8

Rock climbing 3.5 1.9

Off-road driving 13.2 13.7

Horseback riding 8.7 5.9

Viewing activities

Visiting a nature center 3.5 —

Visiting a visitor center — —

Visiting a prehistoric site 2.8 4.1

Visiting a historic site 3.0 3.2

Bird watching 7.1 8.4

Wildlife viewing 10.7 11.6

Fish viewing — —

Sightseeing 9.1 10.1

Visiting a beach or waterside 11.6 9.1

Water-based nature study 5.8 5.3

Camping

Developed area 4.7 5.2

Developed area (vehicle) — —

Developed area (tent) — —

Primitive area 4.8 6.4

Hunting

Big game 8.1 9.1

Small game 8.8 7.8

Migratory bird 5.7 4.8

Fishing

Fresh water 12.4 13.7

Warm water 11.9 13.8

Cold water 7.7 5.2

Catch and release — —

Boating 5.0 —

Canoeing 2.8 2.2

Kayaking 3.0 3.7

Rowing 2.3 1.7

Floating, rafting 3.1 3.8

Motor boating 7.3 8.0

Swimming (lake, river, ocean) 6.9 5.4

Social activities(picnicking) 5.3 4.8

Fitness activities (biking) 9.6 8.8

— = not available. a See the “Glossary of Terms” for a definition of draw area.

Participation in activities by residents of the draw area does not

necessarily occur solely within the draw area.

Source: Cordell and others (1997a, b).

Table 5.18—Annual average number of participation daysa

(per participant) in selected recreation activities by U.S. and

draw area residents

Activity Nation Draw areab

Outdoor adventure

Hiking 16.8 19.4

Orienteering 6.3 4.1

Backpacking 8.6 6.7

Rock climbing 5.1 4.4

Off-road driving 24.6 23.8

Horseback riding 23.6 18.2

Viewing activities

Visiting nature center — —

Visiting visitor center — —

Visiting a prehistoric site 5.0 7.7

Visiting a historic site 5.5 5.5

Bird watching 87.8 92.7

Wildlife viewing 36.9 36.7

Fish viewing — 20.3

Sightseeing 18.0 16.9

Visit a beach or waterside 25.6 18.8

Water-based nature study 24.4 21.1

Camping

Developed area 10.7 9.8

Developed area (vehicle) — —

Developed area (tent) — —

Primitive area 9.2 10.6

Hunting

Big game 14.3 12.6

Small game 13.8 11.2

Migratory bird 7.8 6.0

Fishing

Fresh water 18.1 20.8

Warm water 17.8 21.1

Cold water 11.3 9.1

Catch and release 18.4 18.5

Boating

Sailing — —

Canoeing 5.4 3.2

Kayaking 8.0 8.7

Rowing 5.3 3.9

Floating, rafting 5.1 5.8

Motor boating 14.9 17.7

Swimming (lake, river, ocean) 15.9 12.1

Social activities (picnicking) 8.8 8.7

Fitness activities (biking) 39.0 37.5

— = not available. a Average number of days a person participated in a particular activity

for any length of time over the 12-month survey period.

b See the “Glossary of Terms” for a definition of draw area.

Participation in activities by residents of the draw area does not

necessarily occur solely within the draw area.

Source: Cordell and others (1997a, b)

158
Table 5.19—Estimated number of draw area residentsa

 16 years of age and older

participating in recreation activities, rate of participation, and total days of participation

per year by activity

Participation Average total

Activity Participants rateb participation

 Millions Days/year Days/year

Outdoor adventure

Hiking 10.3 19.4 199.8

Orienteering 1.0 4.1 4.1

Backpacking 2.7 6.7 18.1

Rock climbing 1.8 4.4 7.9

Off-road driving 7.6 23.8 180.9

Horseback riding 4.4 18.2 80.1

Viewing activities

Visiting a nature center 24.9 — —

Visiting a visitor center 18.5 — —

Visiting a prehistoric site 8.6 7.7 66.2

Visiting a historic site 22.7 5.5 124.9

Bird watching 13.6 92.7 1,260.7

Wildlife viewing 16.2 36.7 594.5

Fish viewing 6.6 20.3 134.0

Sightseeing 29.4 16.9 496.9

Visit a beach or waterside 30.6 18.8 575.3

Water-based nature study 12.5 21.1 263.8

Camping

Developed area 10.7 9.8 104.9

Developed area (vehicle) 4.3 — —

Developed area (tent) 7.6 — —

Primitive area 7.6 10.6 80.6

Primitive area (vehicle) 1.8 — —

Primitive area (tent) 5.9 — —

Hunting

Big game hunting 4.4 12.6 55.4

Small game hunting 4.5 11.2 50.4

Migratory bird 1.4 6.0 8.4

Fishing

Fresh water 15.6 20.8 324.5

Warm water 14.6 21.1 308.1

Cold water 3.6 9.1 32.8

Catch and release 5.0 18.5 92.5

Boating

Sailing 1.5 — —

Canoeing 3.6 3.2 11.5

Kayaking 0.4 8.7 —

Rowing 1.4 3.9 5.5

Floating, rafting 4.0 5.8 23.2

Motor boating 13.3 17.7 235.4

Swimming (lake, river, ocean) 18.8 12.1 227.5

Social activities (picnicking) 25.1 8.7 218.4

Fitness activities (biking) 13.7 37.5 513.8

Total (all activities) NA NA 6,300.1

— = not available; NA = not applicable. a See the “Glossary of Terms” for a definition of draw area. Participation in activities by residents of the

draw area does not necessarily occur solely within the draw area.

b Participation rate is the average number of days a person participated in a particular activity for any

length of time over the 12-month survey period.

Source: Cordell and others (1997a, b).

159
Bird watching, with nearly 1.3 billion participation days

per year stands out as an activity of great importance to

draw area residents. Other important activities range

from fishing (758 million participation days) to horseback riding (80 million participation days).

The Highlands’ national forests have few large water

bodies compared to some other public lands, but the area

does have a large land base, an extensive road and trail

network, and primitive campgrounds. Because of these

differences, these national forests experience a slightly

different mix of recreational uses than is indicated by the

participation rates of the overall draw area residents.

National forest participation estimates are not directly

comparable to the draw area estimates because activity

definitions and measures of participation are somewhat

different. However, participation data for both national

forests and residents of the draw area provide an idea of

the different mix and relative importance of the various

recreational activities. The tabulation below compares

the most popular activities of residents of the draw area

(based on total participation days) with the most popular

activities taking place on national forests (as measured

by total RVD’s). Only those activities are compared that

fall into roughly similar categories in the data bases of

both the draw area and the national forests. The 12 most

popular outdoor recreation activities in terms of total

amount of participation days or RVD’s, listed in order of

popularity from most to least, are (see tables 5.19 and

5.20) as follows:

Draw area National forests

Bird watching Sightseeing

Fishing Camping

Wildlife and fish viewing Hunting

Biking Fishing

Sightseeing Hiking

Water-based nature study Swimming

Motor boating Picnicking

Swimming Horseback riding

Picnicking Canoeing

Hiking Power boat use

Visiting historic or Nature study

prehistoric sites Other watercraft use

Camping

This comparison shows that camping, hunting, hiking,

horseback riding, and canoeing rank proportionally

higher in relative amount of participation among users of

national forests than among the population of the draw

area as a whole. For the entire draw area, nature study

activities (including bird watching, wildlife and fish

viewing, and water-based nature study) and biking rank

higher than similar activities on national forests. Fishing

and sightseeing are high in relative participation for both

the draw area participants and national forest users.

Several activity categories with high participation were

not comparable. Gathering forest products and traveling

by motor cycle are very popular activities on national

forests; visiting a beach or waterside rate relatively high

in total participation among draw area participants.

Participation, in terms of percent change, in nearly all

activities increased on national forests during the last

decade, with the most dramatic increases occurring in

bicycling (most likely mountain biking), horseback riding,

and the use of ORV’s (table 5.20). The Arkansas

SCORP (Turner 1995) identified similar increases in

these three activities, noting that Arkansas has the

second highest per capita ownership of ORV’s in the

Nation. Although ORV use is relatively small compared

to other activities, the vehicles have the potential to

cause resource damage and conflict with other forest

users if not managed appropriately. In fact, ORV use

has increased so much in recent years on some areas of

national forests (such as the southern part of the

Ouachita NF) that user conflicts and resource damage

are becoming severe. The limited funds for creating

new trail systems coupled with increased horseback

riding, mountain biking, and ORV use emphasize the

need for agencies to work with the public to develop

policies and shared goals that accommodate use while

protecting forest resources.

Recreational overuse within some river corridors of

the Highlands is a growing problem. The Arkansas

SCORP (Turner 1995) identified this as a leading issue.

The Spring River and Little Missouri River are examples of areas where excessive use by floaters (e.g.,

people using canoes or rafts), riverside campers, and/or

ORV operators have adversely affected the very

attributes that make these rivers attractive. Problems

associated with recreational overuse are expected to

become worse as recreation demands increase and may

160
Table 5.20—Estimates of recreation use in Highlands’ national forests for 1986, 1991, and 1996 and

percent change from 1986 through 1996

Recreation visitor daysa

Change

1986 1991 1996 (1986–96)

Percent

Hiking and mountain climbing 186,600 210,400 257,000 38

Horseback riding 68,800 86,700 170,400 148

Specialized landcraft travel (includes off-road vehicles)b 900 10,900 19,200 2,033

Biking 5,800 9,500 19,800 241

Total outdoor adventure 262,100 317,500 466,400 78

Viewing spectator events 8,100 8,900 15,300 89

Viewing interpretive signs, exhibits, constructed features 10,900 20,200 20,200 85

Nature study (wildlife, birds, fish), hobby, education 33,500 70,700 73,500 119

Attending talks, programs, and audio programs 4,300 7,000 8,600 100

Viewing scenery 90,300 141,400 160,500 78

Touring, guided and unguided 12,400 32,500 32,400 161

Automobile travel 738,800 794,600 873,700 18

Motorcycle travel 115,100 147,800 141,300 23

Touring by train, bus, and boat 1,400 17,600 22,300 1,493

Total viewing activities 1,014,800 1,240,700 1,347,800 33

Camping, general day 255,300 272,300 304,200c 19

Camping, automobile 108,900 105,600 105,500 -3

Camping, trailer 147,100 155,400 185,800 26

Camping, tent 268,400 266,200 280,600 5

Organization camping, general day and night 13,500 19,200 34,700 157

Total camping 793,200 818,700 910,800 15

Hunting, big game 412,400 420,300 431,600 5

Hunting, small game 302,600 305,900 297,500 -2

Hunting, upland birds 94,400 100,700 105,600 12

Hunting, waterfowl 17,000 14,100 16,900 -1

Total hunting 826,400 841,000 851,600 3

Fishing, cold water 20,900 21,800 23,500 12

Fishing, warm water 224,780d 214,700 241,800 8

Total fishing 245,680 236,500 265,300 8

Canoeing 123,200 124,100 170,000 38

Sailing 2,400 400 400 -83

Power boat 119,200 56,800 78,900 -34

Other watercraft 30,000 25,700 27,900 -7

Total boating 274,800 207,000 277,200 1

Swimming and water play 240,000 171,700 251,900 5

Water-skiing, diving, and other water sports 21,500 6,400 7,200 -67

Total water sports 261,500 178,100 259,100 -1

Social activities (e.g., picnicking) 197,700 181,100 219,600 11

Resort and community public service, general 1,500 5,000 4,700 213

Resort lodging and recreation cabin use 9,000 9,400 13,500 50

Walking, guided and unguided 22,100 14,600 16,200 -27

Sports and games 22,700 28,400 36,900 63

General information 4,800 9,400 14,600 204

Gathering forest products 117,400 121,700 127,700 9

Total recreation activities 4,221,500 4,209,100 4,811,400 14

a A recreation visitor day (RVD) is the equivalent of 12 hours of participation in one activity by one person.

b While there has been a large increase, the amount is inflated due to changes in reporting methods.

c Does not include an estimated 300,000 RVD’s of camping (included in forest use reports) by a large organization on

the Mark Twain National Forest in 1996 because this major event was not representative of typical use.

d The value provided reflects an adjustment to the reported 1986 estimate of participation in warm water fishing on

the Ouachita NF. This adjustment allows for a change between 1986 and 1991 in estimation procedures and to make

the value comparable with estimates for later years.

161
point to the need to strengthen public land management

policies and education programs to ensure long-term

protection of river values.

Recreational use of national forest wilderness areas

in the Highlands has increased from approximately

94,000 RVD’s in 1991 to 99,000 RVD’s in 1996, about a

5 percent increase over a period of 5 years. Hiking,

horseback riding, nature study, photography, and primitive camping are the most popular recreational activities

in these areas. The relative unfamiliarity of the public

with wilderness areas probably kept use from growing

more rapidly (Cordell and others 1997b).

Data from the wildlife management agencies of the

three States in the Assessment area indicate that,

between 1986 and 1996, with some annual variations,

the number of people buying hunting licenses increased

slightly in Arkansas and Oklahoma and remained about

level in Missouri (Sebren 1997, OK DWC 1997, Witter

1998, MO DC 1996a). Hunting has also increased

slightly on the national forests (table 5.20). The 10-year

trend in national forest hunting varies among forests;

there were increases on the Ozark and Ouachita

National Forests and a decrease on the Mark Twain

National Forest (individual forest data not shown on

table). If the trend to restrict public access to private

land continues, more hunting pressure can be expected

on public lands, and particularly on the national forests.

Forest Service data indicate an increase in the

number of people fishing between 1986 and 1996 on

the Highlands’ national forests (table 5.20). Data from

the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission indicate a

slight decline in the number of people buying fishing

licenses between 1986 and 1996—both statewide and

for counties in the Assessment area. For the same

time period, statewide data for Missouri and Oklahoma

indicate that fishing license sales have leveled in

recent years, although annual fluctuations have been

significant.

Projections of Future Recreation Demand

The Social-Economic Team analyzed projections

of changes in recreation participation by residents of

the North and South RPA regions and for the Nation

as a whole (table 5.21). At the time the Assessment

reports were prepared, there were no available projection data specifically for residents of the Highlands draw

area. However, because the draw area is located

largely within the North and South RPA regions, the

team assumed that projections for the Highlands draw

area would fall within the range of the two regional

estimates.

Nationally, recreation use is projected to increase in

nearly all activity categories. The largest projected

increases are for activities involving visiting historic sites

(14 percent), sightseeing (18 percent), visiting beaches

or other water sites (15 percent) and biking (15 percent). Results of the NSRE show that, for the Nation as

a whole, the number of people participating in outdoor

recreation is increasing due both to a growing population

and to an increase in the percentage of the population

participating in activities (Cordell and others 1997a,

Bowker and others 1999).

For the South Region, participation in most activities

is projected to increase significantly more than the

Nation as a whole and/or the northern region. The

activities in the South Region with the largest projected

percent increase by the year 2010 are visiting historic

sites (28 percent), sightseeing (25 percent), developed

camping (22 percent), picnicking (21 percent), and

visiting beaches or other water sites (20 percent). The

activities in the North Region with the greatest projected

percent increase in participation are picnicking (21 percent), visiting beaches or other water sites (20 percent),

visiting historic sites (13 percent), developed camping

(11 percent), and biking (10 percent).

Activities showing slight decreases in number of

participants by the year 2010 in both regions are hunting,

primitive camping, and off-road driving. In the North

Region, rock climbing, backpacking, and floating/rafting

are also projected to decline slightly. These projected

declines may be a reflection of a projected increase in

the average age of the population.

These projections provide estimates of general trends

over a large geographic area. While participation in

most activities is projected to increase, some specific

sites and areas will experience a greater increase in use

than others will. The greater increase in activity and

popularity could be the result of factors such as

(1) limited opportunities on private land, (2) improved

road access into an area, (3) a news article or brochure

that raises the level of public awareness of an area,

(4) significantly increased interest in a particular activity,

or (5) an improvement to public recreation facilities. As

162
Table 5.21—1995 participation rates and projected changes in participation rates for recreation activities for the years 2000

and 2010, for RPA regions, the Nation, and the draw area

 Change Change

Million index/yearb Million index/yearb

partici- particiActivity Areaa pants 2000 2010 Activity Areaa pants 2000 2010

Biking North 27.9 1.01 1.10 Developed camping North 18.0 0.98 1.11

South 15.2 1.07 1.22 South 10.7 1.06 1.22

National 57.4 1.04 1.15 National 41.5 1.02 1.12

Draw area 13.7 Draw area 10.7

Hiking North 20.6 0.99 1.04 Primitive camping North 10.9 0.96 0.92

South 11.3 1.05 1.17 South 8.0 0.98 0.98

National 47.8 1.03 1.13 National 28.0 1.00 1.01

Draw area 10.3 Draw area 7.6

Backpacking North 6.0 0.96 0.93 Hunting North 8.4 0.98 0.97

South 3.6 1.01 1.08 South 6.5 0.93 0.82

National 15.2 1.00 1.04 National 18.6 0.97 0.93

Draw area 2.7 Draw area 6.1

Rock climbing North 3.0 0.96 0.91 Fishing North 25.6 1.00 1.05

South 1.8 1.06 1.19 South 20.2 1.04 1.11

National 7.5 1.03 1.10 National 57.9 1.03 1.09

Draw area 1.8 Draw area 17.3

Off-road driving North 11.2 0.99 0.99 Canoeing North 8.0 1.00 1.06

South 9.0 1.00 0.99 South 4.2 1.03 1.07

National 27.9 1.00 1.02 National 14.1 1.02 1.08

Draw area 7.6 Draw area 3.6

Horseback riding North 5.6 1.00 1.07 Floating/rafting North 6.9 0.97 0.94

South 4.7 1.04 1.15 South 4.9 1.01 1.01

National 14.3 1.02 1.12 National 15.2 1.00 1.02

Draw area 4.4 Draw area 4

Visiting historic sites North 40.8 1.02 1.13 Motor boating North 22.0 1.01 1.06

South 26.9 1.08 1.28 South 15.5 1.04 1.13

National 88.4 1.06 1.19 National 47.0 1.03 1.11

Draw area 22.7 Draw area 13.3

Sightseeing North 52.3 1.02 1.11 Swimming North 38.4 1.01 1.08

South 33.9 1.08 1.25 South 23.3 1.05 1.15

National 113.4 1.05 1.18 National 78.1 1.03 1.12

Draw area 29.4 Draw area 18.8

Visiting beach or North 57.7 1.01 1.20 Picnicking North 47.0 1.01 1.21

 other water sites South 37.7 1.07 1.20 South 27.4 1.06 1.21

National 124.4 1.05 1.15 National 98.3 1.04 1.14

Draw area 30.6 Draw area 25.1

a Projections are not available for the draw area; draw area participation numbers for 1995 are shown for comparison.

b Projected increases or decreases in participation by the year 2000 and 2010; for example, an index of 1.10 implies a 10 percent increase in the number of

people participating in that activity.

Source: Cordell and others (1997a).

163
described in the discussion of recreation settings, a

recreation user looks for certain combinations of natural

settings and facilities to elevate the enjoyment level of

the experience. For many activities, such as rock

climbing, off-road driving, and horseback riding, there

are limited numbers of areas with the desired settings.

This puts more demand on those areas where the

opportunities are available, such as national forests.

A good example of how recreation elements combine

to attract heavy use is the area between the Little

Missouri and Cossatot Rivers on the Ouachita National

Forest. This area contains a number of scenic elements:

clear-flowing streams, high ridgelines and rugged

topography, rock outcrops, and vegetation patterns with

interesting contrasts in form, color, and texture—all in a

natural setting relatively free from the influence of

human civilization. There are a number of public

recreation facilities in the area, including the Albert

Pike, Bard Springs, and Shady Lake Campgrounds, the

Little Missouri Falls Picnic Area, and the Cossatot River

State Park. Numerous streamside areas are used for

dispersed camping—one inventory on the Caddo

Ranger District found over 96 dispersed campsites

along 6 streams. There are more than 115 mi of trails

popular for hiking, horseback riding, and ORV’s, some

of which receive the highest use of any trails on the

Ouachita National Forest. This area is one of the few

blocks of public land available within an easy day’s drive

of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, northeastern Texas and

northern Louisiana. The combination of location,

desirable settings, and facilities makes the area between

the Little Missouri and Cossatot Rivers one of the most

heavily used recreation areas in the Ouachitas. Heavy

dispersed camping near streams has resulted in compacted soils, loss of vegetative cover, increased soil

erosion and stream sedimentation. High levels of ORV

use have caused some horseback riders to move to

other trails; for example, use of the Caney Creek

Wilderness trail system by horseback riders increased

noticeably in 1997 (Ferguson 1997). This area on the

Ouachita National Forest is illustrative of situations on

the other national forests and public lands in general

where the impacts on natural resources and management of recreation use will be especially significant as

recreation use increases in the coming decades.

Implications and Opportunities

Current trends indicate that in the next decade, public

land management agencies will be challenged to accommodate a rising demand for outdoor recreation with a

limited resource base and limited (if not declining)

budgets. The needs will be most evident in those

recreation areas requiring capital investment for their

maintenance and repair, such as campgrounds, picnic

areas, and trails. The effects of increased demand will

be more severe in areas such as the Little Missouri

River watershed, described above, where the rise in use

is likely to be greater than average. Addressing this

issue will require creativity, developing partnerships with

interest groups, and greater emphasis on coordinating

and sharing resources among agencies. Land managers

will need to consider a variety of options for stretching

and more efficiently allocating available funds, including

greater involvement of the private sector in operating

public facilities through concessions, special-use permits,

and public-private ventures. Establishing user fees for

activities and uses of public lands that have traditionally

been free may be appropriate in some situations to help

offset the costs of providing the recreation opportunities.

Difficult decisions may have to be made concerning

whether or not some recreation areas that have been in

place for many years can remain open and be maintained at acceptable levels.

National forests account for only a small percentage

(6 percent) of the public developed campsites in the

Highlands but provide a high percentage of the dispersed recreation opportunities, including 63 percent of

the total miles of trails. This situation ought to be

considered in deciding what recreation program areas to

emphasize and what the appropriate recreation “market” niche should be for the Highlands’ national forests.

Most developed recreation facilities do not meet

minimum accessibility requirements for people with

disabilities. Facility managers will need to address this

shortcoming in all opportunities for recreation site

improvement.

The current increase in demand for horseback riding,

mountain biking, and ORV trails, added to a rising

demand for traditional hiking trails, means that land

managers must work with the public to develop trail

management plans that minimize user conflicts and

164
existing resource impacts. Since limited funding makes

significant additions to the current trail system unlikely,

managers will need to pursue other means to address

the demand, including allocating more trails to multiple

use, prioritizing trail maintenance, closing little used

trails, and sharing more trail maintenance responsibility

with user groups. Coalitions (if formed) of trail user

groups could be helpful in resolving trail management

issues, with public land managers working as facilitators

as well as partners in implementing solutions.

The recent addition of sections of the Glover, Mountain Fork, and Little Missouri Rivers to the Ouachita

National Forest through a land exchange is significant.

Sections of these rivers are considered to be free

flowing and are included on the NRI. Forest Service

managers will need to evaluate these stretches of river

to determine their eligibility and suitability for inclusion in

the NWSRS.

Excessive recreation activity, particularly ORV

riding and dispersed camping in river corridors has

resulted in serious resource damage and user conflicts

in some areas. Managers will need to work in partnership with the public and user groups to develop management policies and education programs to alleviate

these problems and strengthen resource protection

measures.

Maintaining and enhancing the scenic quality of the

Highlands’ landscape will take on greater importance as

the number of people visiting scenic and historic areas

increases. These are the recreation activities projected

to increase the most and are popular tourist activities.

Scenic quality is especially critical within the viewing

area of the most heavily traveled roads and those roads

known for their scenic character, such as the Federal

and State scenic byways. (Both public and private lands

affect the scenic quality of the area’s landscapes.)

The projected increase in number of people

sightseeing, visiting historic sites, and studying nature

emphasizes the importance of maintaining the road

system in good condition, providing easily accessible

sites for historic and environmental interpretation, and

making more information available to the public about

the recreation opportunities in the Highlands.

Ecotourism provides one means of helping a community diversify its economic base. If both demand for this

type of recreation and economic development increase,

public land agencies are likely to be called upon to

support these efforts by permitting use of the lands for

guided hikes, interpretive programs, and other ecotourist

activities.

Access to private land is declining while demand for

outdoor recreation opportunities is projected to rise.

Greater pressure will be placed on public lands to

provide places for recreation due to the decline in open

private land as well as the overall increase in demand.

Where public and private lands are adjacent and

management goals are complementary, there may be

opportunities, such as through joint road management,

shared law enforcement, combined user fees, or other

cooperative agreements, for public and private partnerships to allow users wider access for recreation.

A variety of Federal and State agencies play large

roles in the recreation and tourism business of the

Highlands. They have similar missions for providing

quality outdoor recreation opportunities, they face

common challenges in managing outdoor recreation use

of public lands, and they share many of the same

customers. In spite of these commonalities, there is little,

if any, coordination among the agencies for land use

planning, sharing of staff and equipment, exchanging

technological information, responding to regional issues,

or marketing. Opportunities exist for improving coordination and communication among public land management agencies that could result in more efficient use of

available resources, leveraging of limited funds, expanded partnerships with user groups, more effectively

addressing common issues, and better promotion of the

region’s recreational opportunities.

165

Chapter 6: Timber Resources

Question 6.1: What are the supply and demand

conditions for timber in the Highlands?

The timber resource plays significant roles in the

economy and culture of the Highlands. These roles have

changed over the years in response to changes in the

timber resource itself, in the market demand for wood

products, and in societal values. For example, the harvest

of large diameter pine sawtimber played a dominant role in

the timber industry of the early years of this century.

Today, the increasing role of small diameter hardwoods for

export markets is the subject of much public controversy.

This chapter describes the timber market through a

discussion of the prices and production of various wood

products and the factors that influence supply and

demand. In addition, a model of timber supply provides

projections of future inventory, growth, and harvest in the

Highlands within the context of the southwide timber

markets for hardwoods and softwoods. (The term

southwide as used here means including or affecting all

the Southern States of the United States.)

 Key Findings

 1. The Highlands Assessment area contains 12 percent

of the South’s timberland, but only 5 percent of

southern softwood volume and 9 percent of southern

hardwood volume. However, relatively low removals

rates (3 percent of southern softwood and 6 percent

of southern hardwood removals) will continue to

attract new and expanded wood-using industries to

the area.

 2. Largely due to the decline in timber harvests from

western forests, national forest timber sold in the

Highlands represents an increasing percentage of

total U.S. national forest timber sales. Between 1991

and 1995, the Highlands’ share of total national

forest “green” timber sales increased from 3 percent

to 10 percent.

 3. In general, inflation-adjusted prices for Highlands’

timber rose between 1988 and 1994, implying an

increasing scarcity of timber resources.

 4. National forests account for 41 percent of softwood

sawtimber inventory but only 20 percent of sawtimber

removals in the Assessment area. In contrast, forest

industry accounts for 20 percent of softwood sawtimber inventory but 40 percent of removals.

 5. Average annual timber sale volume per suitable acre

varies by national forest ranger district, with

Ouachita districts generally higher than the districts

on the Ozark and Mark Twain National Forests.

 6. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners hold

69 percent of the timberland in the Highlands.

National forests account for nearly 15 percent, forest

industry holds almost 12 percent, and 5 percent of

the timberland is located on other public lands.

 7. In terms of timber volume, the forests of the Highlands are predominantly hardwoods (over 14 billion

cubic feet of growing stock and over 38 billion board

feet of sawtimber), although softwood volumes are

substantial (about 7 billion cubic feet of growing

stock and over 24 billion board feet of sawtimber).

More than two-thirds of the hardwood volume

occurs on NIPF lands, while softwood volume is

fairly evenly distributed among timber industry,

national forest, and NIPF lands.

 8. Both growing stock and sawtimber inventories have

increased in the Arkansas and Oklahoma portions of

the Highlands over the last decade. (Comparable

data for Missouri were not available.)

 9. Across all subregions of the Assessment area

except Oklahoma, NIPF lands have the largest

proportion of higher grade hardwoods relative to the

other ownership categories while the national forests

have the greatest share of the higher grade softwood

sawtimber volume in comparison to other ownership

categories.

 10. Sawtimber-size stands account for 58 percent of

national forest timberlands in the Assessment area

and from 28 to 48 percent of timberlands in other

ownership categories.

 11. The majority (64 percent) of large diameter (greater

than 20 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.))

hardwood volume occurs on NIPF lands. Most of

the large diameter softwood volume occurs on NIPF

(42 percent) and national forest (38 percent) lands.

167
 12. Up to 15 percent of the potentially harvestable

volume of timber on private land may be unavailable due to physical constraints such as wet sites,

steep slopes, and low volumes.

 13. On the three national forests, from 59 to 79 percent

of the land is classified as suitable for timber

production based on current suitability definitions,

which exclude acres for wilderness, administrative

sites, areas of low productivity, and areas allocated

to other resource management categories.

 14. The three Highlands’ States increased their share

of total U.S. lumber production from 5.5 percent to

6.8 percent between 1992 and 1995. Since 1988,

these three States also claimed an increasing

proportion of U.S. investments in the furniture and

lumber industries.

 15. New hardwood chip mills have recently led to

increased hardwood pulpwood removals—a 135

percent increase between 1994 and 1995—

particularly in Arkansas. Due to fluctuating demand

over the preceding decade, the overall percentage

increase in average annual removals since 1988

was 65 percent. These increases should lead to

higher prices, providing income to local landowners,

but possibly forcing other competing industries to

pay more or seek alternate input sources.

 16. Favorable growth to removal ratios indicate that

softwood inventory in the Highlands is increasing.

Projections to 2020 show increasing softwood

harvest on private lands in the Highlands—more

than double the rate experienced in 1990. Total

softwood harvests in the Highlands are projected to

increase at rates greater than the South as a whole.

 17. The currently favorable growth-to-removal ratio for

hardwoods in the Highlands is projected to narrow

and be about equal by 2020 as growth remains

stable and removals increase. Nonetheless, by 2020

hardwood inventory is still projected to be greater

than current levels.

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

Several Federal and State sources provided data for

this analysis. Data on timber inventories were taken

from the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program

of the USDA Forest Service, which conducts periodic

surveys of timber resources in every State. (For more

information on the FIA, see the homepage at <http://

www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/wo/wofia.htm>.) Recent

surveys were conducted in Oklahoma in 1986 and 1993,

in Arkansas in 1988 and 1995, and in Missouri in 1989

(USDA FS FIA 1997, Hahn and Spencer 1991, Miller

and others 1993, London 1997). (The Social-Economic

Team deemed a 1972 survey of Missouri too out of date

for this analysis.) These surveys provided measures of

timber volume, growth, mortality, and removals. Removals data also are provided by the annual pulpwood

reports (Hackett and Smith 1990; Hackett 1992;

Hackett and Piva 1993, 1994; Piva 1995, 1996, 1997;

Howell 1993; Miller 1994; Howell and Hartsell 1995;

Johnson and Howell 1996; Johnson and Steppleton

1996), timber product output reports for Missouri (Piva

and Jones 1997, Smith and Jones 1990) and severance

tax data for Arkansas (Levins 1997).

Growing stock and sawtimber removals data represent harvests from the land (not receipts at the mill) and

cultural treatments such as timber stand improvement,

land clearing, or changes in land use. Pulpwood removals are measured in cords and represent roundwood (not

wood residues) processed at the mill. These data were

derived from different sources and methods and thus

the conclusions drawn from them may not always

agree. For example, the periodic FIA surveys collect the

growing stock and sawtimber removals data, while the

pulpwood data are collected annually by mill survey; the

removals data for the State of Arkansas severance tax

are collected annually by mill (in tons). The differences

between volumes reported removed from the forest and

received at the mill derive in part from logging waste

and residue and, in part, from different types of measurements. These differences will change over time as

harvesting and measurement technologies improve.

The Team used data on investments, production, and

value added for the wood products industries from

various Bureau of the Census reports: Current Industrial

Reports (MA24T) (USDC BC 1987–1996), Annual

168
Survey of Manufactures (USDC BC 1988–1996), and

the Census of Manufactures (USDC BC 1988, 1993).

(The term “value added” represents the sum of all

income derived from the industry, including wage and

owner income, less indirect business taxes.) Data on

national forests came from the Mark Twain Annual

Reports (USDA FS MTNF 1987–1996), the Ouachita

National Forest Annual Reports (USDA FS ONF

1987–1996), the Ozark National Forest Annual Reports

(USDA FS OZ-SFNF 1987–1996), and personal

communications (Nolan 1997).

Projections made for this analysis used the Subregional Timber Supply (SRTS) model developed by

Robert C. Abt at North Carolina State University (Abt

1998). This model of timber supply and demand uses

data from the FIA surveys and the 1993 Renewable

Resources Planning Act (RPA) National Timber

Assessment Update (Haynes and others 1995).

Timberland, as defined by the FIA, is forested land

that (1) is capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre

per year and (2) has not been withdrawn from timber

production. Standing merchantable timber volume, given

in cubic feet, is referred to as growing stock, which

includes all live trees greater than 5 inches (in.) in

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Larger diameter

stems form a subset of growing stock, measured in

board feet, called sawtimber, which consists of all trees

greater than 11 in. d.b.h. Smaller diameter products

such as roundwood or pulpwood (which are measured

in tons or cords) are used for chips or pulp production.

This analysis uses four broad ownership categories:

(1) national forests; (2) other public lands—all Federal,

State, and local government timberlands other than

national forests; (3) forest industry owners—those that

own, in addition to forest lands, a processing plant or

mill; and (4) the largest ownership category—nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners, including farmers,

corporations, and other nonindustrial forest landowners.

The Social-Economic Team subdivided the Highlands

into four timber subregions for this analysis (fig. 6.1).

The boundaries of these subregions follow county and

State lines and are somewhat similar to the national

forest timber market zones (see Chapter 4, fig. 4.7) and

the FIA survey unit boundaries. (Market zones consist of

counties with mills that purchase timber from the respective national forests.) Survey units are based on physiographic provinces and State boundaries. The Missouri

Ozarks form the northernmost subregion and the Arkansas Ozarks and Arkansas Ouachitas form the middle and

southeastern subregions for this study. Oklahoma is

designated here as a single subregion because its

forested area is small relative to the other subregions.

Overview of the Timber Resource

The character of the forests of the Highlands differs

significantly from the south to the north (see Chapter 5,

fig. 5.3). The southernmost area—the Ouachita Mountains—is dominated by pine forests. As one moves

north, the frequency and cover of upland hardwoods

(e.g., oaks, hickories) increase. North of the Arkansas

River, the forest consists predominantly of hardwoods.

The Arkansas Ozarks have yielded substantial hardwood sawtimber harvests and recent increases in

hardwood pulpwood harvests for chip exports. The

Missouri Ozarks consist of hardwood forests predominantly, but a small amount of softwood production

occurs on the Mark Twain National Forest and on NIPF

lands. There is little pulpwood production at present, but

the opening of a hardwood chip mill in Van Buren, MO,

in 1998 may lead to increases in pulpwood harvest in

this area (Vaughn 1997).

Figure 6.1—Timber subregions of the Highlands.

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Arkansas Ouachitas

Arkansas Ozarks

Missouri Ozarks

169
The following discussion focuses on the markets for

timber products. The Highlands area is part of a larger

market and must be considered in the context of

southwide timber markets that are, in turn, part of

national and international markets. The price and

production trends observed in the area show this

connection to the larger market. The Assessment area

is at the northern and western edge of the primary

timber-producing areas of the South. For this analysis,

the South includes Virginia, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and

southern Missouri.

The Highlands contain 12 percent of the South’s

timberland but only 5 percent of the softwood inventory

and 9 percent of the hardwood inventory. The Highlands’ share of the total southern timber harvest is even

smaller, with 3 percent of southern softwood removals

and 6 percent of hardwood removals. The low removals

relative to inventory and land may have attracted new

hardwood-using industries (e.g., hardwood chip mills) to

the Highlands.

In contrast to the region’s relatively small role in

Southern timber production, Highlands’ timber is very

important to local economies (see Chapter 4). Moreover, the Highlands’ national forests represent an

increasing percentage of total U.S. timber sales from

national forests (fig. 6.2). Prior to 1991, the Ozark-St.

Francis, Ouachita, and Mark Twain National Forests

provided about 3 percent of the total “green” (nonsalvage) national forest timber harvest. Since 1991, the

relative percentages of timber offered, sold, and cut on

these three national forests have increased (as the

harvests from western national forests have decreased), even though their harvest levels have not

risen above historical levels. In the mid-1990’s, the

volume of green timber offered for sale by these three

forests was approximately 10 percent of the U.S. total

for national forests. The total timber volume (including

salvage) cut and sold on the Highlands’ national forests

was slightly more than 6 percent of the U.S. national

forest total.

This chapter describes the market through the prices

and production of various timber products and discusses the factors that influence supply and demand.

The effects of these components on timber markets are

well established in economic theory, and general conclusions are possible even without a complete statistical

analysis. In addition, the SRTS model provided information on future harvest, growth, and inventory in subregions of the South within the context of the southwide

market situation.

Market Outcomes: Prices and

Production

The quantity of timber supplied is the amount of

timber a landowner harvests at a given time for a

given price, holding all other factors (e.g., harvesting

costs and landowner objectives) constant. The standing volume of timber—referred to as “inventory”—

should not be confused with timber supply. Standing

volume is a physical measure, while supply is the

volume that is actually traded in the market. The

quantity of timber demanded represents the amount of

timber a mill will buy at a given price, holding all other

factors (e.g., labor and machinery costs) constant.

Observed prices and production represent the equilibrium outcome of the interaction of market supply and

demand forces.

Figure 6.2—Highlands’ national forest timber sales as a

percentage of U.S. national forest timber offered, sold, and

cut, 1988 through 1996.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Percent of total U.S. national forest timber sales

Green offered

Sold

Cut

Salvage offered

170
Prices

Typically, as a product becomes scarcer, the real

price of that product will rise. This relative scarcity can

result from an increase in demand, a decrease in supply,

or both. Prices are analyzed in constant 1992 dollars,

called “real dollars,” to eliminate the effects of inflation.

Only when product prices rise at a rate greater than the

rate of inflation is scarcity indicated.

Since 1988, real timber prices in the Highlands have

been stable to rising. Available data are somewhat

limited, and represent an average of prices paid for

stumpage and delivered logs in two regions in Arkansas,

two regions in Oklahoma, and one region in Missouri.

Timber Mart South (Norris Foundation 1988–1996)

collected data for Oklahoma (1988–1994) and Arkansas

(1988–1996).

Timber prices can be expressed in the form of

stumpage prices (i.e., paid by a logger to a landowner)

or delivered log prices (i.e., paid by a mill to a logger).

Stumpage prices are averages for the region and do not

include harvesting or transportation costs; delivered

prices represent an average of stumpage plus harvest

plus transport costs. Stumpage prices are lower than

delivered prices.

Southwide prices for both softwood and hardwood

sawtimber have risen in recent years, with the sharpest

increase occurring about 1992. Sawtimber prices in the

Highlands follow this general trend. For pulpwood in the

Highlands and South, the prices showed marked increases in about 1988, with more stable prices after that

date. The price data for Missouri were too limited to

conduct statistical tests. The prices vary considerably

over the period collected and do not appear to be either

consistently rising or falling.

Using linear regression, the prices were regressed on

a time trend to determine if significant increases or

decreases occurred in Arkansas and Oklahoma over the

period. Table 6.1 shows the results of this trend analysis

(as average annual percentage changes in real prices).

Most price categories show significant trends, ranging

from 1.5 to 7.4 percent real annual increases for

stumpage prices and from -2.1 to 3 percent for delivered prices. The rising real prices imply increasing

Table 6.1—Average annual changes in prices of stumpage and delivered log prices for

selected Timber Mart South regions from 1988 through 1994 (Oklahoma) and 1988

through 1996 (Arkansas)a

Price type Southern Northern Southern Northern

Timber category Arkansas Arkansas Oklahoma Oklahoma

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent change - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Stumpage

Pine pulpwood 0.6 2.6* 3.0* 5.5*

Hardwood pulpwood 6.3* 7.3* 1.3 2.8*

Mixed hardwood sawtimber -0.1 1.5* 4.9* 4.8*

Oak sawtimber 1.7* 2.5* 4.1* 4.7*

Pine sawtimber 4.1* 7.4* 6.7* —

Delivered

Pine pulpwood 0.1 0.3 -1.2 —

Hardwood pulpwood 1.8* 1.7* -6.9 —

Mixed hardwood sawtimber -1.5* -2.1* — —

Oak sawtimber -0.6 0.9* — —

Pine sawtimber 2.8* 3.0* 2.9* 2.8*

* = statistically significant trend (95 per cent confidence); — = not available. a Price data for Missouri were too limited for statistical tests.

Source: Norris Foundation (1988–1996).

171
Figure 6.3—Average high bid prices for (A) softwood roundwood timber sales, (B) softwood sawtimber sales, (C) hardwood roundwood timber

sales, and (D) hardwood sawtimber sales on national forests by fiscal year (1988 through 1996).

scarcity. The differences in the trends for delivered and

stumpage prices occur because harvest or transportation costs (or both) have fallen, perhaps due to improved

technology or lower energy costs.

National forest timber prices are represented by

average high bid prices for stumpage sold in that fiscal

year (fig. 6.3). In general, national forest stumpage

prices have risen slightly over the last decade, but most

prices fell in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. For the

Ouachita National Forest, bid prices for softwood

sawtimber rose from 1988 to 1994, then declined in the

last 2 years of the series. By contrast, softwood roundwood prices on the Ouachita National Forest have

declined from over $11 per 100 cubic feet to less than

$5 per 100 cubic feet in 9 years. The Ouachita National

Forest sold little hardwood from 1988 through 1996.

A

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

1992 dollars/hundred cubic feet

Mark Twain NF

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

1992 dollars/thousand board feet

Mark Twain NF

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

C

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

1992 dollars/hundred cubic feet

Mark Twain NF

Ozark NF

D

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

1992 dollars/ thousand board feet

Mark Twain NF

Ozark NF

172
Softwood roundwood prices for the Mark Twain and

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests rose over the period,

as did prices for softwood sawtimber on the Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests. On the Mark Twain National

Forest, softwood sawtimber rose for the first 6 years of

the series, then declined over the last 2 years. Hardwood roundwood prices on the Ozark National Forest

varied considerably between 1988 and 1991 and leveled

off between 1992 and 1996. In contrast, hardwood

roundwood prices on the Mark Twain National Forest

were steady until 1994 when a rapid rise occurred

(peaking in 1995) followed by a dramatic drop in price

to earlier levels in 1996. Hardwood sawtimber prices

fluctuated on these predominantly hardwood forests,

rising in 1990, falling in 1992, then rising to over $160

per 1,000 board feet in 1995 and finally falling again in

1996.

Production

The FIA data concerning timber removals in Oklahoma and Arkansas represent survey period averages

(1986 to 1993 for Oklahoma, 1988 to 1995 for Arkansas); more recent trends (increasing or decreasing) may

not be discernible in these data. Other data, however,

suggest that harvests have increased through the mid1990’s. Severance tax data for Arkansas (Levins 1997)

show an increase in Arkansas Highlands’ timber removals from 1991 to 1996. Missouri Timber Product Output

reports (Piva and Jones 1997) show an increase in

harvests in the Missouri Ozarks between 1991 and 1994.

In the most recent survey, timber removals were

dominated by the NIPF category for hardwood removals (table 6.2a) and by NIPF and forest industry categories for softwoods (table 6.2b). National forests have a

much higher share of inventory compared to removals,

particularly for softwoods, accounting for 41 percent of

softwood sawtimber inventory but only 20 percent of

softwood sawtimber removals (fig. 6.4). In contrast,

forest industry accounts for 20 percent of softwood

sawtimber inventory but 40 percent of softwood sawtimber removals.

Growth/removals ratios are commonly used to assess

the impact of timber harvesting on the sustainability of

the forest resource. Although these ratios present a

static, limited view of the future harvest potential of

timberlands, they do show the types of timber, subregions, and ownerships that have been most or least

harvested over the last survey cycle (table 6.3). A ratio

of 1.0 implies that removals are equal to growth. Land

with a growth/removals ratio less than 1.0 experienced

a higher rate of harvest than growth, while a ratio

greater than 1.0 implies the opposite.

Growing Stock and Sawtimber Removals

Missouri Ozarks. Hardwood removals comprise 92

percent of total timber removals in the Missouri Ozarks

subregion. In the most recent FIA survey of Missouri

(1989), the Mark Twain National Forest contributed 16

percent of hardwood growing stock removals and 14

percent of hardwood sawtimber removals (table 6.2a).

The largest share of inventory is held by NIPF owners,

who also contribute the largest share of removals (over

77 percent). Forest industry harvests a larger percent of

its sawtimber inventory annually (over 2 percent) than is

harvested on lands in the three other ownership categories (over 1 percent).

Softwood growing stock comprises a small part of

the total Missouri Ozarks inventory and removals (12

percent and 8 percent respectively); this subregion

provides only about 3 percent of all softwood harvests in

the Assessment area. Most of the softwood volume and

removals take place on the Mark Twain National Forest

and NIPF lands (table 6.2b).

Growth/removals ratios for all timber types and

owners are significantly greater than 1.0 in this subregion, implying, at least for the previous survey period,

a considerable excess of growth over removals in the

Missouri Ozarks (table 6.3).

Arkansas Ozarks. Hardwood growing stock

removals in the Arkansas Ozarks subregion are lower

than in Missouri, but greater than in the Arkansas

Ouachitas and Oklahoma, while softwood removals are

higher than in Missouri and lower than in the Ouachitas

(tables 6.2a and b). A small proportion of the hardwood

growing stock removals in this subregion is from other

public and forest industry lands, with over 90 percent

from NIPF lands and about 8 percent from national

forest lands. NIPF owners also remove the largest

173
Table 6.2a—Inventories and average annual removals of hardwood growing stock and hardwood sawtimber

by subregion, timber category, and ownership categorya

Ownership category

Subregion or region National Other Forest

Timber category Measure forestb public industry NIPF Total

Missouri Ozarks

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 842.8 286.9 125.2 4,508.8 5,763.8

Removals (mmcf) 10.8 2.7 1.7 51.4 66.7

Percent of removals in subregion 16.2 4.0 2.6 77.1 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.3 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.2

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 2,283.5 842.2 308.5 12,133.0 15,567.1

Removals (mmbf) 29.4 9.5 7.5 157.6 204.0

Percent of removals in subregion 14.4 4.7 3.7 77.3 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.3 1.1 2.4 1.3 1.3

Arkansas Ozarks

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 1,218.2 236.3 84.9 3,379.5 4,918.9

Removals (mmcf) 4.3 0.7 0.4 50.2 55.6

Percent of removals in subregion 7.7 1.3 10.7 90.3 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 0.4 0.4 0.3 2.3 1.6

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 3,898.1 789.7 143.2 8,425.7 13,256.7

Removals (mmbf) 14.1 3.5 0.4 189.8 207.8

Percent of removals in subregion 6.8 1.7 0.2 91.3 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 0.4 0.4 0.3 2.3 1.6

Arkansas Ouachitas

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 644.0 190.3 402.0 1,083.3 2,320.2

Removals (mmcf) 2.3 1.1 18.1 27.6 49.1

Percent of removals in subregion 4.7 2.2 36.9 56.2 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 0.4 0.6 4.5 2.6 2.2

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 1,409.4 594.4 1,608.5 2,967.7 5,979.9

Removals (mmbf) 2.5 1.8 41.0 85.8 131.1

Percent of removals in subregion 1.9 1.4 31.3 65.4 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 0.2 0.3 2.6 2.9 2.2

Oklahoma

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 65.8 148.2 173.4 1,034.3 1,421.6

Removals (mmcf) 1.2 1.2 2.2 20.6 25.2

Percent of removals in subregion 4.8 4.8 8.7 81.8 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.8 0.8 1.3 2.0 1.8

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 193.8 460.2 278.8 2,395.5 3,328.3

Removals (mmbf) 2.9 2.2 3.5 57.5 66.1

Percent of removals in subregion 4.4 3.3 5.3 87.0 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.5 0.5 1.3 2.4 2.0

Highlands

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 2,770.8 861.6 786.2 10,005.9 14,424.1

Removals (mmcf) 18.5 5.7 19.5 149.8 193.5

Percent of total removals 9.6 3.0 10.0 77.4 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 0.7 0.7 2.5 1.5 1.3

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 7,784.8 2,687.0 1,738.9 25,921.8 38,132.5

Removals (mmbf) 48.9 17.1 52.4 490.7 609.0

Percent of total removals 8.0 2.8 8.6 80.6 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 0.6 0.7 3.0 1.9 1.6

mmcf = million cubic feet; mmbf = million board feet; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Inventories reflect 1989 data for Missouri, 1993 data for Oklahoma, and 1995 data for Arkansas; removals are averages for

the previous cycle, meaning 1972 to 1989 for Missouri, 1986 to 1993 for Oklahoma, and 1988 to 1995 for Arkansas; some

totals differ from the sum of row due to rounding.

b Inventory and removals data for national forest lands in Oklahoma are based on few samples, making the standard errors

very high and thereby leaving any changes between surveys statistically insignificant.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

174
Table 6.2b—Inventories and average annual removals of softwood growing stock and softwood sawtimber

by subregion, timber category, and ownership categorya

Ownership category

Subregion or region National Other Forest

Timber category Measure forestb public industry NIPF Total

Missouri Ozarks

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 304.0 44.6 35.5 402.5 786.5

Removals (mmcf) 3.9 0.0 0.1 1.5 5.6

Percent of removals in subregion 70.0 0.0 2.0 27.0 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 1,058.5 130.1 134.8 1,176.6 2,500.0

Removals (mmbf) 12.1 0.0 0.6 6.6 19.3

Percent of removals in subregion 62.7 0.0 3.1 34.2 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8

Arkansas Ozarks

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 300.2 32.6 115.0 730.2 1,178.0

Removals (mmcf) 8.9 0.8 0.7 21.6 32.0

Percent of removals in subregion 27.8 2.5 2.2 67.5 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 3.0 2.5 0.6 3.0 2.7

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 1,303.6 141.3 315.7 2,293.0 4,053.6

Removals (mmbf) 44.6 3.1 3.0 77.8 128.5

Percent of removals in subregion 34.7 2.4 2.3 60.6 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 3.4 2.2 1.0 3.4 3.2

Arkansas Ouachitas

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 1,483.1 94.2 1,074.8 835.2 3,487.3

Removals (mmcf) 19.9 1.9 57.4 38.6 117.8

Percent of removals in subregion 16.9 1.6 48.7 32.8 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.3 2.0 5.3 4.6 3.4

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 6,646.7 440.0 3,265.6 3,361.4 13,704.7

Removals (mmbf) 90.5 9.3 234.3 158.1 492.3

Percent of removals in subregion 18.4 1.9 47.6 32.1 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 1.4 2.1 7.2 4.7 3.6

Oklahoma

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 228.4 71.6 574.1 485.5 1,359.7

Removals (mmcf) 6.1 0.1 29.5 20.9 56.6

Percent of removals in subregion 10.8 0.0 52.1 36.9 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 2.7 0.0 5.1 4.3 4.2

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 929.8 258.8 1,256.0 1,596.7 4,041.4

Removals (mmbf) 25.8 0.3 100.2 88.8 215.1

Percent of removals in subregion 12.0 0.1 46.6 41.3 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 2.8 0.1 8.0 5.6 5.3

Highlands

Growing stock Inventory (mmcf) 2,315.7 243.0 1,799.4 2,453.4 6,811.5

Removals (mmcf) 40.0 2.8 87.7 82.7 212.0

Percent of total removals 18.0 1.0 41.0 39.0 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 2.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 3.0

Sawtimber Inventory (mmbf) 9,938.6 970.2 4,963.1 8,427.8 24,299.8

Removals (mmbf) 173.1 12.6 338.2 331.3 855.2

Percent of total removals 20.0 2.0 40.0 39.0 100.0

Removals as percent of owner inventory 2.0 1.0 7.0 4.0 4.0

mmcf = million cubic feet; mmbf = million board feet; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Inventories reflect 1989 data for Missouri, 1993 data for Oklahoma, and 1995 data for Arkansas; removals are averages for

the previous cycle, meaning 1972 to 1989 for Missouri, 1986 to 1993 for Oklahoma, and 1988 to 1995 for Arkansas; some

totals differ from sum of row due to rounding.

b Inventory and removals data for national forest lands in Oklahoma are based on few samples, making the standard errors very

high and thereby leaving any changes between surveys statistically insignificant.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

175
percent of hardwood inventory each year (2.3 percent

of growing stock), while the other ownership categories

remove less than 1 percent of inventory growing stock

annually.

The Arkansas Ozarks, with more softwood growing

stock and sawtimber inventory and removals than the

Missouri Ozarks, still contribute only a small portion of

the Highlands’ softwood growing stock removals (15

percent). The national forests contribute 28 percent of

softwood growing stock removals and 35 percent of

softwood sawtimber removals in the subregion. Most of

the softwood harvest, over 60 percent, occurs on NIPF

lands. Both NIPF owners and national forests remove

about 3 percent of their softwood growing stock and

sawtimber inventory annually, while forest industry

removes only 1 percent of their softwood sawtimber

inventory annually.

Growth/removals ratios in this subregion are greater

than 1.0 for all owners and timber types (table 6.3).

National forest softwood and all NIPF timber categories have ratios from 1.1 to 1.9, indicating that removals

are nearly equal to growth. The growth of hardwood

growing stock significantly exceeds removals (ratio of

2.4).

Arkansas Ouachitas. In contrast to the Missouri

and Arkansas Ozarks, the Arkansas Ouachitas have far

more softwood growing stock and sawtimber than

hardwood (tables 6.2a and b). Furthermore, hardwood

growing stock and hardwood sawtimber volume and

removals in the Arkansas Ouachitas are about half

those in the Arkansas Ozarks. NIPF owners hold the

largest percent of hardwood growing stock (47 percent)

and provide the highest percent of hardwood sawtimber

removals in this subregion (65 percent). The national

Figure 6.4—Inventory and removals of softwood and hardwood growing stock and sawtimber in the Assessment area,

expressed as a percent of the Highlands’ total by landowner category (USDA FS FIA 1997).

Softwood growing stock

0

10

20

30

40

50

National

forest

Other

public

Forest

industry

NIPF

Highlands (percent)

Softwood sawtimber

0

10

20

30

40

50

National

forest

Other

public

Forest

industry

NIPF

Highlands (percent)

Inventory

Removal

Hardwood growing stock

0

20

40

60

80

100

National

forest

Other

public

Forest

industry

NIPF

Highlands (percent)

Hardwood sawtimber

0

20

40

60

80

100

National

forest

Other

public

Forest

industry

NIPF

Highlands (percent)

176
Table 6.3—Growth/removals ratiosa

 by subregion, timber category, and ownership

category

Ownership category

Subregion National Other Forest

Timber category forest public industry NIPF Average

Missouri Ozarks

Softwood growing stock 2.0 48.4 7.7 10.3 4.6

Softwood sawtimber 2.9 — 8.8 7.4 4.9

Hardwood growing stock 2.1 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.3

Hardwood sawtimber 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.5 2.5

Arkansas Ozarks

Softwood growing stock 1.3 1.3 12.3 1.6 1.7

Softwood sawtimber 1.1 1.6 7.5 1.8 1.7

Hardwood growing stock 6.6 8.6 7.2 1.9 2.4

Hardwood sawtimber 7.0 4.8 10.7 1.4 1.9

Arkansas Ouachitas

Softwood growing stock 1.7 2.5 1.8 1.2 1.6

Softwood sawtimber 2.0 2.7 1.0 1.3 1.3

Hardwood growing stock 6.9 4.3 0.7 1.4 1.5

Hardwood sawtimber 17.6 9.9 0.8 1.5 1.7

Oklahoma

Softwood growing stock 2.0 b 36.6 2.0 1.6 2.0

Softwood sawtimber 2.1 b 37.1 2.1 1.2 1.3

Hardwood growing stock 2.0 b 3.6 2.0 2.4 2.5

Hardwood sawtimber 2.0 b 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.1

Highlands region

Softwood growing stock 2.0 3.6 3.2 2.4 2.5

Softwood sawtimber 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.1

Hardwood growing stock 1.7 3.6 2.0 1.6 1.8

Hardwood sawtimber 1.9 3.6 1.1 1.5 1.5

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest; — = not available. a

 Obtained by dividing timber growth by timber removals during a particular time period, usually 1 year.

b Inventory and removals data for national forest lands in Oklahoma are based on few samples, making

the standard errors very high and thereby leaving any changes between surveys statistically insignificant.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

forests provide less than 5 percent of hardwood growing

stock removals and about 2 percent of hardwood

sawtimber removals in this subregion. Both forest

industry and NIPF owners remove over 2 percent of

their hardwood inventory per year, while less than 1

percent of the respective inventories are removed from

national forests and other public lands.

While forest industry accounts for about 30 percent

of the softwood growing stock inventory and 24 percent

of the softwood sawtimber inventory, it dominates

softwood removals with 49 percent of growing stock

removals and 48 percent of all sawtimber removals.

National forests account for 42 and 49 percent of

softwood growing stock and sawtimber inventory,

177
respectively, but provide only 17 and 18 percent of all

removals. NIPF owners contribute over 32 percent of

both growing stock and sawtimber softwood removals.

National forests remove only about 1 percent of inventory per year, while NIPF and forest industry owners

remove 4 to 7 percent per year.

These high removals rates on forest industry lands

are reflected in the growth/removals ratios (table 6.3),

which range from 0.7 to 1.8 for forest industry in this

subregion. The national forests show an excess of

growth/removals in all species and size categories. Only

a minor amount of hardwoods are harvested on the

Ouachita National Forest, which is reflected in the

especially high growth/removals ratios of 6.9 (growing

stock) and 17.6 (sawtimber).

Oklahoma. The Oklahoma timber subregion

includes the hardwood forests of northeastern Oklahoma as well as the pine forests of southeastern

Oklahoma (tables 6.2a and b). Hardwoods make up

about half of the inventory volume. Most of the hardwoods, however, are on NIPF lands, which contribute

more than 80 percent of removals. The national forests

account for less than 5 percent of total hardwood

removals. NIPF lands remove the highest percent of

hardwood inventory (2.4 percent of sawtimber), and

other public lands remove the lowest (0.5 percent of

sawtimber).

More than 70 percent of the softwood growing

stock and sawtimber in this subregion is found on

forest industry and NIPF lands. These two landowner

categories account for nearly 90 percent of softwood

removals (both growing stock and sawtimber).

Approximately 16 percent of the softwood growing

stock and 23 percent of the sawtimber are on national

forest lands.

This subregion removes a larger percentage of

softwood growing stock and sawtimber inventory each

year (4 and 5 percent, respectively) than does any other

subregion. Forest industry removes the highest percent

of owner inventory (5 and 8 percent, respectively).

Table 6.3 shows consistent growth/removals ratios

for NIPF, forest industry, and national forest ownership

classes in Oklahoma, ranging from 1.2 to 2.4. Ratios for

the “other public” lands are much larger, but this is not a

major landowner category in this subregion, and these

values may not be important when evaluating the

harvest potential of the area.

Trends. National forest and forest industry hardwood removals declined in Arkansas and Oklahoma

between the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (tables 6.4a

and b). The largest decline occurred on forest industry

lands. The largest increase in hardwood removals

occurred on NIPF lands, especially in the Arkansas

Ozarks and Oklahoma. These data represent period

averages and do not reflect more recent increases in

hardwood pulpwood removals. In the Missouri Ozarks,

hardwood roundwood and sawlog removals increased

between 1987 and 1994 by 28 and 85 percent respectively (table 6.5).

Softwood harvest declines in the Arkansas Ouachitas

were offset somewhat by increases in the other three

subregions. Forest industry softwood removals declined

in the three subregions. NIPF and national forest

softwood removals declined in the Ouachitas. Other

subregions had increased softwood removals of both

growing stock and sawtimber.

National Forest Timber Sales

Data for the three national forests of the Highlands

show that timber offered, sold, and cut varied significantly over the past decade, with a sharp decline from

1988 to 1991 and an increase and stabilization from 1991

to 1996 (fig. 6.5). Timber sold on the three forests

declined from about 300 million board feet in 1988 to a

low of about 121 million board feet in 1991. Since then,

the volume sold has risen, but not to the 1989 and 1990

levels. The variations were largely caused by declines in

the timber program of the Ouachita National Forest and

to a lesser extent the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. The timber program on the Mark Twain National

Forest was more stable than the other two forests over

this time period. It is important to note that the amount of

timber volume offered, sold, and cut in any fiscal year

(October 1 to September 30) will be different. Some

timber that is offered will not be sold until the following

year, and some timber that is sold will not be harvested

until later years, depending on the length of the timber

sale contract. Offered and sold volumes track closely,

but the actual volume cut is quite different.

178
Table 6.4a—Trends in average annual removals of hardwood growing stock and hardwood sawtimber

by ownership category and timber subregion

Missouri Ozarks Arkansas Ozarks Arkansas Ouachitas Oklahoma

Ownership category Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing SawSurvey stock timber stock timber stock timber stock timber

mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf

National foresta

Previous surveyb 9.1 27.3 5.2 3.8 1.6 3.4

Recent surveyc 10.8 29.4 4.3 14.1 2.3 2.5 1.3 2.9

Percent change -53 -48 -56 -35 -28 -15

Other public

Previous surveyb 0.9 3.5 0.6 1.4 1.0 1.7

Recent surveyc 2.7 9.5 0.7 3.5 1.1 1.8 1.2 2.2

Percent change -21 0 78 32 24 29

Forest industry

Previous surveyb 2.7 5.8 31.3 78.3 10.5 27.7

Recent surveyc 1.7 7.5 0.4 0.4 15.1 41.0 2.2 3.5

Percent change -84 -93 -52 -47 -79 -87

NIPF

Previous surveyb 37.2 116.9 25.4 71.1 9.3 27.8

Recent surveyc 51.4 157.6 50.2 189.8 27.6 85.8 20.6 57.5

Percent change 35 62 12 21 121 107

All owners

Previous surveyb 49.9 153.5 62.5 154.6 22.5 60.6

Recent surveyc 66.7 204.0 55.6 207.8 46.0 131.1 25.2 66.9

Percent change 10 35 -26 -14 9 8

mmcf = million cubic feet; mmbf = million board feet; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Inventory and removals data for national forest lands in Oklahoma are based on few samples, making the standard errors very

high and thereby leaving any changes between surveys statistically insignificant.

b The previous survey for Missouri was not available, the previous survey for Arkansas was in 1988 (average removals from

1976–1988), and the previous survey for Oklahoma was in 1986 (average removals from 1972–1986). c The recent survey for Missouri was in 1989 (average removals from 1972–1989), the Arkansas survey was in 1995 (average

removals from 1988–1995), and the Oklahoma survey was in 1993 (average removals from 1986–1993).

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Table 6.6 presents a more detailed picture of national

forest timber sales, showing the amount of timber sold

by each national forest ranger district in the Assessment

area for the years 1988 through 1996. This table and the

succeeding one are presented primarily to respond to

public interest in seeing such data. Although most

districts sold more timber at the beginning of this period

than toward the end, few clear trends are apparent.

Table 6.7 shows the amount of land on each district that

was “suitable” for timber production and the average

annual volume sold per suitable acre on each district.

The Forest Service updates its determinations of

suitable acres annually. The volume sold per suitable

acre of land (and the proportion of suitable to unsuitable

179
land per se) varies considerably among districts. Three

ranger districts on the Ouachita National Forest—the

Caddo, Cold Springs, and Poteau—had the highest

average volume sold per suitable acre. The districts

within the Highlands that had the lowest rates were the

Buffalo on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests and

the Ava-Cassville-Willow Springs and Houston-Rolla

Ranger Districts on the Mark Twain National Forest.

The differences in percent of suitable timberland and

volume sold can be due to variations in factors such as

site productivity, the number of timber sales offered, and

annual funding levels.

Table 6.4b—Trends in average annual removals of softwood growing stock and sawtimber by ownership

category and timber subregion

Missouri Ozarks Arkansas Ozarks Arkansas Ouachitas Oklahoma

Ownership category Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing SawSurvey stock timber stock timber stock timber stock timber

mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf

National foresta

Previous surveyb 2.9 11.8 32.0 135.6 3.0 10.4

Recent surveyc 3.9 12.1 8.9 44.7 19.9 90.5 6.1 25.8

Percent change 209 278 -38 -33 105 148

Other public

Previous surveyb 0.9 1.2 0.9 4.5 1.0 2.4

Recent surveyc 0 0 0.8 3.1 1.9 9.3 0.1 0.3

Percent change -16 155 112 106 -92 -88

Forest industry

Previous surveyb 2.4 8.1 93.5 473.1 42.2 167.1

Recent surveyc 0.1 0.6 0.7 3.0 57.4 234.4 29.5 100.3

Percent change -73 -63 -39 -51 -30 -40

NIPF

Previous surveyb 12.1 37.7 47.6 208.5 10.1 35.6

Recent surveyc 1.6 6.7 21.6 77.8 38.6 158.1 20.6 88.8

Percent change 79 106 -19 -24 107 149

All owners

Previous surveyb 18.3 58.8 174.0 821.7 56.4 215.4

Recent surveyc 5.7 19.4 32.0 128.6 117.8 492.3 56.6 215.2

Percent change 83 11 -33 -40 2 0

mmcf = million cubic feet; mmbf = million board feet; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Inventory and removals data for national forest lands in Oklahoma are based on few samples, making the standard errors very

high and thereby leaving any changes between surveys statistically insignificant.

b The previous survey for Missouri was not available, the previous Arkansas survey was in 1988 (average removals from

1976–1988), and the previous Oklahoma survey was in 1986 (average removals from 1972–1986). c The recent survey for Missouri was in 1989 (average removals from 1972–1989), the Arkansas survey was in 1995

(average removals from 1988–1995), and the Oklahoma survey was in 1993 (average removals from 1986–1993).

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

180
Table 6.5—Removals of roundwood and sawlogs in the

Missouri Ozarks, 1987 and 1994, for both hardwoods and

softwoods

 Removals

Product 1987 1994 Increase

Percent

Roundwood

Softwood (mcf) 7,422 10,578 43

Hardwood (mcf) 62,955 80,811 28

Sawlogs

Softwood (mbf) 34,894 41,528 19

Hardwood (mbf) 230,229 426,141 85

mcf = thousand cubic feet; mbf = thousand board feet.

Source: Hahn and Spencer (1991), Piva and Jones (1997).

Figure 6.5—Timber volume (A) offered, (B) sold, and (C) cut on the Highlands’ national forests by fiscal year, 1988 through 1996.

A

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Million board feet

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

Mark Twain NF

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Million board feet

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

Mark Twain NF

C

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Fiscal year

Million board feet

Ouachita NF

Ozark NF

Mark Twain NF

C

181
Table 6.6—Timber sold by fiscal year and national forest ranger district, 1988 through 1996a

Fiscal year Average

National forest volume

Ranger district 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 sold

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ozark-St. Francis NF’s

Bayou 11,409 14,494 9,977 4,805 15,686 15,691 1,269 13,322 12,620 11,030

Boston Mountains 13,630 9,121 9,208 7,353 4,268 6,725 6,704 6,020 16,435 8,829

Buffalo 8,796 9,271 6,966 2,087 8,600 0 2,593 2,218 1,011 4,616

Mt. Magazine 8,196 13,970 9,514 2,571 8,280 15,108 11,671 9,313 11,765 10,043

Pleasant Hill 7,683 7,585 6,258 2,391 8,005 4,748 6,980 6,529 4,572 6,083

St. Francisb 1,494 1,918 0 0 739 1,127 1,182 0 660 791

Sylamore 2,428 1,940 2,120 2,477 1,521 3,607 6,573 3,816 3,616 3,122

Total 53,636 58,299 44,043 21,684 47,099 47,006 36,972 41,218 50,679 44,514

Ouachita NF

Caddo 12,388 16,479 6,984 1,706 3,034 9,348 11,361 19,796 17,179 10,919

Cold Springs 23,468 11,922 15,554 2,102 17,790 13,180 20,303 14,162 15,113 14,844

Fourche 20,871 8,625 9,980 171 9,295 8,587 14,600 12,548 16,080 11,195

Jessieville-Winona 21,696 10,247 8,137 8,490 10,602 15,824 18,434 15,855 17,032 14,035

Kiamichi-Choctaw 7,835 5,411 5,616 6,821 4,494 8,112 8,138 6,364 13,692 7,837

Mena 15,630 10,677 9,272 3,471 10,474 5,930 8,793 11,300 7,174 9,191

Oden 23,206 22,722 20,737 9,959 11,286 11,237 19,983 16,084 19,094 16,812

Poteau 29,649 12,243 9,931 5,570 17,724 28,370 11,714 24,935 17,642 17,531

Tiakb 11,085 10,140 6,826 79 2,892 21,219 14,232 8,234 2,446 8,573

Womble 11,561 10,263 5,751 1,433 8,215 9,459 9,617 24,307 12,229 10,315

Total 177,389 118,729 98,788 39,802 95,806 131,266 137,175 153,858 134,681 121,252

Mark Twain NF

Ava-CassvilleWillow Springs 11,664 10,254 5,701 10,398 8,775 10,899 7,355 6,680 9,081 8,979

Cedar Creekb 213 231 418 442 228 165 334 156 247 270

Doniphan-Eleven

Point 13,306 11,932 10,181 11,282 11,839 13,125 9,912 9,575 11,679 11,396

Houston-Rolla 6,485 6,706 4,262 5,079 5,700 5,385 4,985 4,833 4,771 5,356

Poplar Bluff 11,765 11,563 5,114 9,064 7,964 7,756 7,844 7,057 6,970 8,344

PotosiFredericktown 16,269 14,984 11,717 11,574 14,053 14,277 13,187 11,252 12,796 13,345

Salem 12,001 12,219 11,119 11,552 12,173 11,771 10,751 10,884 10,980 11,494

Total 71,433 67,889 48,512 59,391 60,732 63,378 54,368 50,437 56,524 59,184

NF = national forest.

a Does not include volume the national forests reported as “salvage”; roundwood volumes were converted from cubic feet measurements. b Districts are outside the Assessment area but are included here to reflect total national forest programs.

182
Table 6.7—National forest acres suitable for timber production, total acres, percent

suitable, average annual timber sale volume (1988 through 1996), and average volume sold

per suitable acre, by national forest ranger district

Avg. volume

National forest Suitable Total Percent Average sold per

Ranger district acresa acresb suitable volume sold suitable acre

mmbf mmbf/ac

Ozark-St. Francis NF’s

Bayou 223,890 265,597 84.3 11,030 0.049

Boston Mountains 176,423 196,311 89.9 8,829 0.050

Buffalo 171,091 242,501 70.6 4,616 0.027

Pleasant Hill 162,316 196,311 82.7 6,083 0.037

Magazine 88,853 105,896 83.9 10,043 0.113

St. Francisc 18,131 21,128 85.8 791 0.044

Sylamore 82,707 127,024 65.1 3,122 0.038

Ouachita NF

Caddo 70,277 147,606 47.6 10,919 0.155

Cold Springs 97,266 156,201 62.2 14,844 0.153

Fourche 99,985 144,510 69.1 11,195 0.112

Kiamichi-Choctaw 91,003 219,611 41.4 14,035 0.090

Jessieville-Winona 156,652 253,581 61.8 7,837 0.081

Mena 74,834 191,867 39.0 9,191 0.123

Oden 136,264 184,550 73.8 16,812 0.123

Poteau 108,901 177,638 61.3 17,531 0.161

Tiakc — 126,538 — 8,573 —

Womble 111,902 159,997 69.9 10,315 0.092

Mark Twain NF

Ava-Cassville-Willow

Springs 222,905 314,545 70.9 8,979 0.029

Cedar Creekc 5,267 15,448 34.1 270 0.018

Doniphan-Eleven

Point 248,876 331,441 75.1 11,396 0.034

Houston-Rolla 133,488 195,643 68.2 5,356 0.027

Poplar Bluff 127,390 156,436 81.4 8,344 0.053

Potosi-Fredericktown 209,429 285,471 73.4 13,345 0.047

Salem 165,838 191,446 86.6 11,494 0.060

mmbf = million board feet; ac = acre; — = not available. a See “Glossary of Terms” for definition. b Figures are approximate and include some areas of recently acquired land for which suitability determinations had not been made at the time this chapter was completed.

c Districts outside the Assessment area; included here to reflect total national forest programs.

183
Factors Affecting Timber Supply

Factors that define the physical availability of timber

include timberland area, volume of timber on site,

growth and mortality of timber inventory, stand size

class, and tree grade. In addition to these factors, other

physical constraints may affect the availability of timber

for harvesting, as discussed below.

Timberland

The FIA (USDA FS FIA 1997) classifies 26 million

acres (ac) in the Highlands (53 percent of 49 million ac)

as “timberland.” Because of the FIA’s definition of

timberland as land that is both physically capable of

producing at least 20 cubic feet/ac per year for harvest

and is not withdrawn from timber production, some

forest land is not classified as timberland—either the

land is unproductive or it is legally off-limits to harvesting (e.g., national parks and wildernesses). The proportion of each county classified as timberland varies

throughout the Highlands, as illustrated in figure 6.6.

Nonindustrial private forest lands account for 69

percent of the Highland’s timberland, ranging from a

high of 80 percent of the Missouri Ozarks to a low of 37

percent in the Arkansas Ouachitas. National forest

timberland (not including wilderness or unproductive

land) comprises 15 percent of the timberland base of the

Highlands area (table 6.8). The highest percentage is in

the Arkansas Ouachitas subregion (24 percent), and the

lowest (5 percent) is in the Oklahoma subregion. Forest

industry holds 12 percent of the Highlands timberland,

including significant portions of land in the Arkansas

Ouachitas (35 percent of timberlands) and Oklahoma

subregions (24 percent of timberlands). These two

subregions have the most acreage occupied by planted

pine (table 6.9). Upland hardwood forest types dominate

in Oklahoma and the Ozarks, covering from 50 percent

of the Oklahoma subregion to 86 percent of the

Missouri Ozarks.

Nonindustrial Private Forest Lands

The NIPF ownership class is strongly represented in

all parts of the Assessment area (fig. 6.7). By combining

statewide data from the forest surveys for Arkansas

(London 1997), Missouri (Hahn and Spencer 1991), and

Oklahoma (Miller and others 1993) with the results of a

1994 national survey of private forest owners (Birch

1996), it can be estimated that there are 387,000 NIPF

tracts in Assessment area counties; these tracts average

about 43 ac in size.

Figure 6.6—Percentage of county acres in timberland

(USDA FS FIA 1997).

Figure 6.7—Percentage of county timberland acres owned by

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners (USDA FS FIA

1997).

0–10%

11–30%

31–50%

51–70%

71–90%

> 90%

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

0–20%

21–40%

41–60%

61–80%

>80%

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

184
Table 6.8—Timberland acres by ownership category and timber subregion

 Timber subregion

Ownership category Missouri Ozarks Arkansas Ozarks Arkansas Ouachitas Oklahoma Highlands

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Percent

National forest 1,312,800 13 941,240 15 1,302,940 24 222,652a 5 15

Other public 487,900 5 222,536 4 221,207 4 373,006 9 5

Forest industry 214,700 2 173,861 3 1,578,052 35 1,047,322a 24 12

NIPF 8,121,400 80 4,956,973 79 1,857,397 37 2,709,619 62 69

Total 10,136,800 100 6,294,610 101b 4,959,596 100 4,352,599 100 101b

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Does not reflect land adjustment in 1996.

b Totals exceed 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Table 6.9—Timberland acres by forest type and timber subregion

 Timber subregion

Forest type Missouri Ozarks Arkansas Ozarks Arkansas Ouachitas Oklahoma Highlands

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Percent

Pine plantation 92,100 1 221,068 4 1,055,427 21 560,314 13 8

Natural pine 364,600 4 450,067 7 1,093,245 22 613,366 14 10

Oak-pine 756,700 7 923,970 15 934,590 19 594,235 14 12

Upland hardwood 8,666,800 86 4,306,180 68 1,391,695 28 2,193,258 50 64

Bottomland hardwood 214,000 2 362,479 6 383,543 8 352,472 8 5

Unspecified 42,300 0 30,846 < 1 101,096 2 38,927 1 1

Total 10,136,500 100 6,294,610 100 4,959,596 100 4,352,572 100 100

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Birch (1996) reported that the number of timberland

acres in NIPF ownership increased nearly 10 percent in

Missouri and nearly 30 percent in Oklahoma between

1978 and 1994, implying conversion of a significant

amount of land from other rural uses to timberland. He

also found that the average tract size decreased sharply

in these two States over the same period, from more

than 120 ac to less than 45 ac. This trend suggests that

a rapid fragmentation of NIPF holdings is taking place.

In contrast, NIPF timberland acreage and average tract

size in Arkansas remained relatively unchanged between 1978 and 1994 (Birch 1996).

The characteristics and objectives of NIPF owners

are highly diverse. Farmers hold the majority of the

NIPF acres in heavily agricultural areas, including

floodplains and some parts of Missouri. But across the

three States of the Assessment area, three-fifths of

NIPF acres are owned by a variety of other individuals

that include retirees, blue- and white-collar workers, and

homemakers (Birch 1996).

While Birch’s findings concerning the objectives of

NIPF owners in Arkansas and Oklahoma are combined

with other Southern States and those for Missouri are

combined with other Central States, the results for the

two regions are similar enough to summarize together.

Over half of the owners considered their forest land as

simply part of their residence or farm and/or as a source

for such domestic products as firewood or fence posts

(Birch 1996). Roughly one-fifth named esthetic enjoyment as their primary or secondary reason for owning

185
forest land, while smaller fractions named recreation or

investment. Only about 5 percent of the owners named

timber production as their primary or secondary reason

for owning forest land, and those who did tended to own

substantially larger-than-average holdings. Roughly half

of the owners had never harvested timber on their land,

and one-third had no plans to do so (Birch 1996).

Researchers in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

conducted statewide studies of NIPF owners in the late

1970’s, early 1980’s, and mid-1990’s. Additional information on the characteristics, objectives, and forest

management behavior of this important class of landowners can be found in the reports of those studies

(Jones and Thompson 1981, Kurtz and Bradway 1981,

Kurtz and Lewis 1981, Greene and Blatner 1986,

Blatner and Greene 1989, Williams and others 1998).

National Forests

Like NIPF lands, national forests are managed for a

wide variety of objectives. However, national forest

management differs from that on NIPF lands in several

important respects. National forest management occurs

on a large scale, typically involving whole landscapes

rather than the individual small tracts commonly associated with NIPF owners. National forest management

typically involves a much higher level of participation by

foresters, biologists, and other trained natural resource

professionals than occurs in conjunction with private land

management. In addition, national forest management

typically involves a much higher level of public input—in

the forms of public participation in decisionmaking and

legislative and budgetary constraints set by Congress.

National forests are the easiest of the ownership

classes to locate: all national forest acres are within the

proclamation boundaries of one of the three national

forests in the Assessment area (green areas in fig. 1.5).

However, timberland ownership within national forest

proclamation boundaries is not uniform; included within

these boundaries is a substantial component of private

lands (often referred to as “inholdings”) and public lands

that are not managed as part of the National Forest

System. Moreover, in the 36 counties in which national

forest acreage comprises at least 11 percent of the total

(fig. 6.8), less than one-third of the timberland acres are

national forest lands. Half of the timberland is held by

NIPF owners and one-eighth by forest industry, with the

remaining acreage in the “other public” category (Hahn

and Spencer 1991, Miller and others 1993, London

1997).

The mixture of ownerships within and adjacent to

national forest proclamation boundaries has a profound

effect on all categories of forest landowners. National

forest management practices implicitly influence the

forest management options available to owners of

neighboring private timberlands (as would the management practices of any large neighbor). At the same

time, the presence of private holdings within and

adjacent to national forest timberlands affects the extent

to which national forest managers can implement

desired management practices. The types and levels of

forest management practiced on private inholdings may

require ameliorative practices on national forest lands;

private land management can also influence visitors’

perceptions of national forest management.

Forest Industry

Most forest industry timberlands generally are held by

large, integrated firms (sawmill and small forest industry

firms typically own little timberland). The majority of

forest industry lands are found in the southern part of

Figure 6.8—Percentage of county timberland acres in

national forests (USDA FS FIA 1997).

0–10%

11–30%

31–50%

51–70%

71–90%

> 90%

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

186
the Assessment area in Arkansas and Oklahoma (fig.

6.9). Forest industry firms manage their holdings

primarily for the production of timber products, but each

firm favors a different type of product and employs a

different timber management. As a result, forest

industry holdings are diverse rather than monolithic.

Forest industry timberlands remain an important source

of non-timber forest products, particularly those related

to air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and dispersed

forms of recreation, including hunting and foraging.

Other Public Ownership Category

The “other public” category includes lands managed

by State and local government and Federal agencies

other than the Forest Service. State-managed timberlands are scattered throughout the Assessment area;

they consist mainly of State parks and State wildlife

management areas. Most “other Federal” lands in the

Assessment area are part of military installations or

wildlife refuges or are adjacent to reservoirs maintained

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The management objectives of State and local

government and “other Federal” agencies tend to be

more narrowly defined than management objectives for

national forests. However, frequently visited areas on

holdings within or immediately adjacent to national

forest timberland may act to constrain national forest

timber management options.

Land Ownership Patterns

Thirty-two Assessment area counties with above

average national forest acreage also have above

average acreage for at least one other timberland

ownership category. (In most cases, the other category

class involved is NIPF owners.) This issue is raised

because the need for dialogue, opportunities to prevent

misunderstanding or conflict, and partnerships may be

increased in areas with concentrations of two or more

classes of timberland ownership.

Counties with above average acreage in both national

forest and NIPF ownership classes include Crawford,

Newton, Pope, and Stone Counties in Arkansas; Barry,

Crawford, Dent, Douglas, Howell, Iron, Laclede,

Madison, Oregon, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon,

Taney, Texas, Washington, and Wayne Counties in

Missouri; and Le Flore County in Oklahoma (fig. 6.10).

In a smaller number of cases, the other ownership class

is forest industry. Such counties include Garland, Perry,

Polk, and Yell Counties in Arkansas; Carter, Oregon,

Reynolds, Shannon, Texas, Washington, and Wayne

Counties in Missouri; and Le Flore and McCurtain

Counties in Oklahoma (fig. 6.11).

Although the acreages involved are usually small,

there are numerous cases where counties with above

average national forest acreage also have above average acreage for one of the three remaining ownership

classes. No action may be necessary or possible where

the other ownership class is “other corporate,” but the

need for interagency communication clearly is heightened when the “other owner” is a State or Federal

agency. Counties where the other ownership class is

State and local include Garland, Montgomery, Newton,

Perry, Polk, Pope, and Yell Counties in Arkansas; and

Carter, Crawford, Dent, Howell, Reynolds, Shannon,

Taney, Washington, and Wayne Counties in Missouri

(fig. 6.12). Cases where the other ownership class is

“other Federal” include Baxter, Franklin, Montgomery,

and Yell Counties in Arkansas; Crawford, Pulaski,

Reynolds, and Wayne Counties in Missouri; and Le

Flore and McCurtain Counties in Oklahoma (fig. 6.13).

Figure 6.9—Percentage of county timberland acres owned by

forest industry (USDA FS FIA 1997).

0–10%

11–30%

31–50%

51–70%

71–90%

> 90%

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

187
Figure 6.10—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both

national forest and NIPF ownership classes (USDA FS FIA 1997).

Figure 6.11—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both

national forest and forest industry ownership classes (USDA FS

FIA 1997).

Figure 6.12—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both

national forest and State and local ownership classes (USDA FS FIA

1997).

Figure 6.13—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both

national forest and other Federal ownership classes (USDA FS FIA

1997).

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Missouri

Oklahoma

Arkansas

188
Volume, Growth, and Mortality

In terms of overall timber volume, hardwood predominates in the Highlands; there is about twice as

much hardwood growing stock than softwood (14,424

and 6,811 million cubic feet, respectively) and more

than one and one-half times as much hardwood sawtimber than softwood (38,132 versus 24,300 million

board feet, respectively) (table 6.10). Approximately

96 percent of softwood growing-stock volume is

distributed among forest industry (1,799 million cubic

feet), NIPF (2,453 million cubic feet), and national

forest lands (2,315 million cubic feet). While softwood

growing-stock volume per acre is highest on national

forest and forest industry lands, growth of the timber

inventory is much higher on forest industry lands.

Softwood mortality is low for all ownerships for both

sawtimber and growing stock. National forests manage

more softwood sawtimber (9,939 million board feet)

than any other ownership, with NIPF owners a close

second (8,428 million board feet).

Approximately 68 percent of hardwood volume in the

region is located on NIPF land and about 25 percent is

found on public lands. Growth rates are similar among

the ownerships for both sawtimber and growing stock,

and mortality rates are low.

Table 6.10—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Highlands by timber resource and

ownership category

Ownership category

National Other Forest

Resource Measure Unit forest public industry NIPF Total

All inventory

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 5,086.496 1,104.602 2,585.559 12,459.257 21,235.914

Inventory/acre cf/ac 1,345.634 846.438 857.868 706.091 824.901

Growth/acre/year cf/ac 35.576 24.747 66.153 24.576 31.068

Mortality/acre/year cf/ac 5.699 7.594 4.001 4.089 4.493

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 17,723.415 3,656.746 6,702.019 34,349.595 62,431.776

Inventory/acre bf/ac 4,688.734 2,802.104 2,223.678 1,946.661 2,425.137

Growth/acre/year bf/ac 143.611 83.765 145.195 79.417 96.766

Mortality/acre/year bf/ac 15.411 26.292 11.768 10.504 12.177

Softwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 2,315.702 242.993 1,799.407 2,453.400 6,811.502

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.028 0.041 0.097 0.053 0.056

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.004

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 9,938.576 970.214 4,963.137 8,427.824 24,299.751

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.032 0.047 0.076 0.059 0.051

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.004

Hardwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 2,770.794 861.608 786.152 10,005.858 14,424.412

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.025 0.026 0.032 0.030 0.029

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.005 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.006

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 7,784.839 2,686.532 1,738.882 25,921.771 38,132.024

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.028 0.024 0.034 0.035 0.033

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.005 0.011 0.009 0.005 0.006

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest; mmcf = million cubic feet; cf/ac = cubic feet per acre; mmbf = million board feet; bf/ac = board feet

per acre; cf/cf = cubic feet of growth or mortality per cubic foot of inventory; bf/bf = board feet of growth or mortality per board foot of

inventory.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

189
Missouri Ozarks

Table 6.11 indicates that of the 6,550 million cubic

feet of growing stock in the Missouri Ozarks, nearly

5,764 million cubic feet (88 percent of the total) is in

hardwoods. NIPF lands account for about 4,911 million

cubic feet (75 percent) of all growing-stock volume.

The Missouri Ozarks have the largest total timberland area of the four subregions (table 6.8) but have a

relatively low inventory per acre (comparable to Oklahoma lands). This area is the least productive for timber

outputs in all ownership categories, with average growth

per acre for growing stock (all inventory—softwood

and hardwood) of less than the timberland definition of

20 cubic feet/ac per year.

Arkansas Ozarks

In the Arkansas Ozarks, the 4,919 million cubic feet

of hardwoods comprise more than 80 percent of the

subregion’s growing stock (table 6.12). The national

forest hardwood growing stock inventory of 1,218

million cubic feet is higher than those of the other

subregions and accounts for 43 percent of the total

hardwood growing stock on national forests in the

Assessment area.

The 4,110 million cubic feet of timber growing stock

on NIPF lands constitute two-thirds of the total inventory in this subregion. Of all ownership classes, national

forest lands have the highest inventory volume per acre

(1,613 cubic feet/ac and 5,526 board feet/ac for all

Table 6.11—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Missouri Ozarks by timber resource

and ownership category

Ownership category

National Other Forest

Resource Measure Unit forest public industry NIPF Total

All inventory

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 1,146.794 331.465 160.756 4,911.311 6,550.327

Inventory/acre cf/ac 873.548 679.371 748.749 604.737 646.193

Growth/acre/year cf/ac 22.987 17.616 23.810 16.996 17.946

Mortality/acre/year cf/ac 6.054 5.826 4.118 4.001 4.365

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 3,341.977 972.247 443.283 13,309.000 18,067.117

Inventory/acre bf/ac 2,545.687 1,992.719 2,064.664 1,638.832 1,782.329

Growth/acre/year bf/ac 82.336 60.267 91.818 53.821 58.629

Mortality/acre/year bf/ac 14.311 15.671 7.087 8.611 9.657

Softwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 303.952 44.592 35.519 402.476 786.539

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.026 0.030 0.030 0.039 0.033

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.004

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 1,058.457 130.056 134.817 1,176.643 2,499.973

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.033 0.040 0.040 0.041 0.037

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003

Hardwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 842.842 286.873 125.237 4,508.835 5,763.788

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.027 0.025 0.032 0.027 0.027

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.008 0.009 0.006 0.007 0.007

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 2,283.521 842.192 308.466 12,132.966 15,567.144

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.032 0.029 0.046 0.032 0.032

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.007 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.006

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest; mmcf = million cubic feet; cf/ac = cubic feet per acre; mmbf = million board feet; bf/ac = board feet

per acre; cf/cf = cubic feet of growth or mortality per cubic foot of inventory; bf/bf = board feet of growth or mortality per board foot of

inventory.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

190
growing stock and sawtimber, respectively). The

subregion’s growing stock per acre is higher than in

Missouri and Oklahoma, while growth per acre is lower

than in Oklahoma and the Ouachitas. The highest

growth rates are on forest industry lands, which have

nearly 60 percent of their volume in softwoods.

Arkansas Ouachitas

The Arkansas Ouachitas have the largest timber

production and the highest inventory and growth per

acre in the Assessment area. Within this subregion,

national forest lands have the largest total timber

inventory, but NIPF and forest industry owners are not

far behind (table 6.13). The national forest lands have

relatively low growth per acre. Forest industry growth

rates, at least for softwoods, are quite high in comparison to the other ownership categories.

Nearly 3,500 million cubic feet of this subregion’s

growing-stock volume (approximately 60 percent of the

total inventory) consists of softwoods. Most of the

softwood growing stock inventory is on national forest

(43 percent) and forest industry (30 percent) lands.

National forest lands are even more dominant in the

softwood sawtimber sector, containing nearly twice as

much sawtimber volume as any other ownership

category.

Table 6.12—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Arkansas Ozarks by timber resource

and ownership category

Ownership category

National Other Forest

Resource Measure Unit forest public industry NIPF Total

All inventory

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 1,518.433 268.912 199.845 4,109.671 6,096.860

Inventory/acre cf/ac 1,613.226 1,208.397 1,149.453 829.069 968.584

Growth/acre/year cf/ac 42.220 31.672 63.832 25.952 29.633

Mortality/acre/year cf/ac 6.521 10.000 2.875 4.210 4.724

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 5,201.703 931.004 458.865 10,718.699 17,310.272

Inventory/acre bf/ac 5,526.436 4,183.612 2,639.266 2,162.348 2,750.015

Growth/acre/year bf/ac 157.346 97.706 153.575 81.883 95.707

Mortality/acre/year bf/ac 19.320 32.839 3.097 10.025 12.030

Softwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 300.209 32.610 114.974 730.207 1,178.000

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.038 0.030 0.070 0.048 0.047

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.003

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 1,303.581 141.285 315.692 2,293.036 4,053.594

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.038 0.034 0.071 0.060 0.053

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002

Hardwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 1,218.224 236.302 84.871 3,379.464 4,918.860

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.023 0.026 0.036 0.028 0.027

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.004 0.009 0.003 0.005 0.005

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 3,898.122 789.720 143.174 8,425.663 13,256.678

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.025 0.021 0.030 0.032 0.029

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.005 0.005

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest; mmcf = million cubic feet; cf/ac = cubic feet per acre; mmbf = million board feet; bf/ac = board feet

per acre; cf/cf = cubic feet of growth or mortality per cubic foot of inventory; bf/bf = board feet of growth or mortality per board foot of

inventory.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

191
This subregion includes 64 percent of all national

forest softwood growing stock and 66 percent of all

national forest softwood sawtimber in the Assessment

area. Approximately 47 percent of this subregion’s total

hardwood volume is on NIPF lands. Forest industry in

the Arkansas Ouachitas owns more land and timber

volume (nearly 1,500 million cubic feet) than the industry does in other subregions.

Oklahoma

The Oklahoma subregion has nearly equal volumes

of hardwood and softwood growing stock but somewhat

larger amounts of softwood than hardwood sawtimber

(table 6.14). Forest industry and NIPF lands account for

most (78 percent) of the softwood volume while 73

percent of the hardwood growing stock is on NIPF land.

This subregion is apparently productive, judging from

the high growth per acre (particularly on national forest

and forest industry lands) and low mortality per acre

values. In contrast, the inventory per acre values are low

in comparison to the Arkansas Ozarks and Ouachitas.

This may result from a forest age class structure skewed

more to younger classes than in other subregions.

This subregion has the smallest timberland acreage

of the four subregions. Similarly, the national forest

acreage is lower than other subregions. National forests

hold less than 6 percent of subregional hardwood

volume and less than 23 percent of softwood volumes.

Table 6.13—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Arkansas Ouachitas by timber

resource and ownership category

Ownership category

National Other Forest

Resource Measure Unit forest public industry NIPF Total

All inventory

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 2,127.075 284.462 1,477.458 1,918.475 5,807.471

Inventory/acre cf/ac 1,632.519 1,285.956 936.254 1,032.884 1,170.956

Growth/acre/year cf/ac 38.165 42.500 60.443 435.351 48.002

Mortality/acre/year cf/ac 54.426 11.299 4.579 6.142 5.636

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 8,056.104 1,034.451 4,265.077 6,329.065 19,684.696

Inventory/acre bf/ac 6,183.020 4,676.392 2,300.002 3,258.338 3,699.472

Growth/acre/year bf/ac 174.837 195.837 151.214 168.312 165.095

Mortality/acre/year bf/ac 15.565 36.798 13.457 24.983 19.151

Softwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 1,483.188 94.193 1,074.807 835.192 3,487.310

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.023 0.052 0.094 0.056 0.053

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.003 0.007 0.004 0.009 0.005

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 6,646.730 440.040 3,256.587 3,361.397 13,704.748

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.028 0.057 0.075 0.060 0.048

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.002 0.007 0.004 0.010 0.005

Hardwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 643.960 190.270 402.652 1,083.283 2,320.161

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.024 0.024 0.028 0.035 0.030

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.004 0.010 0.011 0.004 0.006

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 1,409.380 594.410 1,008.490 2,967.668 5,979.948

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.031 0.031 0.034 0.042 0.037

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.005 0.006

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest; mmcf = million cubic feet; cf/ac = cubic feet per acre; mmbf = million board feet; bf/ac = board feet

per acre; cf/cf = cubic feet of growth or mortality per cubic foot of inventory; bf/bf = board feet of growth or mortality per board foot of

inventory.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

192
Table 6.14—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Oklahoma subregion by timber resource

and ownership category

Ownership category

National Other Forest

Resource Measure Unit forest public industry NIPF Total

All inventory

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 294.194 219.762 747.500 1,519.800 2,781.256

Inventory/acre cf/ac 1,321.320 589.165 713.725 560.891 638.988

Growth/acre/year cf/ac 66.630 19.437 67.873 30.548 40.423

Mortality/acre/year cf/ac 1.733 6.281 2.058 2.501 2.68

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 1,123.631 719.044 1,534.794 3,922.222 7,369.691

Inventory/acre bf/ac 5,046.580 1,927.701 1,465.446 1,473.352 1,693.170

Growth/acre/year bf/ac 264.342 39.801 105.781 85.406 95.554

Mortality/acre/year bf/ac 5.003 30.073 8.072 6.342 8.724

Softwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 228.422 71.598 574.108 485.525 1,359.653

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.055 0.039 0.112 0.069 0.083

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.001 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.002

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 929.811 258.837 1,256.041 1,596.747 4,041.437

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.057 0.043 0.083 0.069 0.069

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.003

Hardwood

Growing stock Inventory mmcf 65.772 148.164 173.392 1,034.276 1,421.60.

Growth/inventory/year cf/cf 0.035 0.030 0.041 0.048 0.045

Mortality/inventory/year cf/cf 0.003 0.012 0.005 0.006 0.006

Sawtimber Inventory mmbf 193.820 460.207 278.753 2,395.474 3,328.254

Growth/inventory/year bf/bf 0.030 0.008 0.023 0.050 0.041

Mortality/inventory/year bf/bf 0.003 0.022 0.010 0.006 0.008

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest; mmcf = million cubic feet; cf/ac = cubic feet per acre; mmbf = million board feet; bf/ac = board feet

per acre; cf/cf = cubic feet of growth or mortality per cubic foot of inventory; bf/bf = board feet of growth or mortality per board foot of

inventory.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Trends in Volume, Growth, and Mortality

Increases in inventory imply an increased capacity

for harvests in the future. Past growth exceeding

removals will lead to increasing inventories. Tables

6.15a and 6.15b show data from the most recent survey

in Missouri and the two most recent forest surveys for

the other three subregions. Previous (1972) survey data

for Missouri were deemed too out of date to be meaningful as a basis for comparison with the 1989 survey,

and thus no data are available to show trends in inventory for Missouri. (However, data from this earlier

survey are discussed and presented in Chapter 3 of a

companion report—Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife—USDA FS 1999b.) For Arkansas, the survey

years were 1988 and 1995 and for Oklahoma, 1986 and

1993. Data for Missouri came from the 1989 survey.

Hardwood sawtimber and growing stock inventories

increased for all ownerships in the subregions of

Arkansas and all but one (national forests) in Oklahoma.

The hardwood inventories on NIPF lands (where the

majority of hardwood is located) increased more than 50

percent in Oklahoma and more modestly in Arkansas.

Softwood volume increased in all four ownerships in

the three regions, except for sawtimber volume owned

by forest industry in Oklahoma. Increases in national

forest softwood volume ranged from 9 percent in the

Arkansas Ouachitas to 15 percent in the Arkansas

193
Table 6.15a—Trends in hardwood inventory by ownership category, subregion, and timber category

Missouri Ozarks Arkansas Ozarks Arkansas Ouachitas Oklahomaa

Ownership category Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing SawSurvey stock timber stock timber stock timber stock timber

mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf

National forest

Previous surveyb — — 1.105 3.108 5.29 1.064 77 250

Recent surveyc 843 2.284 1.218 3.898 644 1.409 66 194

Percent change — — 10 25 22 32 -15 -22

Other public

Previous surveyb — — 207 687 143 403 83 313

Recent surveyc 287 842 236 790 190 594 148 460

Percent change — — 14 15 33 47 79 47

Forest industry

Previous surveyb — — 55 74 392 956 163 356

Recent surveyc 125 309 85 143 402 1.008 173 279

Percent change — — 56 93 3 5 6 -22

NIPF

Previous surveyb — — 3.307 7.209 925 2.407 668 1.471

Recent surveyc 4.509 12.133 3.380 8.426 1.083 2.968 1.034 2.396

Percent change — — 2 17 17 19 55 63

mmcf = million cubic feet; mmbf = million board feet; — = not available; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest. a Inventory and removals data for national forest lands in Oklahoma are based on few samples, making the standard errors very

high and thereby leaving any changes between surveys statistically insignificant.

b Previous survey for Missouri not available; previous Arkansas survey was 1988; previous Oklahoma survey was 1986.

c “Recent” survey for Missouri was in 1989; Arkansas in 1995; Oklahoma in 1993.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Table 6.15b—Trends in softwood inventory by ownership category, subregion, and timber category

Missouri Ozarks Arkansas Ozarks Arkansas Ouachitas Oklahomaa

Ownership category Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing Saw- Growing SawSurvey stock timber stock timber stock timber stock timber

mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf mmcf mmbf

National forest

Previous surveyb — — 262 1.177 1.361 5.852 200 849

Recent surveyc 304 1.059 300 1.304 1.483 6.647 228 930

Percent change — — 15 11 9 14 14 10

Other public

Previous surveyb — — 32 115 52 226 55 186

Recent surveyc 45 130 33 141 94 440 72 259

Percent change — — 1 23 83 94 30 39

Forest industry

Previous surveyb — — 50 150 791 3.013 355 1.280

Recent surveyc 36 135 115 316 1.074 3.257 574 1.256

Percent change — — 132 111 36 8 62 -2

NIPF

Previous surveyb — — 579 1.660 693 2.832 396 1.419

Recent surveyc 403 1.177 730 2.293 835 3.361 486 1.597

Percent change — — 26 38 20 19 23 13

mmcf = million cubic feet; mmbf = million board feet; — = not available; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest. a Inventory and removals data for national forest lands in Oklahoma are based on few samples, making the standard errors very

high and thereby leaving any changes between surveys statistically insignificant.

b Previous survey for Missouri not available, Arkansas survey was 1988, Oklahoma survey was 1986.

c “Recent” survey for Missouri was in 1989, Arkansas in 1995, Oklahoma in 1993.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

194
Ozarks. NIPF growing stock increases ranged from 23

percent in Oklahoma to 26 percent in the Arkansas

Ozarks.

Tree Grade

Tree grade is important in determining the quality of

the standing timber resource, particularly for hardwood

forests. Different grades can command widely differing

prices. FIA surveys estimate the grade of standing

sawtimber trees, using a scale in which grade 1 is the

highest and grade 3 is the lowest. Across all subregions

except Oklahoma, NIPF lands have the largest proportion of higher grade hardwoods relative to the other

ownership categories (table 6.16a). The greatest

amount of high grade hardwoods on national forest

lands occurs in the Arkansas Ozarks. National forests

account for nearly as high a percentage of this subregion’s high grade hardwood (43 percent) as NIPF

lands (48 percent).

In three timber subregions, the national forests have

by far the greatest share of the grade 1 softwood

sawtimber volume in comparison to other ownership

categories (table 6.16b). In the Arkansas Ozarks, the

national forests and NIPF lands have nearly equal

shares (47 and 46 percent of the total, respectively).

However, when the volume in grades 1 and 2 is combined, NIPF lands have the largest share in the Arkansas Ozarks. Note that much of Missouri’s inventory has

not been graded.

Table 6.16a—Hardwood sawtimber volume by FIA subregion, tree grade, and ownership category

Ownership category

Subregion National Other Forest

Tree grade forest public industry NIPF Total

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Missouri Ozarks

Grade 1 7.13 (6)a 9.11 (8) 0 (0) 100.42 (86) 116.65 (100)

Grade 2 97.59 (19) 17.98 (3) 3.39 (1) 403.37 (77) 522.32 (100)

Grade 3+ 2,140.77 (37) 173.95 (3) 76.82 (1) 3,400.28 (59) 5,791.82 (100)

Ungraded 38.04 (< 1) 641.15 (7) 228.26 (2) 8,222.88 (90) 9,130.33 (100)

Arkansas Ozarks

Grade 1 965.85 (43) 175.49 (8) 10.98 (< 1) 1,084.96 (48) 2,237.29 (100)

Grade 2 999.98 (33) 214.57 (7) 41.94 (1) 1,744.74 (58) 3,001.23 (100)

Grade 3+ 1,932.29 (24) 399.65 (5) 90.25 (1) 5,595.96 (70) 8,018.16 (100)

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0

Arkansas Ouachitas

Grade 1 106.88 (15) 114.99 (16) 150.55 (21) 360.47 (49) 732.90 (100)

Grade 2 254.66 (20) 108.19 (9) 231.66 (19) 650.86 (52) 1,245.37 (100)

Grade 3+ 1,047.84 (26) 371.23 (9) 626.26 (16) 1,804.70 (45) 4,001.66 (100)

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0

Oklahoma

Grade 1 31.76 (7) 205.11 (46) 30.19 (7) 179.45 (40) 446.51 (100)

Grade 2 47.76 (8) 70.73 (12) 43.74 (8) 411.32 (72) 573.56 (100)

Grade 3+ 114.29 (5) 184.37 (8) 204.82 (9) 1,804.70 (78) 2,308.18 (100)

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0

FIA = Forest Inventory and Analysis; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Percent (rounded) of grade held by ownership category within subregion (in parentheses); row totals may appear to be

less than 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

195
Table 6.16b—Softwood sawtimber volume by FIA subregion, tree grade, and ownership category

Ownership category

Subregion National Other Forest

Tree grade forest public industry NIPF Total

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Missouri Ozarks

Grade 1 20.67 (70)a 1.23 (4) 0 (0) 7.72 (26) 29.62 (100)

Grade 2 221.22 (82) 6.17 (2) 4.17 (2) 37.46 (14) 269.02 (100)

Grade 3+ 506.58 (68) 11.74 (2) 22.22 (3) 202.92 (27) 743.46 (100)

Ungraded 5.94 (1) 62.08 (10) 66.49 (11) 490.33 (78) 624.83 (100)

Arkansas Ozarks

Grade 1 671.90 (47) 24.00 (2) 70.80 (5) 654.33 (46) 1,421.03 (100)

Grade 2 265.82 (30) 49.49 (6) 71.99 (8) 493.58 (56) 880.87 (100)

Grade 3+ 365.86 (21) 67.79 (4) 172.90 (10) 1,145.13 (65) 1,751.69 (100)

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0

Arkansas Ouachitas

Grade 1 3,493.85 (61) 110.77 (2) 1,161.31 (20) 953.41 (17) 5,719.34 (100)

Grade 2 1,435.44 (52) 59.20 (2) 626.82 (23) 626.01 (23) 2,748.48 (100)

Grade 3+ 1,717.43 (33) 270.06 (5) 1,467.49 (28) 1,782.01 (34) 5,236.99 (100)

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0

Oklahoma

Grade 1 325.55 (47) 25.30 (4) 167.567 (24) 168.778 (25) 687.20 (100)

Grade 2 176.60 (22) 64.06 (8) 265.41 (33) 286.75 (36) 792.83 (100)

Grade 3+ 427.66 (17) 169.48 (7) 823.06 (32) 1,141.21 (45) 2,561.41 (100)

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0

FIA = Forest Inventory and Analysis; NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a

 Percent of grade (rounded) held by ownership category within subregion (in parentheses); row total may appear to be

less than 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Diameter and Stand Size Class

In addition to tree grade, tree diameter or stand size

class influences potential timber supply. Stands that are

unstocked or in the seedling/sapling category are

currently unavailable for harvest but may be harvestable

in the future. Poletimber and sawtimber stands are

currently harvestable, but for different products:

poletimber is either left to grow or be harvested for pulp

and posts, while sawtimber is harvested for lumber,

veneer, or plywood production. Larger sawtimber is

often a highly valued product. Management regimes on

public land typically call for growing trees longer before

harvest than on forest industry lands. Due to this

difference, large sawtimber reserves are often expected

on public lands. In the national forests, 58 percent of the

acres are in sawtimber-sized stands and only 14 percent

in saplings. The other ownership categories have from

28 to 48 percent in sawtimber. These percentages imply

that national forests have older stands, on average, than

other ownerships (table 6.17).

In terms of volume, FIA data indicate that the large

diameter softwood volume (greater than 20 in. d.b.h.) is

distributed principally between the national forests (38

percent of the total) and NIPF lands (42 percent of the

total) (table 6.18). Forest industry accounts for 12

196
Table 6.17—Timberland acres and percent of acres in various stand size classes, by ownership categorya

Ownership category

National forest Other public Forest industry NIPF

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Sawtimber 2,173,312 58 629,299 48 829,674 28 6,932,111 39

Poletimber 1,094,251 29 355,699 27 1,344,120 45 6,309,246 36

Sapling 512,069 14 319,651 24 840,141 28 4,392,832 25

Unstocked 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,200 1

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Percent columns do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Table 6.18—Percent growing-stock volume in trees greater

than 20 inches in diameter by ownership category and timber

typea

Ownership category

National Other Forest

Timber category forest public industry NIPF

 - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Large softwood 38 7 12 42

All softwood 34 4 26 36

Large hardwood 17 14 5 64

All hardwood 19 6 5 69

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

a Some rows do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

percent of large diameter softwood, which is low in

comparison to their share of total softwood growing

stock (26 percent). NIPF lands have the majority (64

percent) of large diameter hardwood volume, which is

proportionate to their share (69 percent) of total hardwood volume.

Physical Constraints to Harvesting

Wet sites, slope, and low stocking may (1) reduce

inventory volume available for harvest or (2) raise

harvesting costs. Table 6.19 presents estimates of the

reduction in available volume on private lands due to

these factors. The first reduction applies to sites that

have been classified as wet or moist. The next type of

reduction applies to sites too steep to harvest and/or

regenerate, i.e., sites with a slope greater than 35

percent. The latter standard corresponds to the

breakpoint in harvesting technology, with slopes greater

than 35 percent requiring cable systems (Worthington

and others 1996). The final reduction applies to sites

that were stocked below the level most loggers consider

harvestable (Nolan 1997). These factors reduce available softwood volumes by only 10 percent but reduce

hardwood volumes by more than 15 percent.

Constraints to timber harvesting on national forest

and other public lands are evaluated using a different,

more complicated process based on the determination of

lands suitable for timber production during the land

management planning process and annual forest inventories. Figure 6.14 shows the determination of suitable

lands from the existing forest land management plans as

updated through annual site-specific inventories. “Unproductive” refers to land incapable of producing 20

cubic feet/ac per year; “nonforest” is also incapable of

timber production. “Lack of technology” represents

sites with conditions that prevent harvest or regeneration but does not necessarily exclude land with slopes

greater than 35 percent or land that is understocked.

Some lands allocated to other resource uses to meet

forest plan objectives—such as recreation sites, experimental forests, areas with threatened or endangered

Stand

size

class

197
Table 6.19—Reductions in timber volume available on private timberland due to physical

constraints for growing stock and sawtimber and both softwood and hardwood

Minus

Minus Minus volume on

All volume on volume on understocked Percent

Timber category volume wet sites steep sites sites available

Growing stock (mmcf)

Softwood 4,252 4,201 3,978 3,825 90

Hardwood 10,792 10,459 9,620 9,158 85

Sawtimber (mmbf)

Softwood 13,391 13,184 12,318 12,108 90

Hardwood 27,661 26,606 24,265 23,632 85

mmcf = million cubic feet; mmbf = million board feet.

Source: USDA FS FIA (1997).

Figure 6.14—Percentages of the (A) Ozark-St. Francis, (B) Ouachita, and (C) Mark Twain National Forests in various land suitability classes,

1997. (Part B of this figure does not reflect a major land adjustment on the Ouachita National Forest in 1996.)

species, and areas not economically efficient for timber

harvesting—are classified as “not appropriate” for

timber production. “Withdrawn” lands are those that are

legally unavailable for harvest, such as wilderness

areas. Some land is classified as “not inventoried” and is

currently excluded from suitable timberland. The

remaining acreage is considered “suitable” for timber

management, a category that ranges from 59 percent of

total forest land on the Ouachita National Forest to 79

percent on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests.

Land Management Objectives

Objectives for forest industry land are more likely to

conform to profit-maximizing models of landowner

behavior than are those of other ownership classes,

although some public and NIPF landowners may also

manage to maximize the perpetual income from a stand

or forest. Land management objectives on public land

(particularly national forests) and on some private land

are broader and more difficult to characterize. These

objectives often encompass the principles of multiple

A

Suitable

79%

Lack of 

technology

2%

Nonforest

1%

Legally 

withdrawn

8% Unproductive

1%

Not 

appropriate

8%

Not 

inventoried

1%

B

Not 

appropriate

33%

Legally 

withdrawn

6%

Lack of 

technology

1%

Nonforest

1%

Suitable

59%

C

Suitable

75%

Not 

appropriate

14%

Nonforest

3%

Lack of 

technology

4%

Legally 

withdrawn

4%

198
use, land stewardship, or managing by optimizing for

both profit and pleasure.

For national forest timberlands, management objectives will be reflected, in part, by the determination of

acres available for timber harvest. This determination is

made through the forest planning process using the

above-mentioned suitability analysis, which considers

the physical and economic constraints of the land and

management objectives for other resources.

The decision process for private land managers is

less explicit and more dynamic. This means that any

analysis that adds static, price-insensitive physical

constraints to land management objectives is likely to

underestimate the timber volume available. Recent

studies indicate that individuals who do not intend to

harvest timber from their land own between 7 and 19

percent of forest land in the Highlands. For the three

Assessment area States, this ownership ranges from 7

to 9 percent (Birch 1996). For the Ozarks, one estimate

is that as many as 19 percent of NIPF owners do not

intend to harvest timber (Gray and Guldin in press).

What researchers do not know, however, is how much

of the physically constrained volume these “nonharvesters” own. If the amount of timber under the

control of the “nonharvesters” is added to the total

amount of timber unavailable for harvest due to physical

constraints, then about 66 percent of privately owned

hardwood growing stock might be currently available for

harvest in the Ozarks.

However, as land ownership and prices change

through time, the supply picture can change dramatically

without any underlying change in the resource. A large

amount of the timber that may have been considered

unavailable for harvest due to physical constraints may

never have been available because of landowner

objectives or intentions; excluding this volume will not

affect the existing market. The complex model of supply

and demand that is used in the following harvest scenarios incorporates both physical and management

constraints on private land by using an econometrically

estimated model based on current market conditions.

Factors Affecting Timber Demand

Timber demand in the Highlands is influenced by

production of lumber, furniture, or paper and by exports

of timber to other regions or countries. Detailed data on

these three industries are not available at the county

level; therefore, the following analysis focuses on the

three Highlands’ States. State-level data must be used

with caution because the relative importance of the

industries may be higher or lower in the Highlands than

in the three States. For example, the pulp and paper

industry is less important to the Arkansas portion of the

Highlands than to the State of Arkansas as a whole. All

three States have timberland and wood products

industries that are outside the Highlands.

National Trends

A national timber assessment update was conducted

in 1993 in accordance with the Renewable Resources

Planning Act (RPA). This national assessment projects

rising consumption of pulp and paper products as well as

increasing variability in timber growth and inventories

(Haynes and others 1995). Between 1990 and 2040,

national softwood harvests were projected to increase

by 35 percent and hardwood harvests by 51 percent.

Real sawtimber prices were projected to rise at a rate

of 1 to 2 percent per year over this period. Other

significant findings at the national level include:

• The nationwide effects of public timber harvest

reductions in the West will be lessened by significant

interregional substitution, including increased lumber

imports from Canada. Over the projection period,

western regions will continue to lose market share (in

all products) to eastern regions because of rising

relative wood costs. This trend will accelerate if

public harvests decrease further, or if major public

tree planting programs are undertaken on NIPF lands.

• The South will be the major source of any expansion

in softwood timber supply for the next 50 years. If

high planting rates in the South continue, which is

likely, product and timber prices will stabilize and, in

some cases, decline after 2020.

• Rising real prices for hardwood lumber are caused

by declining inventory trends which, in turn, result

from land conversion to softwoods, limited intensity

of hardwood silviculture, and large increases in

demands for pulpwood.

199
• Over the next five decades, the consumption of paper

and paperboard will grow more rapidly than any other

category of forest products (about 1.2 percent per

year). Consumption of roundwood in the manufacture

of these products will rise at about 0.7 percent per

year. Uncertainty in the outlook related to this sector,

such as rates of wastepaper recycling and use, are

particularly critical to the roundwood use projection.

• Hardwoods will increase in importance relative to

softwoods in total U.S. harvests because of increased use in lumber, fiber products, and fuelwood.

In this expansion, the North has the potential to

match the South in contributions of incremental fiber

output. Hardwood area and inventory will drop,

however, if past trends in softwood plantation establishment and limited hardwood management in the

South continue (Haynes and others 1995).

Trends in the Highlands

The Highlands region produces timber for both

softwood and hardwood lumber, furniture, pulp and

paper, wood chips, and barrels. Lumber production from

Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri has generally

followed national trends, with an overall increase in

production over the last decade in spite of a drop in

production in 1991 and 1992. Arkansas produces the

majority of lumber in the Highlands (fig. 6.15), although

Missouri has increased its share since 1992. Overall,

these States increased their share of total U.S. lumber

production from 5.5 percent in 1992 to 6.8 percent in

1995 (fig. 6.16). This increased production is similar to

overall relative increases southwide, which have

resulted partly from the decrease in Western U.S.

timber harvests. The South, including the Highlands

area, has taken up some of the slack as have increased

imports from Canada (Haynes and others 1995).

Using “value added” (the sum of all income derived

from the industry, including wage and owner income,

less indirect business taxes) as a measure of economic

contribution, the lumber, furniture, and pulp and paper

industries of the Highlands’ States are claiming an

increasing share of total U.S. production (fig. 6.17). The

pulp and paper industry has the largest share of national

production (6 percent), while both the furniture and

lumber industries have about 5 percent. These industries

are growing throughout the South and the Nation, and

this growth is mirrored in the Highlands.

Although it is not possible to predict the future of the

wood products industry in the Assessment area, some

trends can be observed. One of these trends is in

investment, that is, the expenditures an industry makes

for buildings and machinery. Investments tend to be

large, periodic expenditures rather than continuous

expenses and thus will be less stable for the three States

than for the Nation. Even so, since 1988, the three

Highlands’ States claimed an increasing proportion of

the U.S. investments in the furniture and lumber industries. In 1995, the last year of available data, a decline in

the proportion of investment in the furniture industry and

Figure 6.15—Lumber production in the Highlands’ States,

1986 through 1995 (USDC BC 1987–1996).

Figure 6.16—Annual Highlands’ States lumber production as

a percent of U.S. lumber production, 1986 through 1995

(USDC BC 1987–1996).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

Year

Million board feet

Oklahoma

Missouri

Arkansas

4

5

6

7

8

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

Year

Percent

200
Figure 6.17—Annual Highlands’ States value added as a percent of

U.S. value added for lumber, furniture, and paper industries, 1987

through 1995 (USDC BC 1988, 1993; USDC BC 1988–1996).

an increase in the proportion of investment in the lumber

industry occurred. Between 1988 and 1995, the proportion of investment in the pulp and paper industry fluctuated, declining from 1992 to 1995 (fig. 6.18).

Another trend is increasing demand for pulpwood.

There are four pulp and paper mills in the Highlands

region, and the region itself serves as part of the wood

supply area for all of the mills in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Between 1988 and 1995, total pulping capacity in

the Highlands’ States dropped by 4 percent, resulting

from a mill closure that was offset somewhat by

expansions in other mills. This drop was accompanied

by reduced hardwood pulpwood harvests from 1988 to

1994 and variable softwood pulpwood production, which

had peaks in 1991 and 1995 and a low point in 1993.

In spite of the reduced mill capacity, demand for

hardwood pulpwood (as measured by average annual

removals) increased by 65 percent between 1988 and

1995, with the most dramatic increase—135 percent—

occurring between 1994 and 1995. The opening of

hardwood chip export mills in 1995 contributed to this

increase. These mills represent a small part of the wood

products sector but have generated considerable public

comment.

Three of these mills, each with a processing capacity

of approximately 300,000 tons of hardwood per year,

will draw supplies from the Highlands Assessment area

and export wood chips via the Arkansas River. A new

Figure 6.18—Annual Highlands’ States capital investment in

wood products as a percent of U.S. capital investment for

lumber, furniture, and paper industries, 1988 through 1995

(USDC BC 1988, 1993; USDC BC 1988–1996).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

Year

Percent

Lumber

Furniture

Pulp and paper

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1988 1990 1992 1994

Year

Percent

Lumber

Furniture

Pulp and paper

201
hardwood chip mill in Missouri also has a capacity of

300,000 tons per year but will transport chips via rail to

a domestically owned pulp mill in Kentucky. These mills

have affected and will continue to affect hardwood

pulpwood production in the Highlands. However, as the

price of hardwood pulpwood rises, industries will look

for alternative sources of supply or ways to alter

production technologies to use less of the scarce input.

Thus, continued adjustment in the hardwood pulpwood

industry is expected to continue.

Timber Supply Outlook

The national RPA timber assessment (Haynes and

others 1995) includes projections of future harvests for

the southeast and south central regions but does not

indicate which subregions are expected to produce this

harvest. The SRTS model (described earlier) can

examine timber supply issues in the South by using a

timber supply framework consistent with the RPA

models (Abt 1998). The SRTS model tracks inventory

and growth trends by individual FIA survey unit or

subregion as well as by ownership category (forest

industry and NIPF).

Using the latest FIA data as a starting point and

applying RPA acreage and harvest trends, the SRTS

model calculated the estimated stumpage price change

as well as the shift in harvest among subregions and

ownerships. The SRTS model assumes a harvest

response to price; thus, it focuses only on private land

(forest industry and NIPF) and does not include public

land in the analysis or projections.

Calculations for both NIPF and forestry industry

categories include all land, but inventory level and price

elasticity are used to vary the responsiveness of the two

owners. An elasticity of 1.0 indicates that a 1 percent

increase in inventory or price leads to a 1 percent

increase in harvest. Lower numbers, for example 0.3,

are used to represent less responsive owners. Using

elasticity ensures that all current constraints on harvest,

including physical or cost constraints, are accounted for

as price and inventory change over time. However,

because these elasticities are constant throughout the

projection, they will not incorporate the effects of

changing attitudes, constraints, or costs.

The price calculations are based on the elasticities

for the South developed for the national RPA timber

assessment (Haynes and others 1995). The shifts

among regions are based on the assumption that harvests will shift among survey units to equalize price

pressure through time. The fact that historical price

trends are similar for the Highlands region and the rest

of the South gives some indication that they operate in

the same market. Business cycles often cause shortterm price fluctuations on the demand side; weather

often interferes with harvests on the supply side. The

SRTS model was not designed to predict short-term

prices but to give some indication of the price pressure

due to long-term changes in harvest and inventory.

The Southwide Outlook

The timber market assessments conducted for the

RPA efforts focus on national and international markets.

The most recent assessment shows a trend toward

increased harvests in the South due to (1) reductions in

national forest harvests in the Pacific Northwest and

(2) increasing demand for pulp and paper (Haynes and

others 1995). While U.S. harvests are projected to

increase by 35 percent for softwoods between 1990 and

2040, analysts project a 53 percent rise in softwood

harvests from private lands in the South. The South is

expected to increase harvests of hardwoods by 54

percent, about the same as the projected increase

nationally (51 percent).

This section examines the implications for the

Highlands Assessment area of increased harvests from

private lands in the South until the year 2020. The

baselines for this comparison are the regional acreage

and harvest trends for the South in the 1993 RPA

Timber Assessment Update (Haynes and others 1995).

The regional acreage trends assume that pine plantation

acres will increase through the next decade. While the

total area of timberland should remain relatively constant, there likely will be a gradual reduction in hardwood forest management types, including oak-pine,

upland hardwood, and lowland hardwood forests. These

reductions will occur as hardwoods are converted to

pine plantations and to other (nonforest) land uses.

For forest management types other than pine

plantations, growth rates were estimated by age class,

management type, and ownership. This assumes that a

202
30-year-old stand (i.e., a given area of forest) today is

representative of a 30-year-old stand in the future,

which seems reasonable for natural stands. For pine

plantations, however, this is a conservative assumption.

Most industry foresters and researchers expect that

improvements in genetics and silvicultural techniques

will increase growth rates significantly on pine plantations. While extremely high growth rates are possible

on some sites, the SRTS model is based on a

regionwide average, and thus a 30 percent increase in

growth (1 percent per year) was assumed for pine

plantations over the projection period. The growth line

in figure 6.19 shows the increase in softwood inventory

due to (1) an increase in plantation acres and

(2) growth rates associated with those acres. This

growth increase will allow the softwood inventory to

increase to above 1990 levels by the year 2020.

Figure 6.20 shows the importance of two different

assumptions about productivity growth to the price

forecast. Using current FIA growth rates, the increase

in softwood harvests reduces the southwide timber

inventory, causing prices (relative to 1990) to more than

double from 2000 to 2020. Note that the SRTS model

calculates the price required to achieve a given harvest

level. In reality, price increases of that magnitude would

lead to demand substitutions (e.g., aluminum studs) and

supply substitutions (e.g., imported pulp). With a 30

percent increase in growth in plantations (1 percent

increase per year), however, prices would increase

slightly between 1990 and 2000 but would then return to

near current levels by 2020.

Figure 6.21 shows the hardwood inventory situation.

The long-term gradual decline in growth is due mainly to

decreased hardwood acreage. Projections assume that

southwide hardwood removals on private lands would

increase from 2.9 billion cubic feet to 4.5 billion cubic

feet over the 30-year period. Growth currently exceeds

removals for hardwoods, although this situation is

projected to change in about 2003. Inventory will peak

in that year, then begin to decline, but inventory in 2020

should be at about the same level as in 1990.

Projections show that real prices for hardwoods will

increase at a rate of 4 percent per year between 1990

and 2020 (fig. 6.22). This price trend may not be

realized if global hardwood fiber prices remain stable.

From a southern perspective, however, there are

currently fewer options for intensive management of

hardwoods in the near future. Intensive hardwood

silviculture is practiced in some areas, but the amount of

land available for hardwood cultivation is likely to remain

sparse in the short run. In addition, NIPF owners hold 90

percent of the hardwood resource. The technology and

the capital traditionally associated with pine plantation

management will probably not shift quickly to hardwoods. Increasing prices, however, do give landowners

unprecedented incentives to manage hardwoods.

Figure 6.19—Projected southwide softwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands using RPA acres and

harvest trends and assuming plantation growth increase by 30 percent from 1990 through 2020 (developed from Abt

1998).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Billion cubic feet of inventory

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Billion cubic feet of growth or removals

Inventory

Growth

Removals

203
Figure 6.20—Projected southwide softwood price using RPA acres and harvest trends

and two different assumptions about productivity (tree growth rates in plantations),

1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998).

Figure 6.21—Projected southwide hardwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands using RPA acres and

harvest trends, 1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998).

Figure 6.22—Projected southwide hardwood price trends using

RPA acres and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020 (developed from

Abt 1998).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020

Year

Percentage price change relative to 1990

Based on current FIA

growth rates

Assumes 30%

plantation growth

increase by 2020

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1990 2000 2010 2020

Billion cubic feet of inventory

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Billion cubic feet of growth or removals

Inventory

Growth 

Removals 

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1990 2000 2010

Year

Percentage price change relative to 1990

2020

204
The Highlands Region Outlook

Figure 6.23 shows private (forest industry and

NIPF) softwood inventory trends for the Highlands

region based on the southwide projection model and

assumptions. The favorable growth/removals ratios for

the region’s softwoods imply that the inventory is

increasing in the Assessment area. Because of the

increase in the softwood inventory, harvests are

expected to increase faster in the Highlands relative to

other areas of the South. By 2020, the scale of softwood harvests in the Highlands is projected to be

nearly double that of 1990 levels, somewhat higher

than the projected southwide increase of 33 percent.

Even with the increased removals, softwood inventories continue to rise. Softwood inventories are projected to increase in all four subregions, with the

greatest increases in the Arkansas Ozarks and

Ouachitas (fig. 6.24).

For hardwoods grown on private lands, the current

favorable growth/removals ratio is projected to narrow

as hardwood growth remains stable and removals

increase (fig. 6.25). By the end of the projection period,

hardwood removals and growth are expected to be

nearly equal. Overall, hardwood inventories in the

Highlands are projected to increase (fig 6.26). While

inventories are projected to decline in the Arkansas

Ouachitas, they are projected to increase in the other

Figure 6.23—Projected softwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands in the Highlands using RPA

acres and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998).

Figure 6.24—Projected total softwood inventory on private

lands in the Highlands using RPA acres and harvest trends, 1990

to 2020, by timber subregion (developed from Abt 1998).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Billion cubic feet of inventory

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Billion cubic feet of growth or removals

Inventory

Growth

Removals

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Billion cubic feet of inventory

Oklahoma

Missouri

Ozarks

Ouachita

205
Figure 6.25—Projected hardwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands in the Highlands using

RPA acres and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998).

Figure 6.26—Projected total hardwood inventory on private lands

in the Highlands using RPA acres and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020,

by timber subregion (developed from Abt 1998).

three subregions. This implies that the Highlands’ role in

southern hardwood timber markets will expand. Thus,

as demand for both hardwood and softwoods increases,

the Highlands’ ability to meet the demand in terms of

inventory is expected to increase proportionately as

well.

Relative rates of increase in southern softwood

harvests are shown in figure 6.27. All parts of the South

are projected to experience increasing softwood harvests, with the darker areas on the figure increasing

harvests at rates greater than the southwide average

and the lighter areas on the figure gaining harvests at

rates less than the southwide average. The subregions

of the Highlands are all projected to increase softwood

harvests at rates greater than the southwide average.

These projections can be misleading concerning areas

where the total softwood harvest is small, such as

Missouri, because a large percentage increase over a

currently small harvest will still result in a small harvest.

The relative rates of increase in hardwood harvests

in the South are shown in figure 6.28. With the exception of the Arkansas Ouachitas, hardwood harvests in

the Highlands are projected to increase at rates higher

than the average for the South. The Arkansas

Ouachitas are also projected to increase hardwood

harvests but at a slower rate than the regional average.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Billion cubic feet of inventory

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Billion cubic feet of growth and removals

Inventory

Growth

Removals

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Billion cubic feet of inventory

Ouachita Ozarks

Missouri Oklahoma

206
Figure 6.27—Projected shifts in southern softwood harvests on private lands between 1990 and 2020 (developed from Abt 1998).

Softwood harvest increase

Increase 

below

average 

rate

Regional

average

increase

Increase

above

average

rate

207
Figure 6.28—Projected shifts in southern hardwood harvests on private lands between 1990 and 2020 (developed from Abt 1998).

Implications and Opportunities

Current trends and projections indicate that over the

next three decades the Highlands region will continue

to increase in importance to both southern and national

timber markets. This will be reflected in rising prices

and increasing harvests from private lands. Simultaneously, the pressure to increase harvests from public

lands will continue. The higher graded, large-diameter

softwood sawtimber that is more prevalent on national

forests may be in especially high demand. Data for

this report indicate that while national forests have

about 41 percent of the Assessment area’s softwood

sawtimber inventory, they currently account for only 20

percent of the annual average removals of softwood

sawtimber.

Hardwood harvest increase

Increase 

below

average 

rate

Regional

average

increase

Increase

above

average

rate

208
The rising demand for hardwood chips is expected to

lead to increased clearcutting on private lands. Together

with land subdivisions for housing and business development to accommodate a growing population, these

activities likely will lead to increased forest fragmentation in some areas. Changes in management of private

lands may increase the pressure for national forests to

provide a “buffer” for maintaining or increasing desired

environmental conditions at the expense of timber

production.

In contrast to the South as a whole, where NIPF

owners hold 90 percent of the hardwood resource,

about 68 percent of the Highlands’ hardwood resource

is found on NIPF lands and 25 percent on public lands.

This difference suggests that public land management in

the Highlands will have a strong influence on the future

of its hardwoods and the esthetic, economic, wildlife,

and recreational benefits they present.

National forests occupy a unique position in the

timberland ownership pattern of the Highlands. In terms

of acres held, the national forests stand a distant second

to NIPF owners. The three national forests, however,

represent the largest and most unified ownership pattern

within the Assessment area. Timberland ownership

within national forest proclamation boundaries is not

uniform, but includes a substantial component of

inholdings, both private and public. This ownership

pattern affects the forest management options available

to all categories of owners.

The need for dialogue, opportunities to prevent

conflict, and possibilities for cooperative partnerships

may be highest in the 32 counties within the Assessment

area that are characterized by above average timberland acreage in the national forests and in one or more

other timberland ownership classes—usually NIPF or

forest industry. Often representing the largest single

land category in these settings, national forests (or

rather, the managers of the national forests) can play

leadership roles in promoting cooperation, conflict

resolution, and understanding of the interests and values

of neighboring private timberland owners or “inholders.”

In some cases, the second largest ownership class

includes lands managed by other Federal, State, and

local agencies. “Other public” holdings typically are

small in size, but they often are located within or

immediately adjacent to national forest boundaries, and

they typically are managed for a limited range of

objectives and are heavily used by the public for a

variety of outdoor recreation activities. Where such

ownership patterns exist, there is a heightened need for

interagency communication and cooperation.

The Highlands area exhibits low productivity relative

to the rest of the South, with growth per acre and

growth in timber inventory reflecting lower hardwood

growth rates and the region’s geographic location at the

north and west edge of the southern pine region. Low

mortality rates and an excess of growth over removals,

however, indicate that this region may continue to

increase its contribution to southern and national timber

supplies. Low volumes per acre may result in high

harvesting costs per cubic foot, implying that some lands

may be currently unavailable for harvest.

Projections indicate that there will be continued

increases in both hardwood and softwood harvests, with

relatively more southwide production occurring in the

Highlands. These projections are based on past landowner objectives and behaviors and, while growth is

projected to continue to exceed removals through 2020,

changes in product demand or landowner behavior will

influence the timber supply outlook for the Highlands.

Continued investments in wood products processing

indicate that a continuation of increased demands should

be expected in the Assessment area. Consistent with

landowners throughout the Nation, landowners in the

Highlands are expected to continue to value a variety of

benefits other than timber from their forests, thus

potentially reducing the amount of timber available for

harvest.

209

Chapter 7: Mineral Resources

Question 7.1: Historically, which Highlands

minerals have been important to whom and why?

Question 7.2: In Assessment area communities,

what are the current reliance on and projected

demands for Highlands minerals and mining?

Question 7.3: What are current national and

global uses of and reliance on the mineral

resources in the Assessment area, and what are

the projected demands for them?

Question 7.4: What are the current and projected

recreational and educational uses for Highlands

minerals?

 Key Findings

 1. Sixty percent of the mineral resource extraction

operations (mining and processing plants) within

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma occurs within the

Assessment area, accounting for approximately $1.2

billion in mineral value in 1996.

 2. Of 76 known minerals and mineral materials within

the Assessment area, 33 are currently being mined.

 3. In terms of United States production volume, the

Assessment area contains the top 10 production sites

for 14 of the numerous mineral commodities produced throughout the United States.

 4. The portion of Missouri within the Assessment area

contains the largest concentration of lead mineralization in the world. Mines located in the Assessment

area are the number one producers of lead in the

United States and until recently were also the

world’s major lead producers. Between 75 and 80

percent of U.S. lead production comes from the

Mark Twain National Forest—it is a primary source

of the world’s lead production.

 5. The Assessment area contains three world-class

lead and zinc producing districts (in Missouri) and

was a past world leader in zinc (Oklahoma) and

barite (Arkansas and Missouri) production.

 6. The Ouachita Mountains are the only source for

electronic grade, high quality quartz in North

America. All of the U.S. production is from the

Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas.

 7. The Ouachita Mountains and the Ouachita National

Forest are a major world producer and the leading

U.S. producers of quartz crystal for aesthetic and

jewelry uses.

 8. Missouri is the leading U.S. producer of fire clay,

much of which is mined from within the Assessment

area.

 9. Coal from the Oklahoma portion of the Assessment

area is used to generate power for 150,000 homes in

eastern Oklahoma.

 10. The Ozark National Forest has 66 producing gas

wells in areas that have a high potential for additional

exploration and development.

 11. In 1996 alone, extraction of mineral resources from

the three national forests within the Assessment

area generated almost $6 million in Federal revenue.

 12. The national forests within the Assessment area

have a high potential for discovery of additional

reserves of the minerals currently being mined on

them and in some cases those mined in the past as

well. The demand to access the national forests for

mineral exploration is expected to continue and

increase.

 13. The Assessment area and the three national forests

within the Assessment area have unique geologic

features that attract people from across the United

States and throughout the world for research,

education, rockhounding, and mineral collecting.

Geologically, the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands are very

diverse and complex—they contain at least 76 known

mineral commodities. Thirty-three of these commodities

are currently mined and processed at 692 mining and

mineral processing operations within the Assessment

area. Figure 7.1 displays the number of Assessment area

mineral operations in existence during 1996 by commodity

group. Figure 7.2 displays the distribution of hard rock

and coal operations in the Assessment area by State.

While the Assessment area accounts for only 40 percent

of the land area and counties of Arkansas, Missouri, and

211
Oklahoma, it contains 60 percent of the mining activities

within the three States. Figure 7.3 presents each State’s

share of the mines, mineral industry employees, and land

acres of the Assessment area.

Several internationally significant mineral deposits

occur within the Assessment area on national forest and

adjacent lands. These include lead on the Mark Twain

National Forest in southern Missouri and quartz on the

Ouachita National Forest in west-central Arkansas. In

terms of United States production volume, the Assessment area contains the top 10 production sites for 14 of

the numerous mineral commodities produced throughout

the United States (USDI GS 1997a, b, c). Another 8

mineral commodities from the 3 States that are, in part,

from within the Assessment area also rank in the top 10

of national production. The location and development of

some of these minerals have influenced settlement and

land use patterns in several areas within the Highlands

Figure 7.1—Operations within the Assessment area in 1996 by commodity

groups (USDL MSHA 1997, AR DPCE MD 1997, MO DNR MD 1997, OK

DM 1997, Gates 1997, Claxton 1997, USDA FS 1996b).

Figure 7.2—Distribution and number of hardrock mineral and coal operations within the

Assessment area (USDA MSHA 1997, AR DPCE MD 1997, MO DNR MD 1997, OK

DM 1997, USDA FS 1996b).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Common

variety

minerals

materials

Quartz Coal Industrial

minerals

Metallic

minerals

Other gem

minerals

Number of operations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Arkansas

Highlands

Missouri

Highlands

Oklahoma

Highlands

Total Highlands

Number of operations

212
area. However, their social importance and impact

extends well beyond the Assessment area through

national, and in several cases international, markets.

Many of these mineral commodities serve vital human

needs such as for energy, health, and communication.

The mineral resources extracted from within the

Assessment area also provide a significant tax base and

employment for local communities and the States.

Historical Background

The mineral resources within the Assessment area

have been vital to the people and the social systems that

have occupied this area for thousands of years. Indigenous prehistoric cultures mined minerals for thousands

of years prior to European settlement; in the Ouachita

Mountains, prehistoric cultures extensively extracted

novaculite for tools and weapons, developing what is

now considered world class prehistoric rock quarries

(Early 1997a). From the earliest societies through the

European traders and settlers of the 18th and 19th

centuries and to the present, the location of valuable

mineral deposits has shaped the settlement patterns and

trade routes of the area’s people. Lead in Missouri,

quartz and novaculite in Arkansas, and asphaltites and

coal in Oklahoma were used by even the earliest

occupants of these lands. With the exception of the

asphaltites, these minerals are still being mined and used

by society today. For a thorough history of mining

throughout Arkansas, see Stroud and others (1969).

The types of societies within the Assessment area

have changed over time, and the uses for the mineral

commodities have changed as well. The historic significance of mineral resources is illustrated by the following

short history of three of the area’s minerals:

• Novaculite—The American Indians who extensively quarried the novaculite ridges and outcrops in

the Ouachita Mountains of west-central Arkansas

were looking primarily for hard, dense homogeneous

grades of novaculite that they could chip and flake

into tools and weapons. In the 1800’s and early

1900’s, settlers who moved into the Ouachita Mountains prized primarily the softer grades of novaculite

for their excellent tool sharpening capabilities. They

mined and shipped novaculite whetstones and

grinding wheels and materials throughout the country

(Steuart and others 1984, Engel 1951). Today,

novaculite continues to be mined in the Assessment

area for a variety of products and uses including

stable fillers for paints, plastics, and other products;

abrasives; and the traditional whetstones for sharpening tools, knives, and surgical instruments.

• Quartz crystal—Prehistoric peoples sought and used

quartz crystal from the Ouachita Mountains for tools,

weapons, and ornamental purposes. In the 1800’s to

the 1930’s, it was an eagerly sought, natural curiosity

valued primarily for its aesthetic qualities. In the late

Figure 7.3—Assessment area mines, mineral industry employees, and acres by

State as a percentage of total Highlands mines, employees, and land (USDL

MSHA 1997).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Arkansas

Highlands

Missouri

Highlands

Oklahoma

Highlands

Total

Percent

Mines

Employees

Land

213
1930’s and during World War II, this heretofore primarily

museum, gem, and lapidary quality mineral was

aggressively sought by the military for a totally new use:

oscillators in military communications equipment. The

quartz industry thrived in the Ouachita Mountains during

the war years, providing jobs and producing tons of

quartz crystal essential for the war effort. Many new

prospects were found and developed during that time,

some of which continue to be mined today (Engel 1951).

After the war, the industry returned to mining specimen,

gem, and lapidary quality quartz crystal primarily for its

aesthetic values. In

the mid-1980’s to early 1990’s the appeal in quartz

crystal and jewelry grade quartz increased significantly,

with more national and international markets being

opened for Arkansas quartz. Quartz crystal continues to

be mined for a variety of decorative, jewelry, aesthetic,

lapidary, and other personal uses. Also, within North

America, high quality quartz primarily for electronic and

communication uses is presently mined only from the

Ouachita National Forest.

• Lead—Southern Missouri has the richest lead

deposits in the world (Seeger 1997). The lead comes

from deposits of lead-rich galena ore. Prehistoric

American Indians used the cubic and octahedral

crystal forms of galena taken from Ozark Plateau

outcrops. The soft ore was often carved for ceremonial purposes, and fashioned into beads that, in turn,

were widely traded (Wettstaed 1997). Early explorers introduced the tribes to firearms and to methods

of mining and smelting the galena to obtain lead for

shot. The French used slaves in the early and mid1700’s to remove high grade ore from relatively

shallow surface pits, then they shipped most of the

ore to France. At the end of the 1700’s into the early

1800’s, underground mining commenced, drawing

upon new mining methods and changing the life of

the society there (Seeger 1997). Mining communities

were established in support of the industry that now

required long-term commitment from those who

worked in it. Lead mining has occurred in three

different locations within the Assessment area in

southern Missouri (and into northeastern Oklahoma

and southeastern Kansas). Today, production continues in the Viburnum Trend, the world’s number one

lead producer until recent years and still one of the

world’s main lead producers (Seeger 1997).

Many present day cities and communities within the

Assessment area such as Viburnum, MO, Bauxite, AR,

and Hartshorne, OK, were started as mining communities thriving on the various mineral resources of the

region. Several communities annually celebrate the

contributions that minerals and mining have made to

their social structure and economies. Mt. Ida, AR, lays

claim to the title of Quartz Crystal Capital of the World

and hosts the Annual Mt. Ida Quartz Crystal Festival

each October (Baldwin 1997). Viburnum, MO, celebrates its rich mining heritage with an annual Old

Miners’ Day festival (Seeger 1997). McAlester, OK,

has dedicated a memorial to coal miners called the

Pioneer Coal Miner (Suneson 1997). These commemorative actions highlight the influence that mineral

resources have had on the history and heritage of

communities within the Assessment area.

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The State geological agencies for Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma provided reports specifically for

the Assessment with detailed information on the mineral

commodities, economics, social and historic significance

of mining, and mineral resources within the respective

States (Howard 1997, Howard and others 1997, Seeger

1997, Suneson 1997).

Another valuable and informative resource developed

for the Assessment is the matrix “Mineral Commodities

by Counties within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment Area in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.” It was developed specifically for this Assessment with key input from the three State geological

agencies. The matrix displays the 76 mineral commodities plus other minerals and geology related information

for each of the 107 Assessment counties and 6 outlying

counties. There are over 1,800 entries, each showing

the past or present production and potential for future

production, for each mineral commodity known to exist

in a given Assessment area county.

The State oil and gas commissions for Arkansas and

Oklahoma provided information on the Assessment

area’s producing gas and oil well locations by counties

as well as the potential for future development of this

resource. There are no producing gas or oil wells within

the Missouri portion of the Assessment area.

214
The Social-Economic Team compiled information on

mining operations and related activities within the

Assessment area from the records of:

• The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and

Health Administration (USDL MSHA 1997);

• State agencies responsible for permitting, regulating,

and overseeing mining operations within each State;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest

Service records for the Ouachita, Ozark-St. Francis,

and Mark Twain National Forests; and

• Verbal communications with officials from various

State and Federal agencies and reclamation specialists employed by several major mining companies in

the Assessment area.

The team retrieved “Mining Accident and Injury

Statistics” records for 1996 through the Internet at

<http//www.msha.gov> (USDL MSHA 1997). This

massive data base provides information on mine name,

type, ownership, commodity, and employment for mines

and mine-related activities under the Mine Safety and

Health Administration (MSHA) jurisdiction for all 50

States. This data base alone provides continuity in the

way information was collected and displayed for this

Assessment.

The second key source of mine information is State

mine agency records. These records are generally less

detailed than the MSHA data base and often duplicate

some information in that data base. The team discarded

duplicate records in those cases where Federal and

State regulatory authorities and record data overlapped.

State mine agency records add to the list of mining

operations in the Assessment area by including those

mines under a State but not under the MSHA authority.

Forest Service records provided the final key source of

information on mine-related activities by including those

mining operations occurring specifically on national

forest lands within the Assessment area that, for

whatever reason, did not show up on either MSHA or

State records.

The Social-Economic Team developed a comprehensive mines data base for the Assessment area from a

total of seven separate State and Federal data bases.

The comprehensive data base is used throughout this

report as the basis for discussions on the number of

active mines in the year 1996, the locations of mines by

counties, mineral commodities, types of mines, and other

mining-related matters within the Assessment area.

Limitations of Market Analysis

A number of factors go into analyzing mineral

commodity markets. Most mineral commodity operations go through three very costly and risky phases:

(1) exploration, (2) development, and (3) production.

Exploration for mineral resources involves techniques

designed to detect the presence of mineral commodities

in an environment that is often extremely difficult to

reach, the subsurface of the earth. Once discovered,

further activity and expense must occur to determine if

the deposit is valuable and can be successfully recovered at a reasonable profit. An economically valuable

deposit is considered ore. The value of the mineral

commodity and its future anticipated demand are two

factors used to evaluate the potential for exploration,

development, or continued production of a given mined

material (Seeger 1997). However, this is complicated by

a variety of additional, less stable or less predictable

factors:

• Changes in laws, regulations, and policies that restrict

access to the mineral estate or place additional

requirements on the mineral industry, making it more

expensive to operate. Known mineral resources

often have to be ignored or abandoned because of

suddenly increased costs.

• The discovery of a new mineral source, a decrease

in demand, and political instability in critical mineralproducing countries all have direct effects on the

market value and feasibility of successfully producing

a given mineral resource.

• A small fluctuation in price for a mineral commodity

can have a major impact on the economic viability of

the deposits being mined. For example, a change of

15 cents per pound in the price of lead, as has

occurred since 1987, can quickly translate into

millions of dollars in gains or losses for the lead

industry in Missouri (Seeger 1997).

• The introduction to the marketplace of a mineral

commodity that has been subsidized by another

government often results in an artificially undervalued

and underpriced product that is difficult for mining

interests in this country (where a similar subsidy is

typically lacking) to compete with.

These are just a few examples of factors that can

readily affect market analysis for mineral commodities.

A case in point is the mineral barite, successfully mined

215
for many years in the Missouri Ozarks and the Arkansas Ouachita Mountains within the Assessment area.

Barite is an essential component of the fluids used to

support the drilling of deep oil and gas wells. However,

these productive barite mines were forced to close

when China suddenly began exporting barite to the

United States in the early 1980’s. At about the same

time, the demand for the product began to decrease.

American producers could not compete with a Chinese

barite industry that pays low wages and operates

essentially free from environmental regulation as

compared with operations within the United States.

These economic advantages allowed foreign barite to be

delivered anywhere in the world at very low prices,

easily undercutting American barite producers. One of

the American companies so affected had already

invested $40 million and about 6 years to develop a

state-of-the-art mine and mill complex for a major barite

deposit in the southeastern Ouachita Mountains. However, in 1984, just as this project had moved to the

production stage, the company had to close the operation and sell off the buildings and equipment before

producing any barite. The expectation of major employment and tax revenues associated with this project,

much anticipated by several small local communities for

which no similar-sized industries existed, never materialized (Seeger 1997, Howard 1997).

Ore reserves can change literally overnight as the

many variables affecting mineral commodities change,

thereby affecting mine life, investments, employment,

tax and other revenues, and mineral production. Any of

a number of factors can have an adverse effect on a

minerals exploration or development project (Seeger

1997).

Economic Value

Mineral resources have been essential to the growth

and development of communities, businesses, and social

systems within the Assessment area. However, the

benefit from the mineral resources has not been limited

to Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Just as early

American Indians in the Highlands traded mineral

resources they extracted with other tribal nations far

beyond their own tribal boundaries, those extracting

minerals today move them throughout the Assessment

area and world wide for the benefit of millions.

Some of the 76 known mineral commodities within

the Assessment area have achieved world recognition.

Possibly the best known among them are the three

historic, world-class lead and zinc producing districts of

Missouri, and the quartz crystal deposits of Arkansas

(table 7.1). Oklahoma was a past world leader in zinc,

and Arkansas and Missouri were past world leading

Table 7.1—Highlights of mineral resources in the

Assessment area by State

Highlight AR M O OK

World’s largest known concentration of

lead orea

 and past primary producer x

Three historic, world-class lead and zinc

producing districts x

Past world’s leading producer of bariteb x x

The principal provider of transparent

quartz crystal in North America x

Historically yielded more bauxitec than all

other U.S. production combined x

World-wide recognized novaculited

 deposits x

Second largest bottled water producer in

the world x

Largest production of silica stone abrasives

in the United States x

Among the largest natural gas fields in the

United States x x

World’s largest grahamitee

 and one of

world’s largest impsonitee

 deposits x

Past leading zinc producer in the world x

World-class crinoidf

 fossil slabs x

World-renowned mineral collecting localities x x

The original source sites for nine scientifically

described mineral speciesg x

First U.S. diamond mine and 2nd leading

producer of diamonds in U.S.h x

a Galena.

b Heavy, dense mineral essential to oil and gas drilling operations and

other applications.

c Ore from which aluminum is made.

d Used as sharpening stones for knives and other tools, including

surgical instruments, and crushed for other applications.

e Black solid bitumens that resemble coal but are more closely related

to oil.

f Fossils of a class of marine invertebrates.

g Rectorite, kimzeyite, benstonite, kidwellite, eggletonite, strazcekite,

delindeite, lourenswalsite, and mahlmoodite.

h Crater of Diamonds State Park located in Pike County, AR,

immediately adjacent to the Highlands.

Source: Howard (1997), Seeger (1997), Suneson (1997).

216
producers of barite. On a national level, the Arkoma

Basin of Oklahoma and Arkansas is highly regarded as

an important United States exploration and production

area for gas resources. The Crater of Diamonds State

Park, adjacent to the Highlands in Pike County, AR, is a

major attraction to gem enthusiasts and the general

public from across the country. Table 7.1 highlights these

and other mineral resources in the Assessment area.

Contributions to National Minerals Production

The 1996 Mineral Industry Surveys (MIS) for Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma reported that among all 50

States, Missouri ranked 10th, Arkansas 29th, and Oklahoma 34th in the value of total nonfuel mineral production

(USDI GS 1997a, b, c). The total mineral production

value for the three States was over $2 billion. Approximately $1.2 billion was from within the Assessment area

where 60 percent of these States’ mineral activities

occur. Combined, these three States account for more

than 5 percent of the total United States production value

for nonfuel minerals. In 1996, these States also ranked

among the top 10 States in the amount of production for a

number of mineral commodities (table 7.2). For instance,

Arkansas was first in quartz lascas, silica, stone, and

quartz crystal. Missouri was first in the nation in the

production of lead, fire clay (much of which is mined

from within the Assessment area), and lime.

Information on the production and value of the

various minerals in the Assessment area has been

compiled from the three State geological agency reports

written specifically for this Assessment (available at the

Assessment Web site, <www.fs.fed.us/oonf/

ooha.welcome.htm>). It should be noted that authors of

the State reports took differing approaches to discussing

and displaying commodity information about minerals.

Table 7.2—Minerals for which Assessment area States had significant national production

or were in the top 10 in United States’ production in 1996a

Production

ranka AR MO OK

First Quartz lascas,b c silica Lead,c

 fire clay,d limed None

stone, quartz crystalc e

Second None Iron oxide pigments Tripoli

Third Tripolic Iron ore, barite Fire clayd

Fourth Gemstones(mostly Zinc,c crushed stoned Feldspard

quartz crystalc),

kaolin, fire clay

Fifth to tenth Common clayd Portland cement,d Sand and graveld

silver,e fullers earth,d

coppere

Significantf Crushed stone,c d sand Sand and gravel,d Crushed stone,d

and gravel,d gypsum,d masonry cement,d portland masonry

dimension stonec d common clayd cements,d

 clayd

a Based on USDI GS (1997a, b, c) estimates of quantities produced in the 50 States during 1996.

b Quartz lascas are produced nowhere else in the United States.

c Mineral commodities produced wholly or in part (within listed State) from national forest

lands.

d Mineral commodities produced (within listed State) both within and outside the Assessment

area.

e Implied from USDI GS (1996).

f Additional significant production ranking below the top 10.

Source: USDI GS (1996; 1997a, b, c).

217
Consequently, the information displayed in the tables in

this chapter is slightly different for each State. Additional information comes from Forest Service records.

For example, the tables also display production and

value information for mineral commodities that come

from the national forests within the Assessment area.

The 1997 Missouri Geological Survey report (Seeger

1997) presents a detailed discussion of the contributions

of the Missouri portion of the Assessment area to

national minerals production. Table 7.3 displays some of

these contributions. Production in the Assessment area

ranges from 402 tons of silver and 7,000 tons of dimension (building) stone to nearly 2.9 and 5.8 million tons of

lead and iron ore, respectively. Between 75 and 80

percent of U.S. lead production comes from Missouri’s

Mark Twain National Forest, a principal source of the

world’s lead supply (Seeger 1997).

Table 7.4 displays the nonmetallic minerals produced

in the Missouri portion of the Assessment area from

1987 through 1995 (with the exception of masonry

cement for which figures were available from 1987

through 1989 only). (None of this production was from

the Mark Twain National Forest.) The Assessment area

of Missouri contributes 27 to 58 percent of the Highlands production of hardrock and other nonmetallic

minerals such as crushed stone, cement, lime, sand,

gravel, and clay.

The 1997 Oklahoma Geological Survey report

(Suneson 1997) describes the contributions the Oklahoma portion of the Assessment area makes to the

national marketplace, primarily in the form of energy

minerals (gas and coal) and dimension stone materials.

The report identifies the mineral resources produced

recently and historically from within Assessment area

counties (table 7.5). (These minerals are produced

outside the Assessment area in Oklahoma as well.)

With the exception of a small amount of building stone

sales primarily for noncommercial use, none of the

Oklahoma Assessment area minerals are being produced from national forest lands at this time. Because

Table 7.3—Production levels and sales values of minerals produced in the Missouri portion of the

Assessment area (including Mark Twain National Forest lands) from 1987–1995 (or as noted)

Production Sales value

Assessment Mark Assessment Mark

Mineral commodity area Twain NF area Twain NF

 - - - - - - - - - Tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - -

Leada 2,876,000 2,169,763 2,180,000,000 955,084,538

Zincb 428,000 477,308 501,111,000 240,149,437

Copperb c 37,441 319,478 84,497,000 176,472,801

Silver 402 — 61,693,000 —

Iron ored 5,758,000 0 27,000,000d 0

Barite (1987, 1988) 53,000 0 3,900,000 0

Dimension stone (1987, 1988) 7,000 0 1,001,000 0

NF = national forest; — = not available. a Leases on the Mark Twain NF produced from 38 to 74 percent of the total U.S. lead ore mine production for the last 10 years.

b During some years, national forest production and sales for zinc and copper are higher than the Assessment area as a whole

because the Bureau of Land Management includes the previous years’ production under that year (Seeger 1997). c Total copper production and sales reported only from 1992–1995; production and sales from Mark Twain NF reported for

1987–1995. d Iron ore value figure available only for 1993.

Source: Seeger (1997), USDI BM (1996), USDI GS (1997a, b, c).

218
Table 7.4—Production levels of nonmetallic mineral

materials from the Missouri portion of the Assessment area,

1987–1995a

Portion of all

Mineral production in

commodity Production Highlands Value

Tons Percent Dollars

Crushed stone 513,424,000 53 1,990,000,000

Portland cement 42,269,000 53 1,788,280,000

Masonry cementb 455,000 53 21,937,000

Lime — —

Sand and gravel 84,857,000 58 255,695,000

Sand 4,821,000 58 90,179,000

Clay — 27 —

— = not available. a None of these minerals were extracted from national forest land.

b Masonry cement figures available only for 1987–1989 and displayed

as partial data.

Source: Seeger (1997).

Table 7. 5—Recent and historic mineral production in the Oklahoma portion of the Assessment Area

Mineral commodity Recent production (years, counties) Historic production (years, counties)

Oil 1.5 M barrels (1990–1993, Muskogee Co.) —

Natural gas 2.3 mmcf (1990–1993, Muskogee Co.) —

Natural gas, Arkoma Basin 1.6 mmcf (1990–1993, Sequoyah, Haskell, Le 5 trillion cubic feet (1894–1990, Le Flore,

Flore, Latimer, Pittsburg, and Atoka Haskell, Latimer, and Pittsburg Counties)

Counties)

Coal 1.4 M tonsa

 (1996; primarily Le Flore Co.) 274 M tons (1880–1994, Mayes, Muskogee,

Sequoyah, Haskell, Pittsburg, Latimer, Le

Flore, and Atoka Counties)

Stone (aggregate and dimension) 19 M tonsb

 (1993–1997, all Assessment area —

counties in OK)

Sand and gravel 1.9 M tons (1995 and 1997, all Assessment —

area counties in OK)

Tripoli 6,133 tons (1997, Ottawa County) —

Clay and shale 0.8 M tonsc

 (1993, 1995, and 1997; Adair, —

Cherokee, Le Flore, Muskogee, and

Sequoyah Counties)

Lime 1.9 M tons (1993 and 1995, McCurtain and —

Sequoyah Counties)

M = million; mmcf = million cubic feet; — = not available. a 81 percent of total Oklahoma coal production.

b 23 percent of total Oklahoma production; includes 52 tons produced from Ouachita National Forest in 1996.

c 23 percent of total Oklahoma production.

Source: Suneson (1997).

the Oklahoma building stone industry ships its products

across the United States and is presently operating at a

number of locations near the Ouachita National Forest,

the industry may look to the national forest for additional

commercial sites.

The 1997 Arkansas Geological Commission report

(Howard 1997) deals with the broadest range of mineral

commodities produced from within the Assessment

area. The Assessment area in Arkansas embraces

three generally recognized geologic regions: the Arkansas Ozarks, Arkansas Valley, and Arkansas Ouachitas.

Howard noted mineral production and value by these

regions. Table 7.6 displays the minerals produced wholly

from within the Assessment area and from the Ozark

and Ouachita National Forests. Vital hardrock and

industrial mineral resources and unique gemstones are

contributed to the national and international marketplace

from the Arkansas portion of the Highlands.

219
Table 7.6—Synopsis of available information concerning production levels and values of minerals produced within the Arkansas portion of the Assessment

area (partial data for various periods)

 Recent production Historic production

Mineral commodity Year(s) Quantity Value Years Quantity Value Production from national forests

Arkansas Ozarks

Lime 1972–1981 1.7M tons $37M 1894–1966 2.4M tons $24M 0

Limestone 1997 — $6–8/ton 1967–1979 20M tons — 0

Natural gas 1997 — $1.50–3.50/mcfa 1953–1988 5.7M mcf — 0.6M mcf, Ozark NF, 1996

Sand and gravel 1984–1994 98M tons $345M 1958–1966 50M tons — 0

Sandstone (includes — 15M tons/yrb — — —— 23,144 tons, Ozark NF, 1996

Arkansas Valley)

Spring water, bottled 1991 85M galc $90 M — —— 0

(includes Arkansas

Ouachitas)

Arkansas Valley

Coal, surface dd d 1840–1996 15.6M tons — 0

Coal, underground dd d 1840–1996 90.6M tons — 0

Coal (combined) 1986–1996 0.8M tons $30/ton (1997) — —— 0

Natural gas 1986–1996 1.7B mcf — e ee e

Arkansas Ouachitas

Barite —— — 1940–1982 9M tons — 0.5M tons, Ouachita NF, 1960–1982

Bauxite —— — 1898–1981 76.8M tons $1.2M —

Diamondf 1972–1996 20,396 $1–10/pt — —— —

(4,065 carats) (100 pts/carat)

Nepheline syenite — 5M tons/yr $4–25/ton — —— —

Novaculite (silica stone)g 1995 925,000 lbs $3.9M — —— 15,000 lbs, Ouachita NF, 1997

Quartz, crystalh 1996 0.9M lbs $1.4M — —— 141,000 lbs, Ouachita NF, 1996

Quartz, electronic gradeh 1996 1.3M lbs $1.1M — —— 1.3M lbs, Ouachita NF, 1996

Sandstonei ee e e e e 182,502 tons, Ouachita NF, 1996

Soapstone — 1,500 tons/yr (avg.) — — —— —

Tripoli — 15,000 tons/yr (avg.) — — —— —

Turquoise —— — 1974–1988 1,000 lbs 10 lbs sold 1,000 lbs (1979–1985), Ouachita NF

for $1,000

M = million; — = information not available in documents reviewed; mcf = thousand cubic feet; NF = national forest; lbs = pounds.

a Natural gas wellhead price information from Gates (1997).

b Total production from Arkansas Ozarks, Arkansas Valley, and Arkansas Ouachitas.

c Total production from Arkansas Ozarks and Arkansas Ouachitas.

d See “Coal (combined).”

e Reported under “Arkansas Ozarks.”

f Diamond information from Hall (1997).

g Novaculite information from USDA FS records, Ouachita National Forest.

h Quartz information from USDA FS records, Ouachita National Forest; price based on average grade value.

i Sandstone and aggregate on national forests from USDA FS (1996b).

Source: Howard (1997) unless noted otherwise

220
Lead, Quartz, Gas, and Coal

Extractions

Lead

Lead exploration and extraction presently occurs in

Missouri in a band approximately 40 miles (mi) wide and

100 mi long within the north-central portion of the

Assessment area. The expectation is that future lead

exploration and mining will remain within this band

where the resource is concentrated (Seeger 1997).

Significant exploration is extending southward into north

Arkansas (Howard 1997). There are two major companies presently mining galena for lead and associated

minerals from underground mines in the Missouri

Ozarks. Part of the mining operations occurs on the

Mark Twain National Forest. The operations are

conducted under State and Federal environmental

regulations, permits, and plans that require routine

compliance inspections.

Quartz

There are 58 quartz mines currently permitted (data

base year 1996) by State and Federal agencies in the

Ouachita Mountains of the Assessment area. One of

these mines is for high-grade quartz used in fiber-optic

and other high-tech uses. It is the only mine of its type

in North America. Many of these operations, including

the high-grade quartz operation, occur on the Ouachita

National Forest. Most quartz mines are relatively small,

surface-excavation operations. The nature, pattern, and

size of typical quartz deposits generally restrict the size

of these mines, which normally impact 1 to 5 acres (ac).

The two largest quartz mines are approximately 50 ac in

size and located on private lands. Most quartz mines

have a relatively short mine life of 5 to 10 years. Quartz

mining operations proposed to take place on the

Ouachita National Forest require extensive review and

analysis, stipulation, bonding, and reclamation planning

before approval is granted. The likely future trend is that

quartz operations will continue to occur within the

Assessment area because of the uniqueness of the

deposits and the demand for the resource (USDA FS

1996 b).

Gas

Gas exploration operations are typically of short

duration, lasting only a few weeks to several months.

Exploration and production sites are generally less than

an acre to several acres in size. State agencies are

involved in the permitting and oversight process for

exploration proposals and for producing wells on all

lands within the State. Operations proposed to take

place on national forests require extensive review and

analysis, stipulation, bonding, and reclamation planning

before approval is granted. All sites are fully reclaimed

upon completion of the operation. The likely future trend

is that gas operations will continue to occur within the

Assessment area as new gas sources are sought and

developed to meet societal demands.

Coal

Coal operations generally impact large tracts in

relatively flat-lying areas. The operations take place

under State and Federal controls and permitting authorities. Coal in the Assessment area is presently mined on

private lands in Oklahoma. There have been coal mining

operations in the past on national forests in Arkansas,

but they are now closed and fully reclaimed. Currently,

there are no coal mining operations on any of the three

Assessment area national forests nor are there any

proposals for new mines. Although the demand for coal

is national in scope, coal mined in the Assessment area

is utilized primarily to fuel a power plant in Oklahoma

that supplies power for much of eastern Oklahoma

(Hatley 1997). The likely future trend is for coal mining

to continue as long as there is a demand for it.

Salaries and Taxes

The real value of a mineral resource is not only its

usefulness to society, but also its direct and immediate

economic benefits to local communities and economies

in terms of exploring for, removing, and processing that

resource. From this value comes employment and

salaries to benefit families and taxes to provide for

government services. The State geological reports

prepared for the Assessment project include some

salary and tax information. The Missouri report provides

221
insight and examples for the Missouri Assessment area

minerals industry and its economic effect on local

communities (Seeger 1997).

The minerals industry typically pays workers at wage

levels above most other industries (also see Chapter 4).

Examples from Missouri show the average wage is

$16.30 per hour for the metals mining industry and

$11.20 per hour for the industrial minerals sector

(Seeger 1997). These are significantly higher than

comparable recreation, sawmill, and timber labor wages,

which range from $7.20 to $9.40 per hour. Salaries at a

major mine on the Mark Twain National Forest in

Missouri range from $20,000 to $80,000 per year. In

1996, Missouri metal mining companies within the

Assessment area alone paid salaries totaling $31.2

million (Seeger 1997). State employment data from

Oklahoma indicate that 6 of the professions related to

the geologic-resources industry (geologists, mining and

petroleum specialists, and others) are in the top 25 of

Oklahoma’s highest paying occupations (Suneson 1997).

In Arkansas, the quartz mining industry pays miners in

the $7.50 to $11 per hour range, making these among

the top wages paid in the rural areas where the mines

are located (Coleman 1997).

Contributions to the tax base from mining-related

activities are important to local, State, and Federal

governments. For example, mining industry employees

within the Missouri Assessment area annually pay more

than $14.8 million in State and Federal income taxes

(Seeger 1997). One major Missouri metals mining

company pays approximately $10 million annually in

combined taxes. Seven mineral industry companies

within the Missouri portion of the Assessment area pay

personal property and real estate taxes exceeding $4.3

million to six counties (Seeger 1997). During the time

the mines operated, severance taxes from major bauxite

(aluminum) mining within the Arkansas Assessment

area paid for all the local school district’s operating

costs, including new construction and teachers’ salaries.

Even after the mines closed, they continued to benefit

the local school district from savings during operational

years (Howard 1997).

Employment

Table 7.7 displays the number of mines, gas wells,

and mine and gas industry employees for the Assessment area in data base year 1996. The MSHA report

includes the number of employees at the mines and

mining-related operations (including some minerals

manufacturing operations) that MSHA oversees as part

of its mine safety permitting and inspection responsibilities. Some mines do not appear in MSHA records, but

do appear in records administered by the States or by

the Forest Service. The 690 mining-related operations

within the Assessment area provide employment to

about 9,000 persons. The gas well and pipeline industry

employs about 1,600 more persons for over 6,500

Table 7.7—Mines, gas wells, and related industry employees in State portions of the Assessment area, 1996a

MSHA records State records FS records Mine total Gas wellsb

State Mines Employeesc Mines Employees Mines Employees Mines Employees Wells Employees

Arkansas 169 2,958 42 86 61 154 272 3,198 2,968 480d

Missouri 217 4,439 41 128 0 0 258 4,567 0 0

Oklahoma 78 928 82 272 0 0 160 1,200 3,563 1,116

Total 464 8,325 165 486 61 154 690 8,965 6,531 1,596

MSHA = Mine Safety and Health Administration; FS = Forest Service. a MSHA and FS records contain employee numbers; employee numbers in State records estimated based on size and type of similar typical operations

where employee numbers are known.

b Producing gas wells and associated employees within the Assessment area in 1996 (not in the mine records for MSHA, State, or FS); information from

Gates (1997), Claxton (1997), and Suneson (1997).

c

 MSHA records include employees of mines and some, but not all, minerals manufacturing operations.

d Based on Oklahoma employee numbers for similar operations.

Source (in addition to those in footnote b): USDL MSHA (1997), AR DPCE MD (1997), MO DNR MD (1997), OK DM (1997).

222
producing gas wells in the Highlands. Thus, more than

10,500 persons are employed directly by mining-related

operations within the Assessment area.

The secondary companies that support the mining

industry and the tertiary businesses that move the

mineral resources into society contribute significantly to

the overall Assessment area employment that is related

to minerals. These are businesses, companies, and jobs

that would not exist if the mineral resources were not

present or could not be extracted. One source, a 1997

report from the National Mining Association, estimates

that the number of jobs directly or indirectly due to

mining in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma is over

200,000 (including an estimated 50,000 in the Assessment area) (Leaming 1997). In Missouri, an association

of companies that supply goods and services to the

mining industry lists 88 member businesses and companies (Seeger 1997). Mount Ida, AR, a Highlands

community of just over 1,000 persons and the County

seat for Montgomery County, is in the heart of the

quartz crystal production in the Ouachita Mountains.

The Mount Ida Chamber of Commerce estimates that

the quartz mining industry in Montgomery County alone

directly affects 400 jobs in various support, supply, and

marketing businesses (Baldwin 1997).

National Forest Minerals Revenue

In 1996, mineral exploration and extraction in the

Mark Twain, Ozark, and Ouachita National Forests

generated revenues of nearly $6 million (table 7.8) from

969 mineral cases administered by the 3 forests. In the

past 10 years, the minerals’ revenue from the Highlands

national forests has totaled approximately $80 million.

This includes an exceptional 2-year period of oil and gas

lease bid revenues on the Ouachita National Forest that

brought in $31 million in 1990 and 1991. Also, in 1989,

Congress passed legislation that moved quartz on the

Ouachita National Forest from a nonrevenue to a

revenue generating program administered by the Forest

Service (Public Law 100-446 Section 323).

Supply

Supplies of mineral resources within the Highlands are

discussed in detail in State geological reports (Howard

1997, Seeger 1997, Suneson 1997). The three reports

also feature discussions of reserves and the discovery

potential for many of the mineral commodities within the

Assessment area. A mineral commodity spreadsheet

matrix displays the past or present production and the

Table 7.8—Activities (cases) and revenue generated by minerals programs on the Highlands’ national forests, 1996a

 Ouachita NF Ozark NF Mark Twain NF Total

Mineral commodity Cases Revenue Cases Revenue Cases Revenue Cases Revenue

Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars

CVMM, quartz 50 43,493 0 0 0 0 50 43,493

CVMM, rock 80 28,251 59 14,583 1 225 140 43,059

Leases, hardrock 6 5,368 0 0 36 4,955,385 42 4,960,753

Leases, gas (not

producing) 239 269,850 321 81,564 0 0 560 351,414

Leases, gas (producing) 0 0 107 551,531 0 0 107 551,531

Mining claims 35 0 0 0 0 0 35 0

Applications 6 0 6 0 11 0 23 0

Prospect permit, hardrock 0 0 0 0 12 5,748 12 5,748

Total 416 346,962 493 647,678 60 4,961,358 969 5,955,998

NF = national forest; CVMM = common variety mineral material.

a “Cases” include contracts, leases, permits, mining claims, applications for prospecting permits, and prospecting permits.

Source: USDA FS (1996b).

223
mineral discovery potential for each known mineral and

mineral commodity for each county within the Assessment area.

Reserves and Potential

Reserve estimates primarily depend on economic

conditions and on exploration for minerals. Estimates of

mineral reserves change (1) as the market value for a

mineral commodity changes, thereby defining what is or

is not considered ore, and (2) as exploration techniques

are refined and become more accurate and predictive.

The amount and extent of exploration for minerals

depends primarily on access—when prospectors can

physically enter Federal, State, and private lands, they

can use modern equipment and techniques to determine

if minerals are present and, if so, at what grade. Such

exploration generally does not last long and has a

minimal effect on other resources.

Tables 7.9 and 7.10 list the reserve estimates and

potential for new discoveries of mineral commodities

within the Arkansas portion of the Assessment area.

Table 7.9—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the Arkansas

Ozarks and Arkansas Valley (excluding Oklahoma) portions of the Assessment area

Reserve estimates

Mineral commodity Assessment area National forests

Arkansas Ozarks

Coal Unknown reserves, 2 seamsa Unknown Doubtful

Copper Unevaluated Unknown Unknown

Diamond Unknown Unknown Unknown

Industrial silica sand 100’s of millions of tons Unknown Very high

Iron 20,000,000 tonsb Unknown Low

Lead and zinc 100,000 tons Unknown Moderate

Limestone and

dolostone Widespread Unknown Very high

Manganese 198,000,000 tons Possible Low

Marble Unknown Unknown Unknown

Natural gas 14 producing fields 66 producing wells Low to high

Nickel Unknown Unknown Low

Oil shale Unknown Unknown Low

Phosphate rock Considerable Unknown Low

Rare earth metals Unknown Unknown Very low

Sand and gravel Significant Present Significant

Sandstone Extensive Present Very high

Shale Extensive Present Very high

Silverc 100,000 tons Unknown Moderate

Tripoli Several million tons Unknown Moderate to high

Arkansas Valley

Clay and shale Significant Present Moderate

Coal 1 billion tons, 13 fieldsd Present Low to moderate

Natural gas 1.1 trillion cubic feet Present Low to very high

Sand and gravel Extensive Present High

Sandstone Extensive Present High

Titanium Unknown Unknown Low

a An identifiable bed or layer of coal.

b Iron at 30 percent grade, indicating moderate quality.

c Silver with lead and zinc.

d Areas with known coal deposits.

Source: Howard (1997).

Potential for

discovery

224
Table 7.10—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the

Ouachita Mountains (Arkansas) portion of the Assessment area

Reserve estimates

Mineral commodity Assessment area Ouachita NF (AR)

Antimony Unknown Unknown Low

Barite, 50–70% gradea 56 million tons Significant; known Lowb

deposits

Barite, lower grades Tens of million tons Unknown Low to moderateb

Bauxite 113,646,000 tons Unknown Lowb

Clay Unknown Unknown Moderate

Cobalt with manganese 1–6 million tons Present Low to moderate

Copper Minor Present Low

Diamond Very low Unknown Low

Gallium Data not available Unknown Data not available

Gold 150 years of exploration Low to none

has revealed no deposits

Gypsum Data not available Unknown High

Iron Unknown Unknown Negligible to low

Lead and zinc 15,000 tons Unknown Low

Limestone Modest Occurs Moderate to high

Lithium Minor Unknown Low

Manganese 50,000 tons Occurs Moderate

Mercury Unknown Unknown Moderate

Molybdenum Unknown Unknown Low

Natural gas Unknown Unknown Low to unknown

Nepheline syenite 13 square miles Unknown High

Nickel Unknown Unknown Low

Niobium Unknown Unknown Low

Novaculite Extensive resources Extensive resources High

Oil Unknown Unknown Low to unknown

Quartz Extensive Extensive High

Rare earth metals Unknown Unknown Low

Sand and gravel Extensive Extensive High

Sandstone Extensive Extensive High

Shale and slaty shale Extensive Extensive High

Silver Present Unknown Low

Soapstone 50,000 tons Unknown Low

Tantalum Unknown Unknown Low

Thorium Unknown Unknown Low

Titanium Unknown Unknown Moderate to high

Tripoli Several million tons Several million tons Moderate to high

Turquoise Present Presentc Low

Uranium Unknown Unknown Low

Vanadium Unknownd Unknown Low

Vermiculite Unknown Unknown Low

Volcanic tuff Present Unknown Moderate

Wavellite Isolated locations Isolated locations Moderate

Wollastonite Unknown Unknown Moderate

NF = national forest.

a High-moderate to high quality.

b Known deposits, but potential is low for new ore discoveries unless price increases.

c Mined on the Ouachita National Forest from 1979 to 1985.

d Mined from 1962 to 1990.

Source: Howard (1997).

Potential for

discovery

225
The Ozark National Forest has 66 producing gas wells

in areas that have a high potential for additional exploration and development. Similarly, table 7.11 for Missouri

and table 7.12 for Oklahoma list the reserves and

discovery potentials of mineral commodities within those

States. These tables, compiled primarily from the

States’ geologic reports (Howard 1997, Seeger 1997,

Suneson 1997), include information on the mineral

resources for the three national forests within the

Assessment area. The estimates of reserve and potential are current as of late 1997. The discovery of new

economic deposits or the complete extraction of existing

ones dramatically affects reserve estimates. For

example, the lead industry in southern Missouri indicates

there are approximately 13 to 16 years of known ore

reserves remaining (Seeger 1997). Similar projection

estimates would apply to almost any time period

throughout the 270-year mining history of Missouri lead.

Over that time, exploration has resulted in the discovery

of new ore deposits, mining has resulted in the removal

of known deposits, and economics have changed the

real value of the commodity. All of these factors have

affected the reserve estimates for lead over time. Still,

by current estimates, the lead mining industry in Missouri will be gone in 13 to 16 years if exploration is not

allowed to take place or if continued exploration does

not reveal any new economic deposits. If sufficient

exploration takes place, it will likely result in discoveries

that will extend the reserve estimates.

The three national forests within the Assessment

area include almost 4.4 million acres, the largest land

base within the Assessment area managed by one

entity. These lands contain important mineral deposits

that are currently being mined and equally important

mineral reserves and potential for further discoveries as

noted in tables 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, and 7.12. While the

potential for mineral discovery is specific to the physical

evidence for that mineral, minerals development potential is dependent on laws, regulations, policies, and, in the

case of private lands, permission for access and development. For example, physical evidence of a mineral

deposit may be high, but laws and policies restricting

access may render the development potential very low.

In some cases—such as on some areas of public land

where Federal laws do not allow mineral extraction—

this potential may be nonexistent. The minerals development potential is thus one of the major factors affecting

access for minerals exploration and development.

Costs

There are many factors involved in the costs of

exploring for and developing mineral resources. The

overall costs include (1) specialized equipment and

structures, (2) uniquely qualified personnel, (3) surface

access needs, and (4) considerations associated with

environmental and reclamation requirements. The time

required to explore for, study, and develop a newly

discovered mineral resource can be very lengthy. For

example, the exploration phase of a venture that anticipates operating a moderately sized surface mine for

metallic or nonmetallic ores (i.e., one that produces

20,000 tons per day) will generally take at least 3 years.

If a discovery is made, it may take another 5 years of

studies and tests and 3 more years of development before

production can begin. In other words, it may take a

minimum of 11 years to go from initial exploration to

production (USDI BM 1991). The Missouri Geological

Survey report for the Assessment discusses exploration

and development costs associated with non-Federal and

Federal lands (Seeger 1997). Table 7.13 presents the time

and costs for the largest mining-related activities within

the Assessment area—obtaining permits and developing

typical lead mines in Missouri. These operations occur on

both private lands and the Mark Twain National Forest.

Federal laws and regulations on national forest lands

are independent of State boundaries and contribute to

costs regardless of where exploration and development

activities take place. Natural resource specialists in the

Federal Government are required to thoroughly analyze

proposed operations on national forest lands to determine potential environmental effects of surface disturbing activities. Such a Federal environmental analysis can

take several months for small, minimal surface impact

proposals to a number of years for larger ones. Operators must factor in this process as part of the cost of

operating on federally managed lands.

State laws governing mineral development differ in

content and language among the three States, but they

are similar in intent and in their definition of agency

responsibilities. Such laws also have a similar influence

on costs throughout the Assessment area. Large-scale

mining ventures involving the outlay of millions of dollars

will typically require proportionately large operating

areas. Table 7.14 lists some typical sizes of operating

areas for various mining-related activities within the

Assessment area.

226
Table 7.11—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the Missouri

portion of the Assessment area

Reserve estimates

Mineral commodity Assessment area Mark Twain NF

Southeast Missouri

Barite Not large Unknown Limited

Clay Small known deposits Unknown Very low

Igneous rock dimension Limited exposure Unknown Moderate

Industrial sand Extensive exposures Unknown High

Iron Large (uneconomical) Unknown High

Lead and other metalsa 13–16 years Extensive High

Limestones, high purity Extensive deposits Unknown High

Metals, maficb

 complex Unknown Present Unknown

Sand and gravel Abundant resources Possible High

Tungsten and manganese Unknown Present Unknown

Uranium and thorium Unknown Present Unknown

Southwest Missouri

Asphaltic sandstone Good for near surface Possible Moderate

Carbonate rock Extensive resources Present High

Clay and shale Low Possible Limited

Coal Limited Possible Low

Dolomite, high purity Good Present Good

Gas Probable but unknown Unknown Limited to none

Industrial sand Low Possible Unknown

Marble, dimension Formations limited Unknown High

Oil, heavy Some but limited Unknown Low

Oil shale Minor Possible Nonexistent

Sand and gravel Low Present Very low

Sandstone, dimension Known resources Present High

Siltstone, dimension Formations limited Unknown Unknown

Tri-state zinc and lead 5.3 million tons of ore Present Moderate

Central Missouri

Aggregate, crushed Large Present High

Aggregate, high quality Limited Unknown Low

Barite, lead, zinc Known, minor Possible Unknown

Coal Large Present Favorable

Dolomite, high purity Limited Present Speculative

Fire clay Major Present High

Igneous and metamorphic None Unknown None

Industrial sand Known, scattered Unknown Speculative

Iron Low Unknown None

Limestone, high purity Good Unknown High

Magnetite, hematite Unknown Possible Unknown

Marble, dimension Large Unknown Low

Metals, layered maficb Unknown Possible Unknown

Sand and gravel Good Limited Good

NF = National forest.

a Includes zinc, silver, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, copper.

b Made up mainly of magnesian rock-forming silicates.

Source: Seeger (1997).

Potential for

discovery

227
Table 7.12—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the Oklahoma

portion of the Assessment area

Reserve estimates

Mineral commodity Assessment area Ouachita NF

Bentonite, volcanic ash Limited Unknown Low

Chat, aggregate 61,500,000 tons Unknown Known sources

Clay and shale Unknown Unknown Moderate

Coal 5,896,260,000 tons Unknown Moderate to high

Coalbed methane 5 trillion cubic ft Unknown Low due to

economics

Granite, aggregate Unknown Unknown Low

Granite, dimension Unknown Unknown Low

Industrial sand Unknown Unknown Low

Lime Many known sources Unknown High

Limestone, aggregate Almost unlimited Unknown High

Limestone, dimension Unknown Unknown Low

Manganese Unknown Unknown Very low

Migrabitumen Unknown Unknown Low

Natural gas 20–51 trillion cubic ft Unknown Moderate to high

Oil Unknown, 6 fieldsa Unknown Low to moderate

Sand and gravel High Unknown Moderate

Sandstone, aggregate Almost unlimited Yes High

Sandstone, dimension Large reserves Yes High

Tripoli Unknown Unknown Moderate

Vanadium Unknown Unknown Very low

Zinc, lead, copper Unknown Unknown Very low

NF = national forest.

a Region or area with known oil deposits.

Source: Suneson (1997).

Potential for

discovery

Table 7.13—Actions and associated time and cost to develop a large lead mine on private or national forest lands in the

Missouri portion of the Assessment area (with comparisons to time and cost in previous decades)

Development action Private lands National forest lands

Years to obtain permit or construct mine

Obtain mine/mill permits, circa 1970 2 to 3 Likely the same or slightly more than private

Obtain permits, new mine/mill, 1997 Minimum 3 to 4 Minimum 6 to 7

Construct shaft/surface plant, 1997 Minimum 3 to 4 Likely the same as private

Total new mine/mill development time 10 to 11 years 13 to 15

Exploration, development, and construction costs (1997 dollars)

Cost to develop 2,500 tpd mine in 1960 3,200,000 Likely the same as private

Cost to develop 5,000 tpd mine in 1967 14,400,000 Likely the same as private

Cost to develop 5,000 tpd mine in 1973 21,600,000 Likely the same or slightly more than on

private land

Cost to develop 4,000 tpd mine in 1985 31,000,000 Likely slightly more than private

Cost to duplicate a 1973 or 1985 mine in 1997 100,000,000 to 125,000,000 Added costs to develop

Exploration cost in 1997 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 Likely slightly more than private

Exploration cost for 300 ft drillhole in 1997 7,000 to 12,000 Likely slightly more than private

Exploration cost for deep drillhole in 1997 20,000 per 2,000 ft Likely slightly more than private

Capital costs for new ore deposit in 1997 70,000,000 to 120,000,000 Cost will exceed private

Tpd = tons per day; ft = foot or feet.

Source: Seeger (1997).

228
Reclamation costs often are high. A case in point is

the reclamation of bauxite (aluminum ore) mines south of

Little Rock, AR, where previous mining operations

affected several local streams. The Aluminum Company

of America (Alcoa) and Reynolds Aluminum Company

are working with State agencies to reclaim the mined

lands and mitigate effects to the streams (Durham 1997,

Harper 1997, Keith 1997, Williams 1997). As of 1997,

the Reynolds Aluminum Co. had committed over $55

million for land reclamation projects that will mitigate

effects to 1,200 ac in the Hurricane Creek drainage and

Alcoa had obligated $20 million for water treatment,

earth moving, and revegetation of 850 ac of companyowned tracts in the Hurricane Creek drainage (Durham

1997, Harper 1997, Keith 1997, Williams 1997).

Demand

A number of mineral commodities produced within the

Assessment area enjoy national and international significance. This is particularly true for lead from the Missouri

Ozark Mountains and Mark Twain National Forest and

for quartz crystal, novaculite used for whetstones and

abrasives, and high-quality electronic-grade quartz for

fiber optics and other hi-tech materials from the Arkansas

Ouachita Mountains and Ouachita National Forest. Other

mineral commodities from the Assessment area—such as

building stone, coal, and gas from eastern Oklahoma; fire

clay and monument grade granite from Missouri; and

tripoli and gas from Arkansas—are all marketed nationally as well as within the Assessment area.

Mineral collectors and “rockhounds” from around the

world come to the Assessment area specifically to

explore for and collect unique mineral specimens. Local

Chambers of Commerce and public information centers

receive numerous inquiries and dispense many brochures and pamphlets catering to mineral resource

hobby and educational interests. State geological

agencies, the Forest Service, university geology departments, mineral organizations, and others provide and

assist in mineral and geology theme tours within the

Assessment area for schools, educational organizations

like Elderhostel, and other professional and lay person

groups. In 1995, the State of Oklahoma, recognizing the

public interest in rockhounding, hosted a 3-day workshop for rockhounds, which is described in some detail

by Johnson and Suneson (1996). A number of Highlands

businesses cater to these interests as well, further

adding to the social legacy of the minerals within the

Assessment area. Within the heart of the Ouachita

Mountains of Arkansas, the communities of Mt. Ida,

Hot Springs, and Jessieville alone have at least 24 shops

specializing in gemstones and minerals and at least 10

different commercial mineral-digging locations.

Price

Table 7.15 shows price trends for 19 of the

nonenergy and energy minerals in the Highlands. With

the exception of silver, which has declined in value, all

mineral categories for which trend data are available

have increased in price since 1987.

Table 7.14—Typical size requirements for mining activities within the

Assessment area

Mining activity Size required AR MO OK

Aggregate pit on national forest 0.25 to 6 ac x

Gas well padsite, deep 6 to 8 ac x x

Gas well padsite, shallow 1.5 to 2 ac x x

Padsite for metals exploration drillhole 100 ft x 100 ft x

Producing gas well site 0.23 ac x x

Quartz mine on national forest 0.25 to 5 ac x

Quartz mine on private land 0.25 to 40 ac x

Surface plant, metals mine-mill facility Approx. 40 ac x

Tailings impoundment, metals mine 200 to 300 ac x

Underground metals mine 200 to 400 ac x

Ac = acres; ft = feet.

Source: Seeger (1997), USDA FS (1996b).

229
Table 7.15—Change in price and range of prices for 19 mineral commodities from 1987 to 1996

Mineral 1987–1996 1987–1996

commodity price change price change 1996 price

- - - - - - - Dollars per unit - - - - - - -

Baritea Overall price increase 34.86 to 61.16/ton 50.00/lb

Cementa Steady price increase 49.10 to 70.00/ton 70.00/ton

Coalb Unknown Not reported 30/ton

Cobalta Significant price increase 6.56 to 29.21/lb 26.00/lb

Coppera Overall price increase 0.82 to 1.39/lb 1.08/lb

Diamondb Unknown Not reported 1 to 10/point

Gasb Unknown Not reported 1.50 to 3.50/mcf

Industrial sanda Steady price increase 13.00 to 17.86/ton 17.56/ton

Iron orea Relatively stable 0.53 to 0.79/ton 0.67/ton

Leada Slight increase in price 0.31 to 0.48/lb 0.48/lb

Limea Reported for 1987–1992 49.96 to 51.70/ton Not available

Nepheline syeniteb Unknown Not reported 4 to 25/ton

Nickela Overall price increase 2.19 to 6.09/lb 3.40/lb

Quartz, crystalb Unknown Not reported 10 to 100/lb

Quartz, industrialb Unknown Not reported 1 to 3/lb

Sand and gravela Steady price increase 3.35 to 4.43/ton 4.43/ton

Silvera Price dropped steadily 7.01 to 3.94/troy oz 5.30/troy oz

Stone, crushed brokena Steady price increase 4.37 to 5.43/ton 5.43/ton

Zinca Slight increase in price 0.41 to 0.82/lb 0.51/lb

Mcf = thousand cubic feet; lb = pound; oz = ounce.

a From Seeger (1997).

b From Howard (1997).

Source: Seeger (1997), Howard (1997).

Public Consumption

The annual per-capita consumption of all nonfuel

(nonenergy) minerals in the United States totals nearly

22,000 pounds (table 7.16). In addition, the annual percapita consumption of energy minerals is approximately

18,000 pounds (USDI BM 1991). Mineral resources

from the Assessment area end up in a wide variety of

products and uses. From Missouri comes lead used in

car batteries and the lining of hospital X-ray rooms.

Arkansas provides quartz used in modern watches,

computers, and the fiber optics that help doctors see into

minute areas of a human body. Oklahoma coal generates power for 150,000 eastern Oklahoma homes. The

Missouri Geological Survey report for this Assessment

provides details on public consumption of Missouri

minerals from within the Assessment area.

Imports and Recycling

The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (Public

Law 91-631) declares that it is in the national interest

for the Federal Government to stabilize domestic mining

and mine reclamation industries. Twenty years later, in a

report written at the request of the Federal government,

the National Research Council warned of the declining

competitiveness of the U.S. minerals and metals

producing industry along with other domestic industries

(NRC 1990). While the mineral industry periodically

adjusts to changes in public policies and otherinfluences,

the public demand for products and goods from mineral

resources has remained strong and in most cases has

increased.

Imports and recycling of mineral commodities affect

commodity production. Imports of minerals are due to

either (1) the lack of the mineral resource in an area or

(2) an imported mineral product being able to compete

better economically with products produced locally. In

230
the former case, the imported mineral helps make up a

supply need for the product and may enhance employment. In the latter case, the imported mineral will likely

have an adverse impact on domestic mineral commodity

industries. The imported mineral will probably have a

negative effect on domestic exploration and development for new mineral resource projects. United States

imports of ever-greater tonnages of mineral resources

noticeably affect local, regional, and national economies.

Within the Highlands are several very good examples

of recycling. In 1996, the Missouri lead industry recycled over 100,000 tons of lead, primarily from vehicle

batteries (Seeger 1997), representing over 10 percent of

the recycled lead in the United States. Nationally,

970,000 tons of lead are recycled annually, which is 56

percent of the apparent consumption of lead in the

United States. Since 1989, 53 to 62 percent of the lead

consumed nationally has been from recycled lead

processed in the Missouri portion of the Assessment

area (Seeger 1997). Seeger discusses additional examples of recycling in the Missouri Highlands. In

Arkansas, the aluminum and the vanadium industries

actively recycle the minerals that they are known for

internationally. In all three cases (lead, aluminum, and

vanadium) these metals recycle through plants once

used almost exclusively for processing newly mined

materials.

Table 7.16—Average annual per capita consumption in the United States of

nonfuel minerals and U.S. population supplied with minerals from the

Highlands

Nonmetallic minerals Metallic minerals

 Pounds Pounds

Annual per capita consumption of nonfuel mineralsa

Clay 350 Aluminum 42

Cement 724 Copper 19

Phosphate rock 383 Iron and steel 1,200

Sand and gravel 7,600 Lead 11

Salt 345 Manganese 6

Stone 9,700 Zinc 11

Other 1,300 Other 1 8

U.S. residents supplied annually by nonfuel minerals from the Highlandsb

Cement 27,035,912 Aluminumc 47,000

Clayc 11,565,565 Copper 986,316

Sand and gravel 5,332,846 Iron ore 608,333

Stone 24,919,085 Lead 58,000,000

Zinc 8,363,636

a From USDI BM (1991) and Seeger (1997).

b From Seeger (1997) and others, as noted.

c Clay and aluminum calculated from USDI BM (1991), Seeger (1997), and Howard (1997).

231
Unique Mineral Features of the

Highlands

The Assessment area boasts a wide range of geologically interesting sites and natural attractions. Many

of these are listed by counties in a matrix developed

specifically for the Assessment. A spreadsheet titled

“Geologic Interest Sites Within the Assessment Area”

(available at the Assessment Web site, <www.fs.fed.us/

oonf/ooha.welcome.htm>) contains information on some

of the most interesting geologic features. Features

include caves and unusual geologic formations, mineralcollecting localities, and other historic mining and

interpretive sites. Several communities within the

Assessment area have minerals-related theme celebrations. Others have museums either wholly or partly

devoted to mineral exhibits and local mining histories

contributing to the significance of mineral resources in

the Assessment area.

Recognizing the educational and scientific values

associated with the mineral resources they are recovering, mining companies often contribute quality specimens to museums, schools, universities, and professional

geological agencies and organizations across the

country. High-quality mineral specimens from the

Assessment area are displayed in the Smithsonian

National Museum in Washington, DC, the National

Mining Museum in Leadville, CO, the Natural History

Museum of New York City, and other museums. At

events surrounding his 1992 inauguration, President

William J. Clinton presented guests with special commemorative mementos made by novaculite and quartz

crystal companies in the Ouachita Mountains of his

home State of Arkansas.

Assessment area mining companies have consistently

contributed minerals to the State geological agencies so

that mineral kits can be prepared for school children. In

Arkansas alone, each year, geologists and schoolteachers

distribute over 40,000 of these kits composed of minerals

donated by Arkansas mining companies. Missouri mining

companies contribute minerals specimens in a similar

manner there as well. Some Assessment area companies

provide scholarships, help fund research projects of

various types, and contribute toward various community

events and human resource organizations (Seeger 1997).

By opening their mines to professional geologists,

researchers, and students, these companies ensure that a

wealth of information is documented that might otherwise not be gathered due to cost restraints. This critical

information pertains to the nature and occurrence of the

ore deposits and to our understanding of the geologic

formations that house them within the Assessment area.

This kind of knowledge is important to the understanding

of ore deposits in general, improving chances of locating

more deposits both within the Assessment area and

elsewhere.

Implications and Opportunities

The Assessment area is a very important provider of

mineral resources for local economies, the Nation and

the world. The potential for discovery of additional

mineral deposits on national forest land and elsewhere in

the region ranges from low to high, depending on the

resource. With increasing demand for some commodities, land managers will need to address the demand for

additional access to explore for new mineral resources.

At 4.4 million ac, the Highlands’ national forests

comprise the largest land base within the Assessment

area managed by one entity—the Forest Service. With

known important mineral resources and the potential for

new discoveries associated with them, opportunity exists

to coordinate minerals program management and policy

among the three national forests.

The opportunity also exists to identify and establish

mineral resource potential zones, or target areas, on the

Highlands national forests and to identify environmentally sensitive conditions or areas to be mitigated in

anticipation of future exploration proposals within those

zones.

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment brought

together three State geological agencies to compile

important mineral resource information independent of

State boundaries. Deposits of many minerals overlap

two or more Assessment area States. Opportunity

exists for the three State agencies to continue working

together with the Forest Service in future joint projects

within the Assessment area, including periodically

updating the information gathered for this Assessment.

By working together, the region’s geologists can gain

from shared expertise and better coordinated policy

development and implementation.

232
Chapter 8: Range Resources, Special Forest Products, and

Special Uses

Question 8.1: What are the nature and magnitude

of the range resources, special forest products, and

special uses programs on the national forests of

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands?

The national forests that are part of this Assessment

have three programs that have relatively small economic

and social impacts regionally but nevertheless are important to local communities and individuals living near the

forests. The range resources, special forest products, and

special uses programs are discussed together here

because the available information about each one was not

sufficient to warrant treatment in separate chapters, yet

the Social-Economic Team recognized the need to include

them in the Assessment. These programs do not often

make headlines but are a significant part of the day-today workload of national forest staff and affect the daily

lives of many area residents.

Key Findings

 1. There are approximately 13,600,000 acres (ac) of

non-Federal grazing land in the Highlands; the

national forests provide an additional 743,000 ac of

grazing land. More than 90 percent of the national

forest range is grazed woodlands (principally on the

Ouachita National Forest) that have low forage value.

 2. In the decade 1987 through 1996, the number of

individuals holding permits to use the national forest

range in the Highlands declined 67 percent, and the

number of animal unit months (AUM’s) of range use

dropped 63 percent.

 3. There is a large and increasing demand for forest

plants used for herbal dietary supplements and

medicines. Arkansas accounts for 2 percent and

Missouri accounts for 3 percent of total U.S.

production of wild ginseng. The Ozark National

Forest permits the limited harvesting of ginseng;

otherwise, the three national forests have not been a

significant source for these forest products.

 4. Firewood is in demand on all Highlands’ national

forests. While the national forests have traditionally

been a source of firewood, its availability on the

Ouachita National Forest has declined by 62 percent

since 1992.

 5. The total revenue generated by the sale of all special

forest products on the three national forests in 1996

was approximately $32,000.

 6. Many varied special uses are permitted on the

Highlands’ national forests to accommodate community needs, including economic development. In 1996,

there were more than 2,000 special uses under

permit, generating fee revenues of nearly $330,000.

Data Sources

The Social-Economic Team obtained information about

the national forest range resources from the Forest

Service Grazing Statistical Summaries for 1987 and

1996 (USDA FS 1988, 1997c) and from the records of

the individual national forests. For information on other

resources, the team used National Resources Inventory

(NRI) estimates of non-Federal grazing land in the

Highlands (USDA NRCS 1997a). Finally, they obtained

data for the analyses of special forest products and

special uses from office records of each national forest

and published studies.

Range Resources

Within the Highlands, there are about 13,595,600 acres

(ac) of non-Federal grazing lands (USDA NRCS 1997a).

The three national forests provide an additional 743,000

ac of range, accounting for about 5 percent of the

Highlands total grazing land. The majority (704,000 ac) of

the national forest range is grazed woodland that typically

has little available forage but does include some occasional timber harvest areas suitable for grazing for a

period of time before being replaced by shrubs and trees

(table 8.1). Nearly 25,000 ac of national forest range land

233
are grazed natural open land (i.e., land that is mostly

free of trees due to the ecological conditions of the site)

and about 15,000 ac are improved pasture.

More than 90 percent of the national forest grazing

land is on the Ouachita National Forest; nearly all of this

is woodland range with low forage value. About 60

percent of the Ouachita’s range is in inactive allotments,

i.e., not under permit and not used (table 8.2). In

contrast, the 36,000 ac of “total range” land on the

Mark Twain National Forest are entirely natural open

land and improved pasture with about 75 percent in

active range allotments. The Ozark National Forest has

the least amount of grazed land. About 70 percent is

grazed woodland range, and 30 percent is improved

pasture. All the Ozark range allotments are active.

In 1996, the range management program of all three

Highlands forests represented 0.6 percent of national

forest expenditures and accounted for 0.1 percent of

receipts. Although the national forest range resources

are of small regional significance, they are economically

important to some local livestock owners who rely, in

part, on the availability of national forest range land for

grazing their cattle. As of 1996, there were 131 individuals holding range permits using the Highlands’ national

forests for 28,122 animal unit months (AUM’s) of cattle

grazing. (An animal unit month represents a cow-calf

pair grazing for one month.)

There is a sharp decline in the use of national forests

for cattle grazing. In the decade 1987 through 1996, the

number of national forest range permittees in the

Highlands declined 67 percent and the number of

AUM’s of range use dropped 63 percent. This decline

in use was most dramatic on the Ouachita National

Forest where the number of permittees declined 75

percent and livestock use dropped 81 percent (USDA

FS 1988, 1997c). The greatest decline has been in the

use of woodland range; however, the demand for

improved pasture land on national forests remains

relatively high.

Along with the decline in grazing, a deterioration in

existing range “improvements” (e.g., fences and

cattleguards) has occurred. Any significant increases in

the range program would require a significant investment to restore or replace such “improvements.”

Table 8.1—Area of grazed woodland, grazed natural open land, and

improved pasture in national forests of the Highlands

Grazed

National Grazed natural Improved Total

forest woodlanda open land pasture range

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Acres - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ouachita 697,531 0 1,111 698,642

Ozark 6,000 0 2,304 8,304

Mark Twain 0 24,500 11,500 36,000

Total 703,531 24,500 14,915 742,946

a It is estimated that more than 90 percent of the woodland range in range allotments

on the Ouachita and Ozark National Forests is heavily forested and produces very little

forage. Within this area, even-aged timber harvest units can produce higher volumes

of range forage for several years following a harvest (Bukenhofer 1998).

Table 8.2—Active and inactive national forest range

allotments

Active Inactive

range range Total

National forest allotments allotments range

 - - - - - - - - - - - - Acres - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ouachita 256,765 441,877 698,642

Ozark 8,304 0 8,304

Mark Twain 27,000 9,000 36,000

Total 292,069 450,877 742,946

234
The general decline in demand for national forest

range is attributable to a variety of factors including:

(1) the retirement of traditional permittees without

replacement by younger generations, (2) the rise in

grazing fees, (3) the decrease in small-scale ranchers

who have been the traditional national forest range

users (permittees), (4) the need of large-scale cattle

operations for higher quality forage than national forests

can provide, and (5) the decrease in forage value in

woodland grazing land resulting from the reduction in

even-aged timber harvesting (USDA FS 1990,

Bukenhofer 1998, Owen 1998). For an additional

discussion of range resources, see Chapter 2 of Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife (USDA FS 1999b).

Special Forest Products

Special forest products encompass the array of biotic

resources—other than timber, minerals, and wild

game—that people harvest from the forest for personal

or commercial purposes. These special forest products

include plants with medicinal or pharmaceutical value

(e.g., ginseng and purple coneflower), wood and plant

material used for decorative purposes (e.g., Christmas

trees, grapevines, and pine knots and cones), firewood,

and edible fruits and nuts (e.g., sassafrass stems,

blackberries, muscadine, and hickory nuts). Harvesting

of special forest products is common throughout the

country and world; in many areas, such harvests are a

mutltigenerational tradition of folk culture (Vance 1997).

To the extent that national forests provide a source for

these products, they contribute to the lifestyles, traditions, crafts, and cottage industries of local communities.

The demand for some products has grown in recent

years with the rise in popularity of herbal dietary

supplements and homeopathic medical treatment. In the

mid-1990’s, sales outlets for herbal dietary supplements

expanded from the specialty health and natural food

stores to the broader chain pharmacies and other mass

market outlets (Foster 1997, Mater 1997). National as

well as international markets exist for some products

found in the Highlands.

Approximately 80,000 pounds (lbs) of wild ginseng

are harvested annually in the United States. The

wholesale price for wild ginseng in 1995 was approximately $500 a pound. In 1996, Arkansas accounted for

approximately 2 percent and Missouri accounted for 3

percent of the total U.S. production of wild ginseng.

Both of these States are approved by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service to export ginseng. Oklahoma, where the

status of ginseng is classified by The Nature Conservancy as “critically imperiled,” is not approved for

ginseng export (Foster 1997, Robbins 1998). Exports

account for approximately 95 to 97 percent of the

ginseng grown in the United States most of which is

sent to Hong Kong for distribution to international

markets (primarily Asia) (Foster 1997). Exports of

ginseng increased 180 percent between 1991 and 1996

(Robbins 1998).

Goldenseal and purple coneflower (echinacea) are

two other plants of the Highlands with international

demand. Approximately 100 tons of goldenseal are

harvested annually in the United States with an estimated price of $40 per pound, and the price for wild

echinacea reached $30 per pound in 1995 (Foster 1997).

Although information was not available to estimate the

demand for special forest products specifically in the

Highlands, a 1993 study of several products in the State

of Missouri indicates that the demand is significant, as

shown below, and is expected to increase (Mater 1997):

Species Demand (lbs)

Black walnut (Juglans nigra) hulls 200,000

Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) 230,000

Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) 275,000

May apple (Podophyllum peltatum) 220,000

Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea) 65,000

Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) 200,000

Witch hazel (Hamamelis spp.) 110,000

Trends toward the commercial cultivation of some

species, such as ginseng, goldenseal, and purple coneflower, may eventually relieve the current pressure on

wild populations (Foster 1997).

National forests permit the removal of some special

forest products (see table 8.3). Permit sales totaled

about $33,000 in 1996. Firewood sales from all three

forests accounted for 56 percent of this revenue, and 42

percent came from ginseng sales on the Ozark National

Forest. More than 900 lbs of ginseng root were harvested during that year. (The Ozark National Forest

recently instituted measures to restrict the harvest of

ginseng to ensure its continued viability.)

235
National forests are a traditional source of firewood,

and removal of firewood is permitted on all three

Highlands’ national forests. Although demand for

firewood has remained consistently high, its availability

on the Ouachita National Forest has declined. This

decline is due to a reduction in the use of even-aged

timber harvesting and an increased application of

uneven-aged harvesting from which firewood is less

available. Between 1992 and 1996, the amount of

firewood sold on the Ouachita National Forest declined

by 62 percent. In contrast, the availability of firewood

on the Ozark National Forest has slightly increased.

Other special forest products sold under national forest

permit include acorns, grapevines, pine knots (wood with

high resin content), and sassafras stems. Many requests

for the harvest of ferns, moss, lichens, plants, and other

material from national forests are denied due to lack of

funding and staff to assess the sustainability of the

resource and to adequately monitor harvest operations.

The numerous instances of illegal removal of products

such as moss, purple coneflower, and grapevines point to

the significant demand for these forest resources.

Special Uses of National Forests

As with other public lands, national forests often

meet a variety of needs of communities, individuals,

organizations, and agencies for uses such as dams or

reservoirs for flood control, electric and other utility and

railroad rights-of-way, military maneuvers, research

sites, and other commercial and non-commercial

activities. By providing a means for these special uses

to occur when private land is not a feasible option,

national forests play a key role in the infrastructure and

well-being of many communities. In 1996, more than

2,000 special uses were under permit or easement on

the three national forests (table 8.4). Approximately 60

percent of these authorized special uses were for road

access across national forest land. Some of the special

uses such as television broadcast towers or weather

stations meet regional needs. Permit fees for special

uses on the three national forests generated nearly

$330,000 in revenue in 1996.

Table 8.3—Special forest products sold on Highlands’ national forests in 1996, number of permits, quantity, and revenue

Special forest product

Christmas Grape- Pine

National forest Acorns trees Firewood Ginseng vines Hay knots Sassafras Total

Ouachita

No. of permits 0 3 300 0 2 0 2 0 307

Quantity 0 3 trees 566 cords 0 200 ft 0 NA 0 0

Revenue ($) 0 30 2,830 0 20 0 0 0 2,880

Ozark

No. of permits 1 0 766 302 1 2 0 4 1,076

Quantity 77 lbs 0 1,532 cords 906 lbs 1,400 ft 351 bales 0 800 stems

Revenue ($) 10 0 9,066 13,575 35 543 0 40 23,269

Mark Twain

No. of permits 0 0 596 0 0 0 0 0 596

Quantity 0 0 596 cords 0 0 0 0 0 0

Revenue ($) 0 0 6,395 0 0 0 0 0 6,395

Total

No. of permits 1 3 1,662 302 3 2 2 4 1,979

Quantity 77 lbs 3 trees 2,694 cords 906 lbs 1,600 ft 351 bales NA 800 stems 0

Revenue ($) 10 30 18,291 13,575 55 543 0 40 32,544

Ft = feet; NA = not applicable; lbs = pounds.

236
Table 8.4—Special uses under permit or easement on national forests in 1996a

Ouachita NF Ozark-St. Francis NF Mark Twain NF Total

Type of use Permits Area Permits Area Permits Area Permits Area

Acres Acres Acres Acres

Airport beacon 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 9

Barn 0 0 6 4 0 0 6 4

Camp, organization 0 0 2 14 1 20 3 34

Cemetery 4 4 8 7 11 12 23 23

Church 2 5 3 2 5 6 10 13

Club 0 0 2 31 0 0 2 31

Camp and picnic area (community) 47 0 10 119 0 0 57 119

Cultivation 1 1 2 6 5 67 8 74

Dam, reservoir, impoundment 23 1,956 10 947 0 0 33 2,903

Electric cooperative 7 522 7 164 0 0 14 686

Electronic site-commercial 26 84 60 359 47 1,750 133 2,193

Electronic site-government 18 68 0 0 0 0 18 68

Fence 1 1 5 15 1 2 7 18

Geological exploration 3 49 0 0 0 0 3 49

Group event 0 0 4 1,800 1 30 5 1,830

Livestock area 4 462 15 295 11 84 30 841

Military training area 0 0 6 70 2 2,200 8 2,270

Miscellaneous improvement 14 9 25 42 18 15 57 66

Observatory 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 3

Occupancy permit 0 0 13 17 0 0 13 17

Orchard 1 36 0 0 0 0 1 36

Outfitter and guide service 9 0 16 2 8 18,024 33 18,026

Park, playground 0 0 3 536 2 61 5 597

Oil and gas pipeline 4 330 11 522 6 36 21 888

Oil and gas facility 0 0 1 1 1 65 2 66

Powerline 18 1,157 17 1,644 59 3,532 94 6,333

Railroad right-of-way 0 0 0 0 2 101 2 101

Recreation event 3 12 7 605 13 2,930 23 3,547

Recreation residence 0 0 59 26 0 0 59 26

Research study 0 0 13 60 5 150,000 18 150,060

Resource surveys and site survey 6 0 6 5 1 80 13 85

Road easement (depts. of

transportation) 12 84 34 728 30 706 76 1,518

Road easement (private road) 54 21 231 602 423 5,907 708 6,530

Road easement (public road) 172 734 29 278 105 680 306 1,692

Road permit (temporary) 32 38 0 0 0 0 32 38

Road permit (WEYCO) 120 0 0 0 0 0 120 0

School education center 2 73 3 322 0 0 5 395

Service building 3 10 6 6 5 5 14 21

Stockpile site 4 52 0 0 1 3 5 55

Stream gauging station 0 0 5 40 0 0 5 40

Television broadcast 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 1

Trash transfer station 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Vendor 0 0 1 5 1 0 2 5

Visitor center, museum 0 0 0 0 1 9 1 9

Water transfer pipe 18 17 25 124 14 27 57 168

Weather station 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1

Well, spring, windmill 1 0 17 5 2 0 20 5

Total 613 5,736 666 9,404 783 186,355 2,062 201,495

NF = national forest; WEYCO = Weyerhaeuser Company.

a Includes uses on national forest (NF) lands outside the Highlands (Cedar Creek Ranger District on the Mark Twain NF, Tiak Ranger District

on the Ouachita NF, and the St. Francis NF).

Source: USDA FS (1997b).

237
Implications and Opportunities

The dramatic decline in cattle grazing on the Highlands’ national forests over the last decade is noteworthy. The factors that have led to this decline are likely to

continue; an increase in demand for national forest

range is not expected.

The demand for some special forest products is

growing, especially for those species used in herbal and

homeopathic medicines such as ginseng, goldenseal, and

purple coneflower. With few exceptions, national forests

traditionally have given little emphasis to determining the

status of the plant species used for these products and

to evaluating their potential for sustainable harvest. With

insufficient information on species status and limited

funds for program administration, national forest staff

are often unable to grant permits for removal of some

products. Problems with illegal removal of the more

valuable species may grow if demand increases. With

rising demand, there may be a need and opportunity to

more fully evaluate the status of these special forest

products and to reconsider their role in national forest

programs.

The availability of national forest lands to accommodate a variety of commercial and noncommercial uses

not possible on private lands is vital to local communities

and regional economies. As the Highlands’ population

continues to grow, particularly in rural areas (see

Chapter 2 of this report), and as the evolution of technology imposes new facility requirements, there will

likely be new and greater demands for use of national

forests and other public lands. Managers will need to

address the possible resource impacts, including effects

on scenic quality, when responding to the additional

demands for land use.

238
Chapter 9: Attitudes, Values, and Public Opinions

Question 9.1: What are the attitudes, values, and

opinions of people in the Highlands (including

interest groups and forest inholders) regarding

national forests and the Forest Service?

To help managers better understand public interests

and perceptions concerning national forest management,

the Social-Economic Team sought to answer the above

question. However, the team found no comprehensive

data for the Highlands per se and no data that focused

specifically on the attitudes and values of national forest

inholders (owners of land surrounded by or adjacent to

national forests). Time requirements and cost made the

prospect of developing and conducting a new survey

infeasible. Information provided in this chapter therefore

represents a distillation of studies available to the team,

each of which had its own focus and objectives. It is

possible that other important data on these topics exist.

The goals and objectives of the studies drawn upon for

this chapter included: (1) ascertaining the values of the

general public (Forest Service Values Poll), (2) attempting

to build a national consensus about forest management

(Seventh American Forest Congress), (3) compiling

background information for State Comprehensive Outdoor

Recreation Plans in the Assessment area, (4) characterizing a selected group of national forest “stakeholders”

(Kuzmic and Caneday 1996), (5) analysis of public

involvement practices and preferences on the Ouachita

National Forest (Fendley and others in press), (6) polling a

local public’s “forest values,” (7) ascertaining the attitudes

of nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners concerning forest management, and (8) gauging public

response to the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment.

The methods researchers employed in these studies

ranged from scientifically conducted telephone polling of

the U.S. public to indepth interviews, focus groups,

roundtable processes, and even summaries of oral and

written statements and opinions expressed at public

meetings. The various studies also differed in the ways they

identified respondent populations and collected samples

including, for instance, probability sampling of U.S., State,

or regional populations; sampling from lists of interest

groups; and purposeful selection of “key informants.”

 Key Findings

 1. There is a high level of public support for maintaining

healthy forests and environmental quality, although

the concept of a healthy forest is subject to a variety

of interpretations.

 2. Generally, the public accepts the idea that forests

fulfill a variety of roles—from pristine wilderness to

intensive tree farms—and that forest management

objectives will differ among and within landowner

categories.

 3. Most respondents in public opinion surveys support

the following: (1) forests should be managed for

multiple uses; (2) forests should provide a range of

goods, services, experiences, and values; and

(3) public forests should not provide goods and

services at the expense of long-term forest health

and environmental quality.

 4. There is widespread agreement that different uses

of national forests should be balanced (e.g., among

recreation, timber management, mining, wilderness,

wildlife); however, there is no consensus about what

that balance should be.

 5. In various surveys, 40 to 50 percent of the respondents disapproved of timber cutting for wood

products on public lands; if environmental protection

measures were listed as conditions or the management objective included benefits to wildlife and/or

scenery, as many as 70 percent of the respondents

tended to be in favor of such timber harvests.

 6. The public expects the USDA Forest Service to take

a scientific approach to management of the national

forests, but they also want the agency to encourage

public participation in decisionmaking and monitoring.

 7. Although some segments of the public have a strong

interest in environmental issues and public land

management, few people have a good grasp of land

management principles and practices or even know

which agencies are responsible for managing public

land.

 8. Results of an Arkansas survey indicated that

nonindustrial private forest landowners have strong

interests in a variety of environmental issues. Their

239
stated reasons for owning forest lands seem

heavily weighted in favor of esthetic and environmental values.

 9. Although it is difficult to estimate how many people

in the Highlands believe private property owners

face imminent threats of “takeovers” by United

Nations-sponsored groups and/or government

entities, those who hold such beliefs do so with

great conviction. The public opinions voiced most

often during Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment Team working meetings in 1996 and 1997

were those having to do with perceived threats to

private property and U.S. sovereignty.

The Role of Attitudes, Values, and

Public Opinions

This chapter briefly examines both overall national

trends in attitudes and opinions and a small collection of

studies relating specifically to the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands area. The available sources use different

terms, sometimes interchangeably, and therefore some

definitions are needed at the outset.

“Values” are relatively firmly held and socially shared

positions or expressions about what is good or right;

they are abstract, normative, and considered to be

somewhat stable. Lachman (1991) defines “attitude” as

“a predisposition to respond to a focal object. [These]

predispositions or sets are learned through experience,

[and] the existence of an attitude is inferred from

consistencies in an individual’s behavior.” Attitudes are

not behavior but are considered to predispose people

toward certain behaviors; typically, they change more

readily than values. Each attitude has three components:

(1) a belief, (2) a favorable or unfavorable evaluation,

and (3) a behavioral disposition.

“Opinion” is defined as “a time-bound judgment or

speculation that fluctuates unpredictably. In contrast to

beliefs—tenaciously held convictions that represent

what we ‘know’ to be true—opinions express what we

feel to be true at a given moment. Opinions, then,

generally are short-run impressions or ‘guesses’ about

specific objects, ideas, issues, or events that are usually

involved with aspects of public affairs” (Lachman

1991). “Public opinion” consists of the opinions generally shared by a significant number of people on matters

considered to be of public significance, and hence

predispose people toward certain behaviors on such

matters. Values underlie attitudes, opinions, and behavior

and, while there is always some coherence and integration among the values individuals hold, people also

frequently hold values that appear to be inconsistent

with each other. In a democratic society, public opinion

is ultimately the major determinant of public policy. In

the system of participatory decisionmaking widely

adopted by Federal agencies, including the Forest

Service, public opinion also becomes a major factor in

the implementation of policy. Public opinion has two

distinct components: (1) the “average view” of the

public on a particular issue and (2) how the public

actually articulates attitudes and values to policymakers,

administrators, elected officials, and others.

Many citizens have neither the time nor the resources to adequately understand the issues, let alone

time to participate in the decisionmaking process.

Organizations and other “communities of interest” (see

Chapter 3) therefore play key roles in injecting public

opinions, values, and attitudes into the decisionmaking

process. Organizations articulate members’ values and

attitudes through their leadership and via issue campaigns. Television, radio, Internet, and print media also

help define and propagate what becomes effective

public opinion.

The role of public opinion is complicated by several

other factors. First, although underlying values and even

attitudes may have some stability, the attention of the

public is dynamic and subject to rapid change. Ideas and

issues propagated as “sound bites” come and go quickly,

and something that is acceptable today may be condemned tomorrow. Finally, ascertaining and gauging

public opinion, especially about something as complicated as natural resource management, is very difficult,

and the wording of questions and the context within

which they are asked strongly influence the responses.

Despite these complications, many social scientists and

public land managers now recognize that the attitudes

and values held by the general public are important

elements of the “social context”—i.e., the social,

cultural, economic, and political setting—in which public

land management occurs.

240
Patterns and Trends

Dunlap and his colleagues have documented the

growth of what they call a new environmental paradigm

(Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, Dunlap and Mertig 1991,

Dunlap and others 1992), and national opinion polls

support the idea that there has been widespread adoption of more environmentally friendly views (CEA and

ODC 1990). In an overview of changing attitudes and

opinions about environmental issues, McDonald and

Brown (1995) say:

Over the years, shifts in natural resource values

have taken place, spurred by social trends such as

the environmental justice movement, holistic

concepts of ecosystem management, and increased

participation in outdoor recreation. These changes

have had a profound impact on the way natural

resources are being managed. . . . Mass communication, coupled with increasingly worrisome

predictions of environmental degradation and a

better understanding of ecological processes, is

radically changing the way Americans think about

the nation’s (and the world’s) natural resources.

Contemporary American society, bombarded with

conflicting media reports of the health of the natural

environment, seems to sense that the environment

is now something that must, at the very least,

become part of their repertoire of concern.

At the same time, some segments of the U.S. public

have reacted sharply to what they regard as the excesses of environmentalism. Property rights and “wise

use” organizations have multiplied in the 1980’s and

1990’s and are now working in many arenas to counter

the efforts of environmental organizations, oppose

government regulations, and support traditional resource

extraction activities. Arnold and Gottlieb (1994) and

Coffman (1994) provide vivid insider accounts of some

of the views of the wise use/property rights movements.

Public opinion about national forest (and other public

land) management resists easy categorization, despite

the common tendency to cast the range of opinions in

stark black-and-white terms, i.e., advocacy for the

environment versus advocacy for development, resource use, and/or property rights. This chapter provides

insights into the complex and dynamic arena of the

public’s views of forestry, public land management, and

the environment, beginning with the results of two

efforts to gauge U.S. public values and opinions about

forest management issues.

Forest Service Values Poll

One national source of information that documents

public attitudes and values concerning public land

management is the Forest Service Values Poll

(Hammond 1994). Kaset International conducted this

poll by telephone in April 1994 with 500 randomly

selected citizens. This sample included a balanced

representation of all regions of the country; however, the

sample was too small to generate findings for the South

or Midwest, let alone the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

The purpose of this poll was to provide the Forest

Service a “framework of values that describes how the

general public in the United States feels about the

management of public forests and grasslands”

(Hammond 1994). Administrators of the survey sought

to uncover the major trends and themes implied by

participants’ responses to broad statements about

environmental issues, the role of the Federal Government in forest management, and the management of

public lands. The poll included 26 questions (or statements). Responses to questions 1 through 24 are

summarized in table 9.1; responses to questions 25 and

26 are summarized in figures 9.1 and 9.2.

The Forest Service Values Poll points to 11 important

national themes. First and foremost is an overall theme

of public support for maintaining “healthy” public forests

and grasslands. This theme was the overriding one (note

responses given for questions 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18

in table 9.1 and for question 26 in fig. 9.2). However, a

definition of “healthy” (for which multiple interpretations

exist) was not provided. The authors summarized the

other 10 key themes (one of which appears to repeat

the overall theme) as follows:

• The Federal Government should take a scientific

approach to the management of public forests and

grasslands;

• Creating recreation opportunities on public lands is

important to the general public;

• The Federal Government should balance recreational

use of public land with logging, mining, and grazing

uses;

241
Table 9.1—Summary of responses (mean score and levels of agreement and disagreement) to questions posed in the Forest Service

Values Poll

Strongly Strongly

Mean disagree Neutral agree

Questiona scoreb (1) 2 3 (4) 5 6 (7)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. Federal Government an effective caretaker of public

forests and grasslands. 4.36 12 5 9 24 25 8 17

2. Threatened and endangered species in American public

forests and grasslands should be protected even if it has a

negative economic impact on citizens. 4.90 13 4 7 15 13 14 34

3. Important to take scientific approach to management of

public forests and grasslands. 5.78 3 2 4 10 15 17 49

4. Natural resources in public forests and grasslands

should be available to produce consumer goods. 3.62 26 10 11 17 14 8 14

5. Creating recreation opportunities on public forest lands

is important to me. 5.00 12 4 6 16 12 12 38

6. Federal Government should regulate private land use to

protect America’s natural resources. 4.78 15 5 6 15 13 12 34

7. Important for Federal Government to inform and

interact with people about all public forest matters. 6.10 3 1 2 6 10 18 60

8. Human intervention is necessary to maintain health of

public lands. 5.59 5 2 5 13 12 16 47

9. Primary purpose of managing public forests is to

maintain healthy environment. 5.87 4 2 3 9 12 18 52

10. Timber and other renewable resources harvested from

public forests should be continuously replaced. 6.50 3 0 1 3 4 8 81

11. United States has international obligation to maintain

health of America’s forests. 6.06 5 1 2 7 7 14 64

12. Consumer needs of public should be satisfied even if

natural resources on public forests are eventually depleted. 2.49 50 13 10 10 6 4 7

13. American public should take active role in managing

and protecting public forests. 6.00 3 1 2 8 12 19 55

14. Health of public forests should not be compromised

by short-term need for natural resources. 5.87 3 2 4 12 13 16 50

15. Federal Government has responsibility of conserving

public forest resources for future generations. 6.27 3 1 1 5 9 14 67

16. Federal Government should balance wilderness and

recreational use of public land with logging, mining, and

grazing. 4.95 10 3 7 16 18 16 30

17. Federal Government should ask American public on

regular basis for thoughts about public land use. 6.18 3 1 2 5 12 14 63

18. Federal Government organizations like Forest Service

should increase regulation of commercial use of public

forests. 5.12 11 5 6 13 14 13 38

(continued)

242
• The Federal Government has an obligation to maintain healthy public forests;

• The Federal Government should inform and interact

with the American people so the public can take an

active role in managing and protecting public forests;

• The long-term health of public forest land should not

be compromised for short-term gains;

• Federal and State Government agencies represent

the public’s interest in public land management;

Table 9.1—Summary of responses (mean score and levels of agreement and disagreement) to questions posed in the Forest Service

Values Poll (continued)

Strongly Strongly

Mean disagree Neutral agree

Questiona scoreb (1) 2 3 (4) 5 6 (7)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

19. Need for conservation of natural resources on public

forest lands will increase in 21st Century. 5.89 3 1 2 14 11 17 52

20. I make special effort to remain current on how public

forests are being managed by Federal Government. 4.60 7 8 9 21 22 14 19

21. I know how to participate in management, care, and

use of public forests. 4.50 10 7 12 20 17 12 22

22. Those who live in closest proximity should play the

primary role in way public forests are utilized and managed. 4.56 13 8 9 18 16 13 23

23. Federal Government should discover and disseminate

information to solve natural resource problems. 5.62 5 1 5 10 16 20 43

24. Federal Government should assist State and local govt.

agencies and private landowners in managing forest lands. 5.20 6 3 4 9 10 21 47

a

 Some questions have been edited to conserve space, but original meanings have been preserved.

b Mean scores on a 7-point scale. Bolded and italicized scores indicate the three responses that had the lowest levels of support; bolded but not italicized

scores indicate the three responses that had highest levels of support.

Source: Hammond (1994).

Figure 9.1—Responses to Forest Service Values Poll question

25, “My interest in public forest management is best represented by the following organizations” (Hammond 1994).

Figure 9.2— Responses to Forest Service Values Poll question 26,

“The highest priority use of American dollars to manage public

forests should be concentrated on the following . . . .” (Hammond

1994).

Federal agencies

47%

Congress

5%

Not represented

7%

Other groups

7%

Special interest 

groups

21%

State agencies

13%

Providing recreational 

activities

(7%)

Sustaining the 

harvesting of natural 

resources

(18%)

Assisting private 

interests

(10%)

Improving the health 

of these lands (65%)

243
• The consumer needs of the American public should

not be satisfied at the expense of the health of public

forests;

• It is the role of the Federal Government to discover

and disseminate new information for solving the

natural resource problems of the future; and

• The Federal Government should assist State and

local government agencies and private landowners in

managing forest lands.

The highest levels of support (see bolded,

nonitalicized mean scores in table 9.1) were for public

involvement in forest management (questions 7 and 17)

and managing forests in a sustainable fashion (questions

10 and 15). The lowest levels of support (means in

bolded italics in the table) concerned the use of forest

products to produce consumer goods (questions 4 and

12) and the Federal Government as an effective caretaker of public forests and grasslands (question 1). The

answers to question 25, however, indicated that 47

percent of those polled considered Federal agencies to

best represent their interests in the management of

public forests (fig. 9.1).

Among the points not discussed in the report narrative but evident from the survey results are the strong

support for public involvement (questions 13 and 17);

moderately strong support for a special role for people

who live closest to Federal forests (question 22); a

relatively high level of confidence in “scientific management” (question 3); and a perceived need for human

intervention to maintain the health of public lands

(question 8).

What emerges from this survey is a strong preference for “healthy forests,” strong support for public

involvement in decisionmaking about forest management, and support for a balanced, “multi-use” approach

for public forests and grasslands. Extraction of consumer products is a lower priority among those surveyed: about 36 percent of respondents thought that the

natural resources of public forests and grasslands should

be available to produce consumer goods, while 47

percent disagreed and 17 percent were neutral (question

4, table 9.1).

Seventh American Forest Congress and Local

Roundtables

Another source of information concerning the

American public’s attitudes toward forest management

is the Seventh American Forest Congress, which was

held in Washington, DC, in 1996 and is “believed to be

the most diverse national gathering focused on forests in

the country’s history” (SAFC 1997). The purpose of the

Forest Congress was very different from that of the

Forest Values Poll: it sought to find common ground

among Americans who have a deep interest in the

future of the Nation’s forests (essentially a self-selected

audience).

Local roundtables were held in at least 35 States,

including Arkansas and Missouri, prior to the Forest

Congress. The participants in the Arkansas Roundtable

adopted the following vision statement:

What we see as a vision for the forests of the

future is a continuum of forests from pristine

wilderness to intensive fiber farms. We acknowledge that different ownerships have different uses

and responsibilities and all owners—both public

and private—will generate some mix from the

following values: ecological processes and functions including natural, aquatic, and terrestrial

diversity; economic values, recreation and other

amenities; and clean water and other environmental values. Forest practices should be carried out

and maintained to improve water quality, and

private landowners and industry should work

together to ensure responsible logging. The

cornerstone for achieving this goal of a diverse

forest is balanced environmental and economic

forest education (SAFC 1997).

The vision statement for America’s forests developed by participants at the Missouri Roundtable was:

“The forests of the future will be abundant, healthy and

perpetual, with a variety of plants and animals. They will

benefit society and meet societal wants and needs”

(SAFC 1997).

The Forest Congress itself was the culmination of

many group discussions (including the pilot roundtables)

in which participants representing a wide range of

interests and interest groups sought to identify areas of

agreement. More than 1,100 people engaged in the

244
discussions in Washington. Among other things, participants addressed two broad questions: “What is our

common vision?” and “What principles do we agree on

to guide us toward our vision?”

In response to the first question, the Forest Congress

developed 13 elements of a common vision that a

majority of the participants found acceptable (table 9.2).

These elements are very broad and are probably subject

to varied interpretations. What emerges most clearly is

a commitment to “sustainability.”

The participants also produced 21 principles for forest

management, 15 of which at least half of the participants

accepted (table 9.3). Ensuring that “open and continuous

dialogue is maintained and encouraged among all parties

Table 9.2—Percentages of Seventh American Forest Congress participants who agreed or disagreed with

or had mixed feelings about proposed elements of a vision statementa

Mixed

Vision elements: “In the future, our forests . . .” Agree feelings Disagree

 1. will be held in a variety of public, private, tribal, land grant, and trust

ownerships by owners whose rights, objectives, and expectations are respected

and who understand and accept their responsibilities as stewards. 90 7 3

 2. will be enhanced by policies that encourage both public and private

investment in long-term sustainable forest management. 89 6 5

 3. will sustainably provide a range of goods, services, experiences, and values

that contribute to community well-being, economic opportunity, social and

personal satisfaction, spiritual and cultural fulfillment, and recreational enjoyment. 88 8 4

 4. will be maintained and enhanced across the landscape, expanding through

reforestation and restoration where ecologically, economically, and culturally

appropriate, in order to meet the needs of an expanding human population. 85 10 5

 5. will be shaped by natural forces and human actions that reflect the wisdom

and values of an informed and engaged public, community and social concerns,

sound scientific principles, local and indigenous knowledge, and the need to

maintain options. 84 11 5

 6. will be managed with consistent strategies and policies that foster forest

integrity and maintain a broad range of ecological, economic, and social values

and benefits. 79 14 7

 7. will be sustainable, support biological diversity, maintain ecological and

evolutionary processes, and be highly productive. 75 18 7

 8. will contribute to strong and vital rural and urban communities that benefit

from, protect, and enhance the forests in their vicinity. 74 16 10

 9. will be managed with consideration for the global implications of land

stewardship. 69 17 14

10. will maintain their essential role in protecting watersheds and aquatic systems. 68 14 18

11. will be acknowledged as vital by citizens who are knowledgeable and involved

in stewardship and who appreciate the contribution of forests to the economic

and environmental quality of life. 67 21 12

12. will be managed on the basis of a stewardship ethic with respect, reverence,

and humility. 54 19 27

13. will provide a sustainable level of products and benefits that satisfy society’s

needs because contributions from more efficient utilization, recycling, and other

efforts reduce consumption. 31 34 35

a Number of respondents per element ranged from 1,005 to 1,010.

Source: SAFC (1997).

245
Table 9.3—Percentages of Seventh American Forest Congress participants who agreed or disagreed with or had mixed feelings

toward 21 proposed principles of forest managementa

Mixed

Principle Agree feelings Disagree

1. Ensure open and continuous dialogue is maintained and encouraged among all parties interested in forests. 88 7 5

2. Voluntary cooperation and coordination among individuals, landowners, communities, organizations, and

governments is encouraged to achieve shared ecosystems goals. 85 9 6

3. Cohesive and stable policies, programs, and incentives should be available to allow forest owners and

managers to sustain and enhance forests. 84 11 6

4. Science-based information is accessible and understandable, distributed in a timely manner, and contributes

to forest policy and management. 80 13 7

5. Comprehensive, integrated, and well-organized research is well funded. It is designed and conducted in

collaboration with stakeholders to ensure for society the countless benefits of our forest ecosystems.

Knowledge and technology products are effectively distributed, tested, and implemented. 76 12 11

6. All differences in goals and objectives of public, private, and tribal forest owners are recognized and

respected. Forest owners, including the public, recognize and embrace both the rights and responsibilities of

ownership. All forest owners acknowledge that public interests (e.g., air, water, fish, and wildlife) exist on

private lands and private interests (e.g., timber sales and recreation) exist on public lands. 75 15 10

7. Urban and community forest ecosystems will be valued, enhanced, expanded, and perpetuated. 74 15 11

8. People’s actions should ensure that the management of forests should sustain ecosystem structure,

functions, and processes at the appropriate temporal and spatial levels. 70 20 10

9. Forestry policy and management decisions must reflect the interdependence of diverse urban, suburban,

and rural communities. 69 17 14

10. Forests provide a broad range of social, environmental, cultural, and economic resources and benefits. 67 20 13

11. Forests are a global resource that sustain the health of the planet and its inhabitants. Our forest stewardship

must recognize trends of global population; consequential supply and demand; and the potential for ecological,

social, and economic impacts worldwide. We will actively seek to learn from the global community. 65 17 18

12. All Federal public lands should be maintained for present and future generations and managed in accordance

with national laws. Changes in those laws should be pursued through an open legislative process that allows

the airing of views by the public. 65 16 20

13. People’s actions should ensure factual information and education concerning forests be readily available,

engaging, and actively disseminated to all. 61 20 19

14. Land area covered by forests is maintained and potentially increased. 53 25 22

15. Forestry decisions should take into account the concerns of an increasingly diverse U.S. population,

as well as the needs of the forests, while linking benefits and responsibilities within the communities. 50 26 24

16. Forests are sustained and their integrity is maintained with respect, reverence, and humility. 49 20 31

17. Native biological diversity is maintained and enhanced. 49 22 29

18. Forest related options that are available today shall be maintained for future generations. 45 26 29

19. Interdependence of people and forests is recognized and respected, including the important contribution

forests make to social, economic, and community well-being, and the responsibility of communities to

support balanced stewardship of all forest values. 44 25 31

20. Consistent with sound democratic principles and responsible forest management, Public Law 104-19,

Section 2001 (the Emergency Salvage Rider to the Rescissions Bill) should be repealed. 23 11 66

21. Active and informed participation by people of all cultures and socioeconomic levels enriches and is

imperative for balanced, equitable, and viable forest decisions and practices. 23 24 53

a Number of respondents per principle ranged from 1,076 to 1,091.

Source: SAFC (1997).

246
interested in forests” won the most agreement (88

percent) and the least disagreement (5 percent).

Finally, participants considered 39 additional draft

principles during a “missing principles” session. Table

9.4 presents the four principles that received the highest

levels of agreement and the three that received the least

support; see the summary report (SAFC 1997) for

responses to all of the “additional principles.” Interestingly, the two proposed principles that received the least

support (5 percent or less) were those suggesting there

should be no more road construction or logging on public

lands. According to the “Executive Summary” (SAFC

1997):

. . . the Forest Congress demonstrated that

Americans agree on many elements of a future

vision for their forests. They agree on several

principles that will guide them toward this common

vision. The shift toward stronger levels of agreement after redrafting the vision elements suggests

that levels of agreement on principles will increase

over time with recrafting at the national and local

levels.

Studies That Address Timber Management on

Public Lands

One of the key issues national forest (and some other

public land) managers face is that the public appears

sharply divided over whether timber cutting for wood

products should be allowed on public lands. Several

surveys conducted at national, regional, and sub-regional

scales and the Seventh American Forest Congress (as

already noted) have included one or more questions that

directly or indirectly address this issue. This brief

section draws upon studies conducted at various scales

but is by no means an exhaustive treatment of the

subject.

As noted above, participants in the Seventh American

Forest Congress overwhelmingly opposed a suggested

“principle” of forest management that would eliminate

logging on public lands. Most public opinion surveys,

however, indicate that people have sharply divergent

views about whether timber harvesting should be

allowed on public lands. Recall that 47 percent of the

respondents in the Forest Service Values Poll (Hammond

1994) disagreed and 53 percent agreed or took a neutral

Table 9.4—Percentages of Seventh American Forest Congress participants who agreed or disagreed with

or had mixed feelings toward seven additional draft principles of forest management proposed at the

Seventh American Forest Congressa

Mixed

Proposed principle Agree feelings Disagree

Natural resource issues should be resolved by peaceful means. 81 7 12

Create financial and nonfinancial incentives for long-term forest stewardship. 81 10 9

Conflicts over forest issues will be resolved through nonviolent processes. 71 9 20

Forest conservation will be promoted through efficient use, minimization of

waste, recycling and reuse of forest products, and diversification of fiber sources.

Clarification: “Sustainable forest management” may be substituted for “forest

conservation.” 69 19 12

Ecological and ecocultural restoration should be integrated into ecosystem

management due to its holistic integration of ethics, economics, ecology, etc. 11 22 66

Roading on public lands (no road construction or reconstruction on public lands). 5 5 90

Logging on public lands (no logging on public lands). 4 5 91

a The 4 additional draft principles that received the highest level of agreement and the 3 that received the highest level of

disagreement; respondents per principle ranged from 1,072 to 1,087.

Source: SAFC (1997).

247
position in response to the statement “Natural resources

in public forests and grasslands should be made available to produce consumer goods” (table 9.1). In a

Missouri survey conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1996

(MO DC 1996b), 41 to 50 percent of the respondents

opposed timber harvesting per se (the survey did not

distinguish between harvesting on public or private

lands).

Public response, of course, depends heavily upon the

wording of such questions and the context in which

surveyors present them. An interesting report on public

opinion surveys in Kentucky addressed this issue

directly. Gracey (1997) found broad support for timber

management on public lands, given certain environmental assurances. Seventy percent or more of the respondents supported carefully planned harvesting when one

of the following conditions was given: the land returns to

forest, improves wildlife habitat, protects water quality,

protects or enhances scenic beauty, provides income for

forest improvements, or provides jobs for local workers.

Gracey (1997) concluded that 10 to 20 percent of the

public was staunchly opposed to timber harvests on

public lands regardless of environmental assurances,

while many others were willing to support carefully

planned timber harvests that protect the environment.

Similarly, Kuzmic and Caneday (1996) showed that

respondents were far more supportive of timber cutting

to benefit wildlife or improve scenic vistas than they

were of timber cutting for wood products alone. (This

study is discussed in more detail below).

Brunson (1996) provided a summary of studies

dealing with public attitudes toward forestry practices,

including one conducted in the mid-South by Bliss and

others (1994) that may be especially relevant for the

Highlands (arguably part of both the mid-South and the

lower Midwest). Bliss and others (1994) found that

while nearly half of mid-South residents approved of

clearcutting on private lands, only 14 percent approved

of the practice on public lands. Brunson (1996) noted

that opposition to clearcutting “should not be interpreted

as opposition to the general practice of forestry to

produce wood products. . . . Americans aren’t opposed

to the practice of silviculture in a general sense, but they

do object to silvicultural tools that they believe can

threaten broader environmental values.”

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor

Recreation Plans

Important sources of information about the outdoor

recreation resources and opportunities in each State are

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans

(SCORP’s). A State must prepare a SCORP to be

eligible for the Land and Water Conservation Fund

program, which provides Federal matching funds for

acquisition and development of outdoor recreation lands

and facilities. Arkansas’ most current SCORP dates to

1995, Oklahoma’s to 1992, and Missouri’s to 1996

(Turner 1995, OK TRD 1992, Synergy Group 1996).

Each State conducted opinion surveys as part of the

preparation of their most recent SCORP. In Missouri,

parks and recreation professionals and relevant agencies were surveyed (Synergy Group 1996). Arkansas

completed a telephone survey of public opinion and

asked local government officials and parks and recreation directors about their recreational facilities. Arkansas prepared a detailed inventory of facilities; held issue

identification forums and grant workshops; and developed some case studies (Turner 1995). Two special

studies were performed for the Oklahoma SCORP, a

survey of “outdoor recreation organizations” and a

survey of communities (OK TRD 1992).

The public opinion survey for the Arkansas SCORP,

which included questions about environmental issues

and concerns, is especially useful, even though most of

the questions dealing with environmental issues had high

percentages of “don’t know” responses, indicating a

lack of knowledge, interest, and/or awareness of these

issues. The author noted that “Respondents did not view

the mining of public land, damming of rivers and

streams, and the destruction of wetlands as environmental problems in Arkansas” (Turner 1995). A sample of

his other conclusions follows:

• Air pollution—47 percent of respondents felt air

pollution was a problem in Arkansas. A majority of

those under 44 years of age felt air pollution was not

a problem, while a majority of those 45 and older felt

air pollution was a problem.

• Water pollution—69 percent felt that water pollution

was a problem in the State.

• Littering—81 percent of the respondents felt that

littering was a problem.

248
• Disposal of hazardous wastes—65 percent felt this

was an environmental problem in Arkansas.

• Clearcutting—50 percent of the respondents felt that

clearcutting was an environmental problem in Arkansas, but 17 percent “didn’t know.” Of those in the

lowest income bracket, 41 percent felt clearcutting

was a problem, compared with 67 percent of those

earning $40,000 to $50,000 per year.

• Mining of public land—23 percent felt that mining on

public land was an environmental problem in Arkansas.

• Building more dams on rivers and streams—only 18

percent felt dams are a problem in Arkansas.

• Agricultural waste—51 percent of respondents felt

agricultural waste was an environmental problem in

the State.

• Extraction of natural resources to benefit the

economy—44 percent of respondents favored the

extraction of resources, and 45 percent were opposed. Of those making more than $50,000 per year,

70 percent opposed natural resource extraction.

• Destruction of wetlands was not seen as a major

problem in Arkansas.

Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with

Life in Missouri

One source of information about attitudes and

opinions in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands that is

especially valuable because of its quality, scope, and

time depth is Missouri’s Annual “Conservation Monitor.” The most recent report in 1996 was based upon

telephone interviews by the Gallup Organization of 862

individuals selected randomly and distributed evenly

across nine regions of the State (MO DC 1996b).

Gallup asked a variety of questions on topics such as

the major problems facing Missouri, environmentalism,

sources of information about conservation and environmental issues, public perceptions of the Missouri

Department of Conservation, landownership and use,

and the interviewees’ recreational and environmental

practices. The report presents data for the whole State

and compares responses in 1996 to those from 1994 and

1995. Following are the results most likely to be relevant

for users of the Assessment.

Respondents were asked about eight aspects of life

in Missouri. As table 9.5 illustrates, the highest level of

satisfaction in both 1996 and 1994 was for the way

forests and wildlife in Missouri are managed; “care of

environment” took second place.

Most Serious Problem

Surveyors asked an open-ended question—“What is

the most important problem facing Missouri today?”

While the Missouri Department of Conservation (MO

DC 1996b) reported issues identified by as few as 2

percent of the respondents, forest and wildlife management, environmentalism, and recreational concerns did

not emerge as “most important problems.” The main

issues respondents identified in 1996 were crime (19

percent), education/lack of money for schools (10

percent), lack of jobs (10 percent), and the economy (4

percent).

Environmentalism

When asked directly whether they considered

themselves “environmentalists,” slightly more people did

in 1996 (67 percent) than in 1995 (65 percent), but less

than in 1994 (70 percent). When asked to respond to a

variety of statements related to environmentalism, about

90 percent agreed that prairies should be reestablished;

77 percent agreed that forest land in Missouri is shrinking; 76 percent agreed that wildlife should be reestablished; 37 percent said that they understood “biodiversity”; and 50 percent agreed that “use of fire is not

a good idea” (MO DC 1996b).

Table 9.5—Percent satisfaction and percent dissatisfaction

with selected aspects of life in Missouri, 1996 and 1994

Satisfied Dissatisfied

Aspect of life in Missouri 1996 1994 1996 1994

Care of forests and wildlife 85 82 9 9

Care of environment 70 69 25 22

Economy a

64a 58 28 34

Quality of education 59 58 36 33

Family 58 61 31 27

Opportunities for next generation a54a 48 37 44

Care of poor and needy 47 46 43 42

Safe from crime 46 43 49 50

a Significant increases from 1994.

Source: MO DC (1996b).

249
Timber Harvesting

Surveyors asked respondents if they “approved of

cutting down trees to make lumber, furniture, or other

wood products” (without specifying where the cutting

might take place). In each of the 3 years of the study,

47 to 55 percent approved and 41 to 50 percent disapproved, with no clear trend over time.

Social Science Research on the Ouachita

National Forest

As part of a nationwide shift in the management of

national forest lands, the Ouachita National Forest

established an ecosystem management program in 1991

that included three components: (1) demonstration sites

and even whole landscapes where innovative forest

management strategies were used, (2) a major ecosystem management research program, and (3) an Ecosystem Management Advisory Committee, the efforts of

which Frentz and others (1997) recently documented.

The Advisory Committee, comprised of foresters,

biologists, social scientists, and other professionals from

Arkansas and Oklahoma, has emphasized that the

“social context” of ecosystem management is just as

important as the “biophysical” (or traditionally defined

ecological) dimensions. At the same time, the Southern

Research Station’s program of ecosystem management

research on the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests sought to incorporate the human

dimensions more effectively. Several social science

research efforts emerged, summaries of two of which

appear below.

Study of National Forest Stakeholders

Thomas Kuzmic and Lowell Caneday of Oklahoma

State University performed a targeted study of stakeholders of two ranger districts within the Ouachita

National Forest in 1994 and 1995 (Kuzmic and Caneday

1996). Their objectives were to identify an “innermost

circle” of stakeholders (those who use the national

forest directly) and characterize them with respect to

their activities, attitudes, and opinions.

The researchers distributed questionnaires to 456

national forest stakeholders in Oklahoma. One-third of

these individuals completed the questionnaires and

returned them by mail. Survey participants represented

a broad range of national forest users, including those

participating in hiking, hunting, mining, timber cutting,

and other activities. Respondents gave the highest

ratings of “very inappropriate” or “somewhat inappropriate” to the following activities or uses (combined

percentage shown in parentheses):

• Closing the forest to all onsite human uses (77),

• Special use permits for mining (61),

• Special use permits for oil and gas leases (60),

• Timber cutting for wood products (50),

• Use of motorized all-terrain vehicles on forest roads

(50),

• Special use permits for utility corridors (39),

• Timber cutting for firewood (35),

• Special use permits for livestock grazing (34),

• Shooting at rifle range (32),

• Hang-gliding (31),

• Hunting (30), and

• Timber cutting for scenic vistas (22).

Respondents to the mail survey indicated that a wide

variety of activities and uses were “very appropriate” or

“somewhat appropriate.” The 14 items rated “appropriate” by 75 percent of more of the respondents follow

(with combined percentages in parentheses):

• Managing forest habitat for wildlife (86),

• Opportunities for solitude (84),

• Picnic areas (84),

• Protection of cultural and historic sites (82),

• Protection of endangered species of plants and

animals (81),

• Trails for walking or hiking (81),

• Auto touring, driving for pleasure (80),

• Protection of wilderness areas (80),

• Nature study (79),

• Interpretive signs and displays (76),

• Developed campgrounds (75),

• Backpacking (75),

• Bird-watching (75), and

• Fishing (75).

Stakeholders’ perceptions of Ouachita National

Forest management. Only 40 percent of the mail

survey respondents knew who is responsible for managing the national forests; “National Park Service” was

the most frequent wrong answer. About 63 percent said

current management met their needs and expectations,

and 67 percent thought that the agency in charge was

doing an excellent job managing the Ouachita National

250
Forest (table 9.6). The highest rate of disagreement (62

percent) was in response to the statement, “The

Ouachita National Forest (ONF) should be managed to

emphasize commodities and products for people, such

as wood for building homes and making paper.” (Only

18 percent agreed with this statement.)

As shown in table 9.6, many respondents were

neutral or undecided about many of the survey items,

including one statement that said that the variety of wild

animals on the forest had increased over time (56

percent undecided) and another that stated that all

decisions about national forest management come from

Table 9.6—Percentages of stakeholders who agreed or disagreed with statements concerning management of the Ouachita

National Forest

Strongly Mildly Neutral or Mildly Strongly

Survey statement disagree disagree undecided agree agree

Overall, the OuNF has a natural and unspoiled appearance. 4 7 9 45 35

The OuNF is used heavily for resource extraction such as logging. 12 14 38 19 17

Current management of the OuNF meets my needs and expectations. 5 9 23 43 20

The OuNF is an economic asset to the local adjoining region. 2 4 22 34 38

The Forest Service is doing an excellent job at managing the OuNF. 5 7 22 40 27

The OuNF is like a “national park” and should be managed as such. 12 10 20 22 36

Evidence of forest management practices is obvious at the OuNF. 2 2 27 48 21

Recreational visitors should pay fees for activities on developed sites like campgrounds. 16 7 11 34 31

Forest Service has responsibility to inform public about management of OuNF. 1 0 14 32 53

The OuNF is an economic asset to the Nation. 3 2 20 29 46

The use of the OuNF by people for a wide variety of activities is obvious as I travel

around the area. 1 7 19 41 32

As I travel around the OuNF, I often see Forest Service workers doing field work. 9 17 24 35 14

The Forest Service is the organization best suited to manage the OuNF. 1 0 26 35 38

The variety of plants at the OuNF has increased over time. 3 7 64 21 5

The variety of wild animals at the OuNF has increased over time. 7 10 56 19 9

The mix of pines and hardwoods (broadleaf trees) at the OuNF is about right. 3 11 31 32 22

As I travel around the OuNF, I often see Forest Service workers out talking to forest

users and visitors. 12 20 32 24 12

I trust the Forest Service in being able to make sound decisions in the management of

the OuNF. 5 4 28 39 24

Clearcut harvesting of timber regularly occurs at the OuNF. 14 8 55 13 10

I have a “stake” in the OuNF. It should be managed for people like me who come here for

outdoor forest-related activities. 4 6 16 30 44

The Forest Service emphasizes the planting and management of pines instead of

hardwood trees at the OuNF. 7 7 54 18 14

I regularly see wildlife at the OuNF. 7 14 20 44 15

The Forest Service workers at the OuNF have no decisionmaking authority for

management. All decisions and authority come from Washington, DC. 21 15 50 9 5

The needs and concerns of local people living near the OuNF should have greater

priority for management of the forest than those of people who live in distant cities or

out-of-State. 17 13 21 24 25

The OuNF should be managed to emphasize commodities and products for people, such

as wood for building homes and making paper. 49 13 20 9 9

The Forest Service has done a good job of getting the public’s opinion on issues related

to the OuNF. 12 10 43 26 9

The public should be involved in decisionmaking. 4 7 15 35 40

OuNF = Ouachita National Forest.

Source: Kuzmic and Caneday (1996).

251
Washington, DC (50 percent undecided). When asked

about the most important things forest managers should

emphasize, 40 percent preferred less development and

more “preservation.” Fifteen percent wanted more

visitor services, while only 3 percent preferred that

more timber be made available for harvesting. When

asked about uses that should be discontinued, timber

harvesting and motorized all-terrain vehicle use, at 11

percent and 4 percent, respectively, topped the list

(Kuzmic and Caneday 1996).

Public involvement. Kuzmic and Caneday’s survey

asked participants about public involvement in forest

planning and management and about the role of local

community people in the planning process. Seventy

percent agreed with or were neutral in response to the

statement that “the needs and concerns of local people

living near the ONF should have greater priority for

management of the forest than those of people who live

in distant cities or out-of-state” (table 9.6). About 70

percent agreed that the public should be involved in

decisionmaking concerning national forests, but 15

percent were neutral or undecided on this point. About 35

percent felt that the Forest Service had “done a good job

of getting the public’s opinion on issues related to the

forest.” Even though many think public involvement is an

important part of the decisionmaking process, 63 percent

indicated that they trust the Forest Service to make sound

management decisions for the national forest (table 9.6).

Perspectives about forest environments. Kuzmic

and Caneday (1996) included an eight-part question

designed to assess stakeholder awareness of ecological

principles and basic ecosystem processes. Most respondents agreed that “the natural elements of a forest (i.e.,

trees, animals, soil, water, air) are linked together as a

functioning system” (92 percent) and “forests gradually

change over time due to natural forces and processes”

(88 percent), indicating basic understanding of two

important ecological principles (table 9.7). But they

were divided about whether “logging or timber harvesting destroys forests” (51 percent agreed), the forests

Table 9.7—Percentages of Ouachita National Forest stakeholders who agreed or disagreed with statements concerning forest

environments and the ways that they are used and managed

Strongly Mildly Neutral or Mildly Strongly

Survey statement disagree disagree undecided agree agree

Forests are renewable resources. After we harvest a part of the forest, trees will naturally

grow back in time. 21 23 10 31 15

All of the natural elements of a forest (i.e., trees, animals, soil, water, air, etc.) are linked

together as a functioning system. 1 1 7 12 80

Forests gradually change over time due to natural forces and processes. 0 2 10 28 60

Severe wildfires destroy forests. After such fires, we will never again have forests in the

areas where fires occurred unless we plant trees there. 32 22 13 14 19

Logging or timber harvesting destroys forests. After a forest is logged or harvested, we will

never again have a forest in the area where the logging occurred unless we plant trees there. 20 17 13 22 29

The forests that we see today at the OuNF will most likely look exactly the same 50 to 60

years from now, if forest managers and people would just leave them alone and let nature

take its course. 13 15 21 19 32

[By] applying ecological and scientific principles, foresters can work mutually with nature

as they manage forests to produce goods and services for people. 8 4 20 32 36

Forest managers at the OuNF are upsetting the balance of nature there. 25 20 40 11 4

I have no problem with harvesting trees for products for people, as long as more trees are

promptly grown back. 13 13 17 30 28

Timber harvesting, planting, and forest management practices used by professional

foresters resemble natural processes. 20 13 32 25 10

OuNF = Ouachita National Forest.

Source: Kuzmic and Caneday (1996).

252
they saw today would essentially look the same 50 to 60

years from now if forest managers and other people

would “just leave them alone and let nature take its

course” (51 percent agreed), and whether current

forestry practices resemble natural processes (35

percent agreed, 33 percent disagreed, and 32 percent

were neutral or undecided). About two-thirds (68

percent) of the respondents agreed that “[By] applying

ecological and scientific principles, foresters can work

mutually with nature as they manage forests to produce

goods and services for people.”

Environmental ideology and opinions. Table 9.8

presents the survey responses to a series of statements

about relationships between people and nature. Most

respondents (90 percent) agreed that “people must live

in harmony with nature in order to survive”; 89 percent

agreed that “the balance of nature is very delicate and

easily upset.” The strongest disagreement came in

response to the proposition that “people need not worry

about adapting to the natural environment because they

can reshape it to suit their needs” (79 percent disagreed) and “people have the right to modify the natural

environment to suit their needs” (68 percent disagreed).

Kuzmic and Caneday believe these data indicate that

these national forest stakeholders tend toward a “biocentric” rather than an “anthropocentric” view. (An

anthropocentric view considers human needs of greater

importance than those of any other life forms, regardless

of circumstance, whereas a strict biocentric view

regards all life forms as equally important.) When asked

to respond to another set of statements about balancing

the economy and the environment, stakeholder responses

were consistent with a tendency toward environmentalism, as indicated below (Kuzmic and Caneday 1996):

The economy should be given greater priority

even if it hurts the environment. 0

The environment should be given priority even

if it hurts the economy. 8%

Both are important; if forced to make a choice,

the economy should come first. 27%

Both are important; if forced to make a choice,

the environment should come first. 65%

Focus Groups and the Social Context of Ecosystem

Management

In another study, Fendley and her colleagues at the

University of Arkansas used indepth interviews and

focus groups to analyze patterns of public involvement

in the Ouachita National Forest’s land management

activities. The goals of this study were to contribute to

improved understanding of the “social context” in which

the forest exists and to enhance public involvement

Table 9.8—Percentages of Ouachita National Forest stakeholders who agreed or disagreed with statements concerning the

relationship of people to natural environments

Strongly Mildly Neutral or Mildly Strongly

Survey statement disagree disagree undecided agree agree

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 4 7 11 44 45

People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 41 27 14 15 3

The needs and welfare of people should always come first when we decide how to

deal with nature and its resources. 31 26 11 24 9

People must live in harmony with nature in order to survive. 1 1 7 25 65

People are severely abusing the environment. 7 7 12 29 45

Plants and animals have as much right to exist as people. 7 9 11 25 48

People were meant to have rule or dominion over nature. 28 13 20 21 18

People need not worry about adapting to the natural environment because they can

reshape it to suit their needs. 58 21 13 5 3

Source: Kuzmic and Caneday (1996).

253
generally. Specific objectives were to identify and

describe public involvement methods that land managers

use and methods most acceptable to the public. Related

objectives were to gauge the social acceptability of

existing forest management strategies and to assess the

public’s overall opinion of forest management.

The emphasis was upon obtaining the widest possible

representation of views and opinions, not obtaining

scientifically “representative” numbers. Although it has

not been done, the researchers intended that the focus

group sessions would be followed by a carefully designed survey using probability sampling techniques.

The methods used included (1) structured, indepth

interviews with district rangers; (2) structured focus

groups of a wide range of citizens, public officials, and

Forest Service employees; and (3) a brief questionnaire

that focus group participants completed. Because these

were group discussions, they did not produce many

numerical results. Hence, the choice of what to emphasize in the report depends both upon how often particular

points were made by various focus groups and the degree

of emphasis they received. The focus group process also

provides key quotations, which can frequently summarize

a point more effectively than could a series of numbers.

District ranger interviews. Eleven of the 12

district rangers working on the Ouachita National Forest

at the time of the study were interviewed to ascertain

the forms of public involvement they were using. Seven

rangers cited one-on-one, informal contacts as their best

method. Some reasons given for selecting personal

contacts were “[To] get a better flow of information

back,” and “People may be reluctant to talk in meetings

with other people there.” The second most favored

method was mailings, followed by advisory board

meetings, steering committees, and field trips. Rangers

were also asked about methods that didn’t work. As

with the most preferred methods, some rangers listed

more than one least successful method.

Open meetings or open houses rated as the number

one method that did not work for five rangers. When

asked why meetings do not work, rangers said, “People

have other things they would rather do,” “No interest,”

“People wouldn’t attend,” “Group meetings are a forum

for arguments,” and “Not much response.” The second

least favored method, but one the rangers use very

commonly, was mailings. One ranger said that mailings

that simply announce some action and request an

unspecified response were especially useless. Another

mentioned that mailings do not reach people the way

field trips or direct conversations do. Field trips did not

work for two rangers. One said there is no interest in

forest management tours in his area since, “People

don’t care how we get the timber out so long as we get

it out.” Two rangers listed “using large newspapers as

the designated paper” and publishing newspaper articles

and/or newspaper notices as their least successful

methods. One ranger insisted that all methods work.

Finally, district rangers were asked to identify the kinds

of projects that generate the greatest public response. Six

rangers listed timber issues first, while the others listed

“anything affecting hunting or fishing,” “wildlife management,” “closing roads,” and “water quality.” Projects that

generate the most public interest were thought to include

herbicide use, road construction and/or road closure,

prescribed burning, and wildlife projects.

Major themes repeated by the district rangers

throughout the interviews were (1) their need to inform

or educate the public and (2) their desire to hear more

from the “silent majority.” These themes were tempered

by two considerations—involvement from citizens would

be time consuming, and not hearing from the “silent

majority” may imply that this group is satisfied with

current management. Another theme was the amount of

time required to inform, educate, and perhaps placate

interest groups, especially those at the “extremes” (e.g.,

some environmental groups and some timber interests).

Rangers typically received little or no substantive public

comment concerning proposed actions on their districts;

not surprisingly, then, only rarely did public comments

lead directly to changes in these proposed projects.

Focus groups with the public. Persons invited to

the focus groups were identified from nine different

audiences or assumed stakeholder groups: (1) natural

resource agency personnel, (2) “ordinary” citizens,

identified from voter registration lists, (3) “activists,”

identified as persons appearing more than once on

ranger district mailing lists, (4) “hunters,” obtained from

hunter organization lists, (5) “attentive citizens,” identified as persons appearing once on ranger district mailing

lists, (6) public officials, (7) “recreationists,” identified

from the lists of recreational organizations, (8) “environmentalists,” identified from lists of environmental

organizations, and (9) timber industry, including both

representatives of small loggers and of a major timber

254
organization. The researchers convened 28 focus

groups that did not include Forest Service employees

and 4 groups that did.

In addition to taking part in the discussions, 117

participants in the public focus groups completed brief

questionnaires. Two questions especially relevant to this

chapter were: “In general, how do you feel about how

the Ouachita National Forest is currently being managed?” and “How do you feel about the opportunities

provided for public input into forest management in the

Ouachita National Forest?” In response to the first

question, 38 percent of the focus group respondents said

they were satisfied or very satisfied, while 30 percent

said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied; the

remaining 32 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. More dissatisfaction (40 percent) was expressed

about opportunities for public involvement, but one third

were satisfied and 26 percent were neutral or had no

opinion.

A brief summary of the massive volume of discussion, commentary, and suggestions from the focus

groups is provided below. Only comments, suggestions,

and issues mentioned in more than one of the focus

groups are included.

Uses appropriate for the forest. The focus groups

began with the question, “How do you think this forest

should be used?” Participants in most groups gave some

version of “multiple use”—combining timber production,

recreation, ecological concerns, esthetics, and so forth—

as their answer. Some qualified their answer by saying,

“Make timber just one aspect,” while others said, “Make

commodities (defined as timber, water) the priority.”

One focus group emphasized “hunting, logging, and

firewood.” Recreation and protecting biodiversity were

also mentioned as appropriate uses of the national forest.

Current national forest management. When asked

about the appearance and composition of the forest and

the way it is currently being managed, the most frequent

responses involved opposition to clearcutting and the

perceived loss of hardwoods. Some members of the

focus groups expressed dissatisfaction with the forest’s

appearance. Most want a mixed forest, not a “pine

plantation.” This attitude should not be interpreted as

hostility towards logging. Most groups said they do not

like or support clearcuts, but they think “selective cuts”

are fine. Only one group suggested a halt to logging on

public lands.

The second most frequent statement was that

management has greatly improved. Roads were a

frequent concern, however. Participants held clearly

opposing views on this issue, with some insisting no

more roads should be closed and others arguing that

roads should be closed. A few said that road building

and/or the construction of “over-engineered roads”

should stop. No consensus on road issues was apparent.

In a few of the focus groups, participants mentioned

their lack of trust in the Forest Service, and some

suggested that the agency had been forced to change,

unwillingly, over the past decade. Others expressed

opposition to the use of herbicides, and some complained about wasteful management practices that

allowed trees to rot.

Past experiences with the Forest Service. The focus

groups were told: “Think back to the last time you participated in any Ouachita National Forest public involvement

program. Can you give a description of the experience,

and how did you feel about it?” Responses were overwhelmingly positive. The great majority of the citizens

interviewed who had taken advantage of Forest Service

public participation opportunities had positive experiences.

It was evident, however, that many other citizens did

not know how to get involved. Some, especially from

the general citizen groups, did not know they had the

right to speak to or express an opinion to their district

ranger or staff, as evidenced by the following verbatim

statement: “How would they even know to call? How

would they even know, just like me, I didn’t even know I

was allowed to even call to tell them what I thought.”

Some simply don’t know whom to call. One individual

was so moved by the invitation to the focus group that

his voice cracked as he tried to hold back tears. He was

overwhelmed by the opportunity to express his views on

“his forest.” He had no idea that public participation

opportunities existed.

When asked who should have a say in forest management, “Everyone” and “Only professionals or

educated and informed people” were the most frequent

answers; a few participants said “local citizens.”

Several others answered in terms of who (in his or her

opinion) had a “say” in decisions, not who should have a

“say.” These citizens suggested that forest managers

operate as “one man shows.”

How citizens want to be involved. Respondents

were asked about how they would like to be involved

255
with the Ouachita National Forest. A major point of

discussion was advisory committees and steering

committees. To the direct question, “What do you think

of the idea of having a forest-wide steering committee

made up of all types of interest groups?” the response

was usually “No!” One tongue-in-cheek reply was that

the extreme groups “. . . could kill each other off.

That’d be great.” However, when the groups were

asked to devise their own preferred method of public

involvement, surprisingly, two methods tied as the most

favored strategy for public participation: citizen advisory

groups and public meetings. Most focus groups proposed some form of district level citizen advisory board

that would not have decisionmaking authority but would

make recommendations. These committees would be

composed of local residents, and the objective would be

to hear from the “regular” citizens.

Public officials suggested having a forest-level advisory committee, with members selected proportionate to

the amount of public lands in each county. A variation on

the advisory committee theme was a committee with the

charge, not of representing the public, but of monitoring

the work of the Forest Service to determine whether the

work done is in accordance with the forest plan. Public

meetings were frequently mentioned as a desirable

method for informing the public of management activities

and involving them in future project planning. Participants

stressed that all people should have a chance to have a

say and that special interest groups should not be allowed

to dominate meetings.

At least five groups recommended improving the

readability of Forest Service notices and documents.

Many people felt that these materials were difficult to

read. Some suggestions were to “write in English,”

eliminate jargon, and provide clear maps showing commonly used names for roads and places. Other suggestions included publishing meeting notices with plenty of

lead time and not just in the legal notice section of the

newspaper; publishing readable, interesting newsletters

about national forest activities; developing information

programs for television; and installing an “800” telephone

line for citizens to call with questions or concerns.

As noted earlier, most people who participated in

Forest Service public involvement efforts were satisfied

with their experience. However, they had many ideas

for improvement. One common concern is that the

Forest Service pays too much attention to vocal interest

groups, particularly environmental and timber industry

interests. The perception that the Forest Service mainly

listens to, is only interested in, and is guided by the

timber and environmental groups leads to the frustration

of some citizens who define themselves as “average,”

“local,” or “regular.” The citizens kept repeating “it’s

our forest.” They defended the idea that local people

are good folks whose intimate understanding of the

forest should be of value to and used by the Forest

Service. These citizens want to be involved and want

their involvement to mean something. Many of them

said they would like to help the Forest Service.

Forest Service employees focus groups. Most of

the Forest Service employees in the focus groups said

that the Ouachita National Forest should be managed for

multiple uses. When asked about forest management

direction, members of two of the focus groups said it

was improving and a third said that the public’s trust in

the Forest Service was improving. Participants in other

groups felt that lack of trust was still a serious problem.

Members of one group blamed the lack of trust on the

extensive clearcutting of the past; in another, participants

mentioned that the elimination of clearcuts had hurt rural

people by reducing the availability of firewood.

The discussion included critiques of the organization.

One criticism was that the required paper work hinders

effective management; another was that it is wasteful to

spend extensive efforts regenerating timber just to let it

lie on the ground and rot later (e.g., after a major wind

storm or beetle outbreak kills trees). In one focus group,

members questioned allowing the desires of one or two

interest groups to dominate decisionmaking.

When discussing public involvement, Forest Service

employees said that a most important element is the

one-on-one contacts they have in the local communities,

including those with landowners with property next to

proposed projects. Most of the suggestions for new

public participation strategies centered on hearing from

or informing mainstream citizens. Suggestions included

surveys, expanded mailing lists, more readable mailings,

paying citizens to attend meetings, video tapes on forest

management for citizens, educational programs, and

meetings for local citizens led by technicians who are

well known in the community. Another suggestion was

to revise the forest plan and eliminate the appeals

process at the project level. Forest Service employees

also discussed the importance of monitoring and the

option of using independent scientists more to conduct

monitoring.

256
Northwest Arkansas Forest Values Poll

In September 1996, the National Research Group of

Fayetteville engaged Marshall Dale Evans of the Evans

Law Firm of Fayetteville to conduct a survey to ascertain the level of support for uses of the Ozark National

Forest associated with wildlife and recreation relative to

support for “commercial” uses. This survey entailed a

telephone poll of 400 registered voters in 10 northwest

Arkansas counties (Washington, Benton, Carroll,

Madison, Boone, Pope, Franklin, Johnson, Newton, and

Crawford).

Poll respondents were randomly selected from a data

base of approximately 220,000 registered voters in these

counties. Percentages were adjusted to weight each

county in proportion to its voter population. Respondents

were screened according to an average voter profile (at

least 18 years of age, likely to vote in the upcoming

election, not employed by a media source). Those who

met these standards and agreed to answer the questions

were included in the survey (NCWA 1996).

The poll suggested that voters in northwest Arkansas

were supportive of wildlife and recreation uses of

national forests and opposed to commercial use of these

lands. Sixty-seven percent said that the national forest

should be used primarily for recreation and water

supply; only 7 percent responded that it should be used

primarily for timber production. Fifty-nine percent of the

respondents said that they oppose or strongly oppose the

present Ozark National Forest timber program, 13

percent said they supported or strongly supported the

program, and 28 percent said they didn’t know. Eighty

percent of the respondents replied that the preservation

of native old forest is very important (NCWA 1996).

Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Landowner

Survey

Also relevant to the Assessment are the results of an

Arkansas survey that focused on the opinions of NIPF

landowners concerning environmental issues, private

property rights, and land management (Williams and

others 1998). Twelve counties were selected, with the

probabilities of selection proportional to the amount of

land held by NIPF owners. Within each county, 200

respondents listed on county tax records as owning

forest land were selected, using systematic random

sampling. Of 2,400 surveys mailed, 866 usable responses were obtained.

The survey results indicate that NIPF owners have

strong interests in a variety of environmental issues.

Their stated reasons for owning forest lands are heavily

weighted in the direction of esthetic and environmental

values and a simple desire to live in an attractive natural

environment (table 9.9). A surprisingly small percentage

intend to sell timber from their lands: only 21 percent of

the respondents in the Ozark portion of the State rated

“timber to sell” as an important reason for owning

forest land (compared to a statewide average of 32

percent).

In regard to private property rights, about 81 percent

of the surveyed landowners in both the Ouachita

Mountains and the Ozark Plateaus of Arkansas either

agreed or strongly agreed that such rights were important but should not be exercised to the point of hurting

the environment (table 9.10). About half of the respondents agreed that property rights should be limited, while

roughly 25 percent felt that landowners should be able

to “do as they please.”

257
Table 9.10—Percentage of respondents to a survey of nonindustrial private forest landowners

in Arkansas who agreed, disagreed, or expressed neutrality toward statements concerning

private property rights, by geographic area

Survey statement (regarding Coastal

private property rights) All Plaina Deltaa Ouachita Ozark

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“Do as they please”

Strongly agree 14.0 12.9 17.4 12.3 14.2

Agree 10.6 12.9 11.0 12.3 8.6

Neutral 9.8 10.0 11.9 13.0 7.7

Disagree 37.3 37.6 44.0 34.1 36.3

Strongly disagree 28.3 26.5 15.6 28.3 33.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

“Important, but don’t hurt

environment”

Strongly agree 38.0 34.8 21.4 34.3 38.4

Agree 49.6 42.1 56.3 46.4 42.3

Neutral 10.5 11.2 11.6 7.9 8.7

Disagree 8.4 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.3

Strongly disagree 3.8 3.9 2.7 3.6 3.4

Total 110.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

“Should be limited”

Strongly agree 11.5 10.3 6.1 12.6 13.4

Agree 38.1 35.8 39.4 35.4 40.1

Neutral 18.4 20.0 20.2 18.9 16.8

Disagree 17.1 19.4 17.2 18.9 15.2

Strongly disagree 14.9 14.5 17.2 14.2 14.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a Not within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands portion of the State.

Source: Williams and others (1998).

Table 9.9—Reasons nonindustrial private forest landowners own forest lands in

Arkansas (percent of respondents who selected each reason) by geographic area

Coastal

Reason All Plaina Deltaa Ouachita Ozark

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Live in rural environment 58.0 44.9 44.8 65.8 65.8

Enjoy own green space 53.6 41.8 44.0 58.1 60.9

Wildlife habitat 52.3 45.9 52.0 53.5 55.0

Building estate for heirs 42.6 57.7 47.2 43.5 33.2

Personal recreation 38.5 31.6 33.6 38.1 43.7

Livestock raising for sale 34.5 21.9 24.8 50.3 37.5

Timber to sell 31.9 59.2 29.6 26.5 21.1

Inherited the land 26.7 48.0 32.8 29.7 12.9

Crop or hay farming for sale 16.2 13.8 26.4 20.0 12.6

Second home site 13.2 6.1 8.8 14.2 17.7

Recreation for others 12.8 13.8 11.2 11.0 13.6

Eventually sell at profit 12.6 11.2 8.8 15.5 13.4

Other reasons 6.8 3.6 5.6 8.4 8.3

Tax shelter 5.4 4.1 3.2 7.1 6.2

Renting dwellings/mobile homes 4.2 4.1 7.2 4.5 3.1

Income from recreation (hunting) 3.9 10.7 1.6 1.3 2.3

Landscape shrubbery for sale 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.3

Nursery or Christmas trees 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.3

a Parts of southern and eastern Arkansas, i.e., not within the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands.

Source: Williams and others (1998).

258
Public Opinions Expressed About the

Assessment

The Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment Team

first provided broad public notice that the OzarkOuachita Highlands Assessment was underway in July

1996, soon after the USDA Forest Service initiated the

project. In that month, the Forest Service issued a media

release in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri and sent

an announcement about the Assessment to the combined mailing lists of the Mark Twain, Ouachita, and

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. In October 1996,

the Forest Service published a formal notice about the

Assessment in the Federal Register. (For a more

complete summary of the background of this Assessment, see the following Web site: <http://www.fs.fed.us/

oonf/ooha/welcome.htm>.)

Assessment leaders encouraged public involvement

through a variety of means, including having working

meetings open to the public, mailing updates that invited

responses, issuing additional media releases, holding

community meetings and open houses, making presentations to organizations, and other mechanisms. A summary of Assessment-related outreach efforts and public

involvement through June of 1997 was provided in the

June 27, 1996, “Assessment Update” (on file in the

Supervisor’s Office of the Ouachita National Forest,

100 Reserve St., Hot Springs, AR 71901).

A condensed version of public comments follows.

The topics and concerns are categorized to indicate

whether the Assessment Team was likely to be able to

address them. (The team tried to address each of the

Assessment-specific concerns as fully as possible, but

describing how it did so would require a chapter unto

itself). Some topics and concerns were clearly beyond

the scope of this effort or beyond the authority of the

Federal officials involved; some of these topics, however, may be appropriate to address during forest plan

revisions.

Assessment-Specific Concerns

• Accuracy of and potential interpretation and use of

data (e.g., concerning recreation “demands,” the

economic importance of recreation and tourism in the

region, direct and indirect employment by the forest

products industry, expenditures of and revenues from

national forest programs, and funding of programs

some citizens do not want).

• Need for more information (e.g., effects of national

forest management on inholders, transportation

networks, population trends, water quality, hunting

and fishing use, historic sites, and percentage of

public land unavailable for timber production).

• Adequacy of public involvement (e.g., not enough

evening meeting opportunities, too many meetings in

larger cities, not enough time for public comment,

unclear about what the Forest Service wanted, and

Government actions occurring without public scrutiny).

• Involvement of county governments (e.g., coordination of planning, level of authority in decisions concerning Federal lands, and increased Federal control).

• Assessment area boundaries (e.g., placement of

boundaries and collection of information).

• Private property rights (e.g., excessive regulation,

denial of due process, and inappropriate or unjust

condemnation procedures).

• Possibility of future special designations of land (e.g.,

“Wild and Scenic Rivers,” “wilderness,” “heritage

corridors,” “biosphere reserves,” and “scenic

byways”).

Concerns Specific to National Forest

Management

There were some topics and concerns specific to

national forest management, which the Assessment was

never intended to resolve. Some or all of the following

may need to be addressed in plan revisions or at the

local ranger district level:

• Amount of wilderness on the national forests,

• Amount of, costs of, and accounting methods for

timber harvesting on Federal lands,

• Silvicultural practices and hardwood/conifer ratios,

• Number and miles of national forest roads closed or

kept open, restrictions for public access,

• Access to private lands and land-line surveys, and

• Restrictions on use of off-road vehicles on national

forests.

Other topics that were specific to national forest

management and which can be addressed at the

national level only are as follows:

259
• The purposes of national forests,

• How the budget process works; what gets funded,

what doesn’t,

• Whether or not national forests should have wilderness,

• Whether or not national forests should have timber

harvesting,

• Appropriateness of laws and regulations governing

national forest management,

• Whether national forests should continue to exist or

not, and

• Sovereignty of Federal lands.

Public Opinions Expressed Most Frequently

During the Assessment, several individuals disagreed

vigorously with the premise that it is important for

managers and citizens to understand the regional

context within which public lands exist before trying to

make decisions about future management of these

lands. They felt that Federal and State agencies should

“stay home,” that is, study only those lands for which

they are individually responsible. Furthermore, they felt

that an assessment of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

area implied Government intent to regulate and manage

the region. Those who expressed this belief did so with

great conviction.

Some of the same individuals were—and very likely

will remain—convinced that programs of the United

Nations and various environmental organizations (for

example, initiatives such as the Man and the Biosphere

Program, the World Heritage Convention, the International Biodiversity Convention, and the Wildlands

Project) pose imminent threats to private property rights

in the Highlands and to United States sovereignty (see

Coffman 1997 for a more complete treatment of these

and related concerns). Some argued that the Assessment must either be part of or aiding and abetting one or

more of these perceived takeover efforts.

Although it is difficult to estimate how many people

in the Highlands share these concerns, they were the

issues voiced most often during Assessment Team

working meetings in 1996 and 1997. Individuals raising

concerns about private property rights and/or threats

from the United Nations were doing so in many other

arenas at the same time the Assessment was underway, and they successfully influenced some decisions

made by county and State governments and by Federal

agencies in Missouri and Arkansas during that time

(see below). It seems likely that such opinions will

persist and be important factors in future public land

management planning efforts of many agencies in the

Highlands.

County Land Use Plans

As noted in Chapter 3, at least eight county governments in the Highlands during the course of the OzarkOuachita Highlands Assessment passed ordinances

establishing draft “county land use plans” that assert an

expanded role for county government in the management of Federal and State lands in those counties

(Carroll, Fulton, Montgomery, Newton, Polk, Searcy,

and Stone Counties, AR, and Dent County, MO).

Other counties in the Highlands have considered

passing similar ordinances, all fashioned after a model

developed in the Western United States. It is not clear

what passage of such ordinances implies about public

opinion in the respective counties, but conversations

with several backers of these ordinances suggest that

their intent was to ensure that they had a “place at the

table” when national forest land management decisions

are made, not that they (county elected officials or their

designees) would control or actually make those decisions. Passage of these ordinances probably signals an

increase in the level of local public interest in national

forest planning, reflecting the growing opinion that local

citizens need to participate if they want their voices to

be heard over the “roar” of interest groups.

Implications and Opportunities

There appears to be broad support for multiple-use

management of national forests, but there is little

agreement on what the proper mix of uses should be.

Managers should be aware that people are nearly

evenly divided over whether timber harvesting is

appropriate on public land and that as many as 70

percent of those at higher income levels (greater than

$50,000) may be opposed to natural resource extraction

on public lands unless managers can assure stringent

260
environmental protection and achieve esthetic and

ecological objectives as well as economic ones.

Studies suggest that when people are assured that

timber harvesting will be carried out in a way that

protects environmental values, they are more likely to be

supportive of it. While surveys indicate there are many

people who oppose logging on public land, they also

indicate that many people have little understanding or

information about forest management practices and the

objectives and operations of the Forest Service and

other public land managing agencies. People believe that

Forest Service communications are too complicated and

technical to be understood by the general public, and

that highly organized interest groups dominate the

planning process. People want information about the

national forests that is accessible and readable. All of

these findings point to a need to provide better information to interested citizens and to pay better attention to

public responses to that information.

Results from national and local surveys indicate that

trust in the Forest Service and in government does not

seem to be as low as is sometimes alleged, and there is

general support for the Forest Service to manage the

national forests on a scientific basis. However, the

public wants to be involved and be able to influence the

land management decisions that are made; often,

citizens do not have a clear understanding of the public

involvement opportunities available to them. Moreover,

there is a widely held perception that the ordinary citizen

really doesn’t have much say.

Forest Service employees frequently mentioned the

“silent majority” when they discussed public opinions

about forest management, sometimes invoking it as

supportive of the planning and management decisions

they make. Some employees feel that many people in

local communities support their efforts but seldom speak

out. People who are not Federal employees also invoke

the silent majority in favor of their positions, including

claims of major alienation and displeasure.

Of course, as long as any group is silent, there is no

way to know what its attitudes and opinions are or

whether any generalizations can be made about them.

Several of the studies reported here probably come as

close as is possible to identifying the attitudes and values

of this silent majority, because they represent probability

samples of the general public and have even gone to

great length to enlist input from a wide variety of

publics. It does seem clear, though, that some people

feel left out and overlooked, and that at times their

resentment is great.

The Social-Economic Team found that, except for a

few highly focused studies, little scientific information is

available about the attitudes and values of the people

living in the Highlands with respect to their relationships

to national forests and the Forest Service. Information

about the values and attitudes of private inholders,

identified as an important subject by people attending

working meetings of the team, is glaringly absent.

Future social science research focused on these subjects would be helpful.

Fear of the Federal Government (and/or the United

Nations and/or environmental groups) is apparently

strong in some quarters. Even though the purpose of the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment was to gather

and interpret information pertinent to public lands (not to

develop a land use plan for the Highlands), some people

saw it as a covert step toward increased Government

control and accelerated erosion of private property

rights. Several individuals felt strongly that the Assessment would lead to establishment of Biosphere

Reserves in the Highlands. (None exist there, and the

105th Congress included language in an 1998 fiscal year

appropriations bill that precludes Federal land managing

agencies from establishing new Biosphere Reserves).

It seems likely that such fears and concerns will be

factors in future public land management planning

efforts. On the positive side, increased interest on the

part of citizens living near public lands suggests opportunities for enhancing public participation in

decisionmaking. One downside is that some citizens

may be unwilling to move beyond rumors and fears to

address the actual decisions pending, resulting in the

latter getting short shrift and some citizens being

discouraged from participating because there are so

many side issues.

Federal land managers probably need to pay more

attention to opportunities to coordinate public land

management planning activities with local governments.

A growing number of county governments are on

record as desiring more say and better coordination.

While Federal law does not support some of the legal

theories that the county “land use plans” advance, it

261
very clearly supports cooperation and coordination

among government entities having shared or overlapping

responsibilities. If local interest in a more coordinated

approach to national forest planning is indeed growing,

managers will be well served by working closely with

local elected officials to determine how they can best

achieve this goal.

262
References

Abt, Robert C.; Cubbage, Frederick W. 1998. Southern region

timber supply model: development and applications. 18 p.

[Unpublished report on file with Robert C. Abt, North

Carolina State University, College of Forest Resources,

Raleigh, NC.]

Alward, Greg. 1998. [Land Management Planning Specialist,

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Fort Collins, CO.] Personal communication. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. [Not paged]. [Unpublished

document on file with the Land Management Planning

Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, Fort Collins, CO.]

Arkansas Archeological Survey (AR AS). 1997. Arkansas

archeology: guide to sites, parks, museums. Fayetteville,

AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 17 p.

Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism (AR DPT). 1997.

Natural facts, 1996–1997: Arkansas tourism annual report.

Little Rock, AR: Diversified Graphics, Inc. 72 p.

Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism (AR DPT). 1998.

Building tourism—the future is now. Little Rock, AR: The

Peerless Group. 76 p.

Arkansas Department of Planning and Division of Community

Affairs (AR DPDCA). 1974. Report and recommendations

pertaining to area-wide planning and planning organizations

for the State of Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: University of

Arkansas. 106 p.

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,

Mining Division (AR DPCE MD). 1997. Permitted mine

reference information for Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: State of

Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology, Mining Division. [Various pagination].

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AR HPP). [n.d.].

Ethnic variation and vernacular architecture in the farmsteads of the Ozark-St. Francis and Ouachita National

Forests. Hot Springs, AR: Arkansas Historic Preservation

Program. 88 p. [Unpublished report on file with the Forest

Archeologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National

Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers Commission (AR NSRC).

1997. Information documents on the Arkansas Natural and

Scenic Rivers System and Registry. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers Commission. 3 p.

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AR

SHTD). 1995. 1995 traffic volumes map of the State highway

system, State of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas State

Highway and Transportation Department. 1 p.

Arkansas State Planning Board (AR SPB). 1936. Progress report

of the Arkansas State Planning Board. Little Rock, AR: The

State Capitol. 244 p.

Arnold, Ron; Gottlieb, Alan. 1994. Trashing the economy: how

runaway environmentalism is wrecking America. Bellevue,

WA: Merrill Press. 659 p.

Avery, Sherri L. 1992. Cultural resources survey for proposed

timber sale, road, and wildlife pond projects on Jessieville

Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest, Garland County,

Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Res. Rep. No. 53. Hot Springs,

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

Ouachita National Forest. 29 p.

Baker, Charles M. 1974. A study of aboriginal novaculite

exploitation in the Ouachita Mountains of south central

Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas. 96 p.

M.A. thesis.

Baldwin, Debbie. 1997. [Coordinator, Mt. Ida Chamber of

Commerce, Mt. Ida, AR.] Personal communications. 2 p.

[Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals

Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

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 Forest Experiment Station. 171 p.

Beaulieu, Lionel J.; Mulkey, David. 1995. Human capital in rural

America: a review of theoretical perspectives. In: Beaulieu,

Lionel J.; Mulkey, David, eds. Investing in people: the

human capital needs of rural America. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press: 3–21.

Bell, Robert E. 1984. Prehistory of Oklahoma. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press. 432 p.

Birch, Thomas. 1996. The forest land owners of the United

States, 1994. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Blatner, Keith A.; Greene, John L. 1989. Woodland owner

attitudes toward timber production and management.

Resource Management and Optimization. 6(3): 205–223.

263
Bliss, John C.; Nepal, Sunil K.; Brooks, Robert T., Jr.; Larsen,

Max D. 1994. Forestry community or granfaloon? Do forest

owners share the public’s views? Journal of Forestry. 92(9):

6–10.

Borgotta, Edgar F. 1992. Encyclopedia of sociology. New York:

Macmillan. 2,359 p.

Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor

recreation participation and consumption: projections 2000

to 2050. In: Cordell, H. Ken, ed. Outdoor recreation in

American life: a national assessment of demand and supply

trends. Champagne, IL: Sagamore Press, Inc.: 323–350.

Branson, City of. 1995. Intermodal transportation study for

Stone County, Taney County, City of Branson, Missouri.

Executive summary and map. 1 p.

Browne, W.A. 1929. Some frontier conditions in the hilly portion

of the Ozarks. The Journal of Geography. 28(5): 181–188.

Brunson, Mark W. 1996. Human dimensions in silviculture. In:

Ewert, A.E., ed. Natural resource management: the human

dimension. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 91–108.

Bukenhofer, George. 1998. [Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Heavener, OK.] Personal

conversation. Hot Springs, AR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest.

Cambridge Energy Associates, Inc. (CEA); Option Dynamics

Corporation (ODC). 1990. Special report: energy and the

environment: the new landscape of public opinion—a

public opinion survey and analysis. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge Energy Associates, Inc.; Opinion Dynamics

Corporation. 29 p.

Cande, Kathleen H. 1995. Revealing the secrets of Spradley

Hollow. Arkansas Archeological Society Field Notes. 259:

3–4.

Cande, Kathleen H. 1998. The archeology of Spradley Hollow,

excavations in the Ozark National Forest, Buffalo Ranger

District, Newton County, Arkansas. AAS Proj. 906 Final Rep.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 346 p.

Certec, Inc. 1997. Economic impact of Missouri’s tourism and

travel industry—1995 and 1996. Frankfort, KY: Certec, Inc.

39 p.

Chapman, C.H. 1975. Archeology of Missouri I. Columbia, MO:

University of Missouri Press. 288 p.

Chapman, C.H. 1980. Archeology of Missouri II. Columbia, MO:

University of Missouri Press. 337 p.

Claxton, Larry. 1997. [Staff Geologist, State of Oklahoma,

Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Oil and Gas Conservation Division, Oklahoma City, OK.] Personal communications. 2 p. [Unpublished report on file with the Forest

Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Coffman, Michael S. 1994. Saviors of the earth? Chicago, IL:

Northfield Publishing. 319 p.

Coffman, Michael S. 1997. Globalized grizzlies. New American.

13(17): 11–18.

Coleman, Roger E. 1993. Archeological investigations at Boggs

Homestead (3MN781), Oden Ranger District, Ouachita

National Forest, Montgomery County, Arkansas. Cultural

Res. Rep. No. 83. Hot Springs, AR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest. 60 p.

Coleman, Roger E. 1995. The Moore Homestead (3PL355). In:

Stewart, Jack H.; Coleman, Roger E.; Hilliard, Jerry E. [and

others]. Archeological investigations in the southern

Ouachita Mountains: excavations at the Shady Lake

Recreation Area and vicinity. AAS Proj. Rep. 856.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey: 83–152.

Coleman, Roger E. [In press]. Archeological investigations at

the Rocky Shoals site. Hot Springs, AR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest.

Coleman, Roger E.; Etchieson, Meeks; Pfeiffer, Michael A. 1996.

Texas fever and free range herding in Arkansas: material

culture of the Federal tick eradication program. 11 p. [Paper

presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the Society for

Historical Archeology; 1996 January 4–7; Cincinnati, OH.

Report on file with the Forest Archeologist, USDA Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Coleman, Roger E; Guendling, Randall L. 1999. Blaylock Creek

site (3MN383). Archeological investigations at the Winding

Stair locality, Montgomery County, Arkansas. AAS Proj.

Rep. 941. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey:

47–87.

Coleman, Ron. 1997. [Owner/Operator, Ron Coleman Mining,

Inc., Hot Springs, AR.] Personal communications. 2 p.

[Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals

Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

Colorado State University (CSU). [n.d.]. A history of United

States public land law and the evolution of the National

Forest System. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

34 p. [Unpublished course material on file at the Forest

Supervisor’s Office, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

264
Cook, Annabel Kirschner. 1995. Increasing poverty in timberdependent areas in western Washington. Society and

Natural Resources. 8(2): 97–110.

Cook, Peggy J.; Mizer, Karen L. 1994. The revised ERS county

typology: an overview. Rural Development Res. Rep. No. 89.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. 48 p.

Cordell, H. Ken. 1995a. [Supervisory Research Forester and

Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research

Station, Athens, GA.] National Outdoor Recreation Supply

Information System (NORSIS). Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [Various pagination].

[Unpublished data on file at the USDA Forest Service,

Southern Research Station, Athens, GA, and University of

Georgia, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics,

Athens, GA.]

Cordell, H. Ken. 1995b. [Supervisory Research Forester and

Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research

Station, Athens, GA.] National Private Landowner Survey

(NPLOS). Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. [Various pagination]. [Unpublished data on

file at the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Athens, GA, and University of Georgia, Department of

Agriculture and Applied Economics, Athens, GA.]

Cordell, H. Ken. 1995c. [Supervisory Research Forester and

Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research

Station, Athens, GA.] Social, economic, environmental,

leisure, and attitudes (SEELA) data set. Athens, GA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [Various pagination]. [Unpublished data on file at the USDA Forest Service,

Southern Research Station, Athens, GA, and University of

Georgia, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics,

Athens, GA.]

Cordell, H. Ken; Teasley, Jeff R.; Bergstrom, John C; Betz,

Carter J. 1997a. National Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE)—participation, trips, days, and

favorite activities data sets. CD-ROM. Athens, GA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station; University of Georgia, Department of

Agriculture and Applied Economics.

Cordell, H. Ken; Teasley, Jeff R.; Super, Greg [and others].

1997b. Outdoor Recreation in the United States: Results

from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, Southern Region. Athens, GA: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station; University of Georgia, Department of Agriculture

and Applied Economics. 114 p.

Cronon, William. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists,

and the ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang.

241 p.

Cubbage, Frederick W.; O’Laughlin, Jay; Bullock, Charles S.,

III. 1993. Forest resource policy. New York: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc. 562 p.

Davis, Hester. [n.d.]. The Cherokees in Arkansas. Fayetteville,

AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 2 p.

Davis, Hester. 1995. The thirty-second triumph. Arkansas

Archeological Society Field Notes. 265: 3–7.

de Toqueville, Alexis. 1973. Associations in American life. In:

Warren, Roland L., ed. Perspectives on the American

community, a book of readings. 2d ed. Chicago: Rand

McNally: 348–351.

D.K. Shifflet and Associates, Ltd. 1998. 1997 market analysis,

Arkansas tourism report. Little Rock, AR: D.K. Shifflet and

Associates. 48 p.

Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. 1978. The new environmental

paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education. 9(4): 10–19.

Dunlap, R.E.; Mertig, A.G. 1991. The evolution of the U.S.

environmental movement from 1970 to 1990: an overview.

Society and Natural Resources. 4: 209–218.

Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G. [and others]. 1992.

Measuring endorsement of an ecological worldview: a

revised NEP scale. 14 p. [Copy of this unpublished paper on

file in the office of Dr. Don Voth, University of Arkansas,

School of Human Environmental Science, Department of

Rural Sociology, Fayetteville, AR.].

Durham, Floyd. 1997. [Mining Division Superintendent,

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,

Little Rock, AR.] Personal communications. 2 p. [Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals Geologist,

USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot

Springs, AR.]

Early, Ann M. 1988. Standridge: Caddoan settlement in a

mountain environment. Res. Ser. No. 29. Fayetteville, AR:

Arkansas Archeological Survey. 195 p.

Early, Ann M. 1993. Finding the middle passage: the Spanish

journey from the swamplands to Caddo country. In: Young,

Gloria A; Hoffman, Michael P., eds. The expedition of

Hernando de Soto west of the Mississippi, 1541–1543:

Proceedings of the de Soto symposium 1988 and 1989; 1988

October 3; 1990 March 28–30; Fayetteville, AR. Fayetteville,

AR: University of Arkansas Press: 68–77.

265
Early, Ann M. 1997a. [Staff Archeologist, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Henderson State University, Arkadelphia,

AR.] Personal communications. 2 p. [Unpublished report on

file with the Forest Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Early, Ann M. 1997b. Tree tales: forest resource choices in

Caddoan architecture. [Paper presented at the Southeastern

Archeological Conference; 1997 November 5–8; Baton

Rouge, LA.] 10 p. [Report on file with the Arkansas

Archeological Survey, Henderson State University,

Arkadelphia, AR.]

Early, Ann M.; Limp, W. Fredrick. 1982. Fancy Hill: archeological studies in the southern Ouachita Mountains. Res. Ser.

No. 16. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey.

334 p.

Engel, A.E.J. 1951. Quartz crystal deposits of western Arkansas. Geo. Survey Bull. 973-E. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 260 p.

Erickson, Enid. [n.d.]. [Forest Archeologist, USDA Forest

Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.] Data

provided for inclusion in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment. Rolla, MO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest. 7 p. [Unpublished report on file at USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR; Mark Twain National

Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Etchieson, Meeks. 1997a. Ouachita National Forest/

Weyerhaeuser Company land exchange. Caddoan Archeology Newsletter. 8(2): 17–27.

Etchieson, Meeks. 1997b. Prehistoric novaculite quarries in the

Ouachita Mountains. [Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archeology; 1997

April 2–6; Nashville, TN.] 24 p. [Report on file with the

Forest Archeologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Fendley, Kim; Voth, Donald E.; Hitt, Carl P. 1997. The social

context of the Ouachita National Forest: public participation.

Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, School of Human

Environmental Science. 195 p.

Ferguson, Tom. 1997. [Wilderness Manager, USDA Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Mena, AR.] Personal

conversation.

Foreman, Grant. 1986. Indian removal. Norman, OK: The

University of Oklahoma Press. 423 p.

Foster, Ellery A.; Vogel, Harold A. 1940. Cooperative land use

planning—a new development in democracy. In: 1940

yearbook of agriculture: farmers in a changing world.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 1,139–

1,144.

Foster, Steven. 1997. Medicinal plant development in the

United States. In: Vance, Nan C.; Thomas, J., eds. Special

forest products: biodiversity meets the marketplace. GTRWO-63. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service: 26–41.

Frentz, Irene; Voth, Donald E.; Anderson, Steven; Pell, William

F. 1997. A talk in the woods: an impartial advisory committee

eases conflict on the Ouachita. Journal of Forestry. 95(6):

26–31.

Freudenberg, William R.; Gramling, Robert. 1994. Natural

resources and rural poverty: a closer look. Society and

Natural Resources. 7(1): 5–22.

Gates, Steve. 1997. [Staff Geologist, Arkansas Oil and Gas

Commission, El Dorado, AR.] Personal communications. 2 p.

[Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals

Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

Gracey, Eric. 1997. Identifying NIPF landowner characteristics

and attitudes in Kentucky. Lexington, KY: University of

Kentucky. 144 p. M.S. thesis.

Gray, John; Guldin, James M. [In press]. Hardwood chip export

mills in Arkansas—implications for sustainability. In:

Proceedings of the symposium on Arkansas forests; 1997

May 31; North Little Rock, AR. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station.

Green, Andrew A. 1998. Arkansas leads U.S. in surge of Hispanics. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. September 4: 1A, 12A.

Greene, John L.; Blatner, Keith A. 1986. Identifying woodland

owner characteristics associated with timber management.

Forest Science. 32(1): 135–146.

Guendling, Randall L. 1999. The old Phillips place (3MN1106).

Archeological investigations at the Winding Stair locality,

Montgomery County, Arkansas. AAS Proj. Rep. 941.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey: 13–46.

Hackett, Ronald L. 1992. Pulpwood production in the North

Central Region, 1990. Resour. Bull. NC-140. St. Paul, MN:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North

Central Forest Experiment Station. 38 p.

Hackett, Ronald L.; Piva, Ronald J. 1993. Pulpwood production

in the North Central Region, 1991. Resour. Bull. NC-152. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 39 p.

266
Hackett, Ronald L.; Piva, Ronald J. 1994. Pulpwood production

in the North Central Region, 1992. Resour. Bull. NC-159. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 41 p.

Hackett, Ronald L.; Smith, W. Brad. 1990. Pulpwood production

in the North Central Region, 1988. Resour. Bull. NC-123. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 29 p.

Hahn, Jerold T.; Spencer, John S., Jr. 1991. Timber resource of

Missouri, statistical report, 1989. Resour. Bull. NC-119. St.

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 123 p.

Hall, Mike. 1997. [Superintendent, Arkansas Crater of Diamonds State Park, Murfreesboro, AR.] Personal communications. 2 p. [Unpublished report on file with the Forest

Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Hammond, Bruce. 1994. Forest Service Values Poll questions:

results and analysis. Tampa, FL: Kaset International. 28 p.

Harmon, Debbie; Lockhart, Jami J.; Sabo, George, III. 1996.

From surveyor’s chains to satellites: a study of historic

environmental change and land use on the Lee Creek unit of

the Ozark National Forest, Crawford and Washington

Counties, Arkansas. AAS Proj. 955. Fayetteville, AR:

Arkansas Archeological Survey. 99 p.

Harper, Jarvis. 1997. [Environmental/Reclamation Specialist,

Alcoa Aluminum Co., Benton, AR.] Personal communications. 2 p. [Unpublished report on file with the Forest

Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Hatley, Larry. 1997. [Plant Manager, Shady Point Power

Generator, Poteau, OK.] Personal communications. 2 p.

[Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals

Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

Haynes, R.W.; Adams, D.M.; Mills, J.R. 1995. The 1993 RPA

timber assessment update. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-259.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 66 p.

Holmes, William H. 1891. Aboriginal novaculite quarries in

Garland County, Arkansas. American Anthropologist [old

series]. 4: 313–316.

Holmes, William H. 1919. Novaculite quarries, Arkansas. In:

Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities. Bull. 60, Part I.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of

American Ethnology: 196–200.

Hood, J. Edward. 1996. Social relations and the cultural

landscape. In: Yamin, Rebecca; Metheny, Karen Bescherer,

eds. Landscape archeology: reading and interpreting the

American historical landscape. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press: 121–146.

Howard, J. Michael 1997. [Senior Geologist, Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock, AR.] Minerals, geologic, and

mining related resources and social issues for the OzarkOuachita Highlands Assessment–Arkansas section. Little

Rock, Arkansas: State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological

Commission. 66 p. [Unpublished report on file with the

Forest Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Howard, J. Michael; Colton, George W.; Prior, William L. 1997.

Mineral, fossil-fuel, and water resources of Arkansas.

Arkansas Geological Commission Bull. 24. Little Rock,

Arkansas: State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission. 115 p.

Howell, Michael. 1993. Southern pulpwood production, 1991.

Resour. Bull. SE-137. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 25 p.

Howell, Michael; Hartsell, Andrew J. 1995. Southern pulpwood

production, 1993. Resour. Bull. SE-152. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 24 p.

Howze, Glenn; Bailey, Conner; Bliss, John C. 1994. The

development of timber dependency: an analysis of historical

changes in the demographic, social, economic and agricultural profiles of timber dependent counties in Alabama.

Presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological

Society; 1994 August 11–14; Portland, OR. 25 p. [Unpublished paper on file in the office of Dr. Don Voth, University

of Arkansas, School of Human Environmental Science,

Department of Rural Sociology, Fayetteville, AR.]

Humphrey, Craig R. 1994a. Introduction: poverty and natural

resources in the United States. Society and Natural Resources. 7(1): 1–3.

Humphrey, Craig R. 1994b. Introduction: natural resourcedependent communities and persistent rural poverty in the

U.S.—Part II. Society and Natural Resources. 7(3): 201–203.

Humphrey, Craig R. 1994c. Introduction: natural resourcedependent communities and persistent rural poverty in the

U. S.—Part III. Society and Natural Resources. 7(5): 411–413.

Humphrey, Craig R. 1995. Introduction: natural resourcedependent communities and persistent rural poverty in the

U. S.—Part IV. Society and Natural Resources. 8(2): 93–96.

267
Humphrey, Craig R.; Berardi, G.; Carrol, M.S. [and others]. 1993.

Theories in the study of natural resource-dependent

communities and persistent rural poverty in the United

States. In: Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. Persistent poverty in rural America.

Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press: 133–173.

Institute for Economic Advancement (IEA). [Accessed 1998].

Series B—projection series: Arkansas population by

county, 1990–2010. <http://www.aiea.ualr.edu/research/

seriesb.html>. [Various pagination].

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council

(IWSRCC). 1997. Wild and Scenic River reference guide.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management; U.S. Department of Agriculture. 162 p.

International City Management Association (ICMA). 1984.

Management of local planning. Washington, DC: International City Management Association. 278 p.

Jenny, W.P. 1891. Ancient novaculite mines near Magnet Cove,

Hot Springs [sic] County, Arkansas. American Anthropologist [old series]. 4: 316–318.

Jerrels, Casa H.; Moore, Lea. 1994. [Former Landscape Architect and Civil Engineer, respectively, USDA Forest Service,

Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.] Accessibility

transition plan for Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs,

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

Ouachita National Forest. 32 p. [Unpublished report on file

at the Forest Supervisor’s office, USDA Forest Service,

Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Johnson, K.S.; Suneson, N.H. 1996. Rockhounding and earthscience activities in Oklahoma—1995 Workshop. OK GS

Spec. Pub. 96-5 1996. Norman, OK: State of Oklahoma,

Oklahoma Geological Survey. 139 p.

Johnson, Thomas G.; Stallman, Judith I. 1994. Human capital

investment in resource-dominated economies. Society and

Natural Resources. 7(3): 221–233.

Johnson, Tony G.; Howell, Michael. 1996. Southern pulpwood

production, 1994. Resour. Bull. SRS-1. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 32 p.

Johnson, Tony G.; Steppleton, Carolyn D. 1996. Southern

pulpwood production, 1995. Resour. Bull. SRS-8. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 34 p.

Jones, J. Greg; Thompson, Richard P. 1981. Characteristics,

attitudes, and objectives of nonindustrial private forest

owners in eastern Oklahoma. Res. Rep. P-816. Stillwater, OK:

Oklahoma State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

32 p.

Jurgelski, William; Cande, Kathleen H.; Sabo, George, III. 1996.

Farms in the forest: a study of late historic domestic sites on

the Ozark and Ouachita National Forests, Arkansas. AAS

Proj. Rep. 958. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological

Survey. 151 p.

Keith, Bill. 1997. [Hydrologist, Arkansas Department of

Pollution Control and Ecology, Water Division, Little Rock,

AR.] Personal communications. 2 p. [Unpublished report on

file with the Forest Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Kemmis, Daniel. 1990. Community and the politics of place.

Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press. 150 p.

Kessler, Winifred B.; Salwasser, Hal; Cartwright, Charles W.;

Caplan, James A. 1992. New perspectives for sustainable

natural resources management. Ecological Applications. 2:

221–225.

Keys, James E., Jr.; Carpenter, Constance A.; Hooks, Susan L.

[and others]. 1995. Ecological units of the Eastern United

States: first approximation. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 83 p.

Kurtz, William B.; Bradway, Carol J. 1981. Understanding

nonindustrial private forest landowner management

decisions. In: Robinson, Vernon L., comp. Proceedings of

the 1981 southern forest economics workshop: southern

timber supply constraints on NIPF lands; 1981 Mar. 17-19;

Mountain View, AR. Raleigh, NC: Southern Forest Economics Workers (SOFEW): 40–54.

Kurtz, William B.; Lewis, Bernard J. 1981. Decision-making

framework for nonindustrial private forest owners: an

application in the Missouri Ozarks. Journal of Forestry.

79(5): 285–288.

Kuzmic, Thomas; Caneday, Lowell. 1996. A characterization of

stakeholders of the Ouachita National Forest. Stillwater, OK:

Oklahoma State University, Department of Forestry and

College of Education. 111 p.

Lachmann, Richard. 1991. The encyclopedic dictionary of

sociology. Guilford, CT: Dushkin. 321 p.

Lake Tenkiller Association. 1995. Lake Tenkiller Regional Plan.

Cookson, OK: Lake Tenkiller Association. 65 p.

Leaming, George F. 1997. Mining and the American economy:

everything begins with mining. Washington, D.C: National

Mining Association. 86 p.

268
Levins, Robert R. 1997. [Field Auditor Supervisor, State of

Arkansas, Arkansas Forestry Commission, Little Rock, AR.]

State severance tax records. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas

Forestry Commission. [Various pagination]. [Unpublished

worksheets on file in the office of the Research Economist,

USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, NC.]

London, Jack D. 1997. Forest statistics for Arkansas counties—

1995. Resour. Bull. SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

86 p.

Lynott, Mark J. 1982. An evaluation of three archeological sites

in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Lincoln, NB: U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Midwest

Archeological Center. 115 p.

Mater, Catherine M. 1997. Consumer trends, market opportunities, and new approaches to sustainable development of

special forest products. In: Vance, Nan C.; Thomas, J., eds.

Special forest products: biodiversity meets the marketplace.

Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-WO-63. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 8–25.

McConnell, H.P. 1963. [Former Eastern Region Lands Director,

USDA Forest Service, Rolla, MO.] Historical summary of

land adjustment and classification, Clark National Forest

1933–1962. 35 p. [Unpublished report on file at the

Supervisor’s Office, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain

National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

McDonald, Barbara L; Brown, Michael B. 1995. The redefinition

of natural resources and changing social values. In:

Thompson, Jerrilyn Lavarre; Lime, David W.; Gartner, Bill;

Sames,Wayne M., eds. Proceedings, fourth international

outdoor recreation and tourism trends symposium; 1995

May 14–17; St. Paul, MN. St. Paul, MN: University of

Minnesota, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Minnesota Extension Service Tourism Center:

256–260.

McGuff, Paul R.; Moore, Sue M.; Kemp, Emory L. 1993. Felling,

skidding, and dogging: a study of sawmills in the western

Ouachita Mountains. Denton, TX: University of North

Texas, Institute of Applied Sciences. 275 p.

Miller, Patrick E. 1994. Southern pulpwood production, 1992.

Resour. Bull. SO-187. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment

Station. 31 p.

Miller, Patrick E.; Hartsell, Andrew J.; London, Jack D. 1993.

Forest statistics for east Oklahoma counties—1993. Resour.

Bull. SO-177. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 57 p.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MN IMPLAN). 1997a.

IMPLAN professional—social accounting and impact

analysis software. Stillwater, MN: Minnesota IMPLAN

Group, Inc. [Software and data available on a USDA Forest

Service computer system, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, Fort Collins, CO.]

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MN IMPLAN). 1997b.

IMPLAN Pro: user’s guide, analysis guide, data guide.

Stillwater, MN: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 378 p.

Missouri Department of Conservation (MO DC). 1996a. MDC

permit summary: trends in permit sales, fiscal and cultural

insights, recommendations. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri

Department of Conservation. 16 p.

Missouri Department of Conservation (MO DC). 1996b.

Missouri’s annual “Conservation Monitor” 1994–1996: three

years of Gallup Polls of Missourians’ conservation interests

and opinions. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Dept. of

Conservation, Planning Division. 14 p.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Mining Division

(MO DNR MD). 1997. Permitted mine reference information

for Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of

Natural Resources, Mining Division. [Various pagination].

[Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals

Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

Missouri Division of Tourism (MO DT). 1995. Travel intercept

study, Memorial Day 1995, in- versus out-of-State visitors.

St. Louis, MO: Glennon and Company. 47p.

Missouri Highway and Transportation Department (MO HTD).

1995. 1995 traffic volumes map of the State highway system,

State of Missouri [Map]. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri

Highway and Transportation Department. 1 p.

Missouri Office of Administration (MO OA). [Accessed 1998].

Projections of the population of Missouri counties by age,

gender and race: 1990 to 2020. <http://www.oa.state.mo.us/

bp/popproj/index.htm>. [Various pagination].

Missouri Rural Opportunities Council (MO ROC). [Accessed

1998]. Missouri Rural Opportunities Council. <http://

www.ecodev.state.mo.us/moroc/moroc.htm>. [Various

pagination].

Morse, Dan F., ed. 1997. Sloan: a Paleoindian Dalton cemetery

in Arkansas. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution

Press. 157 p.

Morse, Phyllis A. 1993. The Parkin archeological site and its

role in determining the route of the de Soto expedition. In:

Young, Gloria A; Hoffman, Michael P., eds. The expedition

269
of Hernando de Soto west of the Mississippi, 1541–1543:

Proceedings of the de Soto symposium, 1988 and 1989; 1988

October 3; 1990 March 28-30; Fayetteville, AR. Fayetteville,

AR: University of Arkansas Press: 58–67.

Myers, Robert A. 1997. Cherokee pioneers in Arkansas: the St.

Francis years, 1785–1813. Arkansas Historical Quarterly.

LVI(2): 127–157.

National Advisory Board of First Commercial Bank (NABFCB),

N.A. 1998. Arkansas tourism, the giant awakens. Little Rock,

AR: National Advisory Board of First Commercial Bank,

N.A. 44 p.

National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Competitiveness of the

U.S. minerals and metals industry. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. 140 p.

National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP). [Accessed

1998]. National Rural Development Partnership. <http://

www.rurdev.usda.gov/nrdp/index.html>. [Various pagination].

Newton County Wildlife Association (NCWA). [Accessed

1997]. Forest values poll conducted in nw Arkansas. <http://

www.bloomington.in.us/heartwood/ncwa/call/fall96/

FVPOLL.html>. Bloomington, IN: Heartwood. [Various

pagination].

Nolan, Daniel J., Jr. 1997. [Planning Staff Officer, USDA Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Personal communications. Hot Springs, AR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita National

Forest. [Not paged]. [Unpublished report on file in the office

of the Research Economist, USDA Forest Service, Research

Triangle Park, NC.]

Nonprofit Resources, Inc. [Accessed 1997]. Arkansas Champions. <http://www.champions.org>. [Various pagination].

Nord, Mark. 1994. Natural resources and persistent rural

poverty: in search of a nexus. Society and Natural Resources. 7(3): 205–220.

Nord, Mark; Cromartie, John B. 1997. Migration: the increasing

importance of rural natural amenities. Choices. (Third

quarter): 22–24.

Norris Foundation. 1988–1996. Timber Mart South. Athens,

GA: University of Georgia. [Various pagination].

Oklahoma Department of Commerce (OK DC). [Accessed 1998].

County and MSA population projections: 1990–2020.

<http://www.odoc.state.ok.us/index.html>. [Various pagination].

Oklahoma Department of Mines (OK DM). 1997. Permitted mine

reference information for Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, OK:

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Department of Mines.

[Various pagination]. [Unpublished report on file with the

Forest Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (OK DT). 1995. 1995

traffic volumes map of the State highway system, State of

Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of

Transportation. 1 p.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (OK DWC).

1997. Data on hunting and fishing license sales. Oklahoma

City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 4

p. [Unpublished reports on file at the Forest Supervisor’s

Office, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot

Springs, AR.]

Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission (OK SRC). 1997. Information documents about the Oklahoma scenic rivers. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission. 2 p.

Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department (OK TRD). 1992.

Oklahoma outdoor recreation assessment and planning

1992: The Oklahoma Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor

Recreation Plan (OK SCORP). Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma

Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of Planning

and Development. 89 p.

Osborne, David; Gaebler, Ted. 1992. Reinventing government:

how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public

sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 405 p.

Ouachita National Park Foundation Society (ONPFS). 1926.

Views from the proposed Ouachita National Park. Mena, AR:

Starko Print. 12 p.

Overdevest, Christine; Green, Gary P. 1995. Forest dependence

and community well-being: a segmented market approach.

Society and Natural Resources. 8(2): 111–131.

Owen, Wayne. 1998. [Botanist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.] Personal conversation.

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

Service, Ouachita National Forest.

Peluso, Nancy Lee; Humphrey, Craig R.; Fortmann, Louise P.

1994. The rock, the beach, and the total pool: people and

poverty in natural resource-dependent areas. Society and

Natural Resources. 7(1): 23–38.

Pfeiffer, Michael A. [n.d.]. [Archeologist, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National

Forest, Russellville, AR.] Data provided for inclusion in the

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment. Russellville, AR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests. 10 p. [Unpublished report on file at

270
the Forest Supervisors’ offices, USDA Forest Service, Ozark

National Forest, Russellville, AR; Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

Pfeiffer, Michael A. 1995. The manganese mill (3PL342). In:

Stewart, Jack H.; Coleman, Roger; Hilliard, Jerry E. [and

others]. Archeological investigations in the southern

Ouachita Mountains: excavations at the Shady Lake

Recreation Area and vicinity. AAS Proj. 856. Fayetteville,

AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey: 77–83.

Piva, Ronald J. 1995. Pulpwood production in the North-Central

Region, 1993. Resour. Bull. NC-160. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 39 p.

Piva, Ronald J. 1996. Pulpwood production in the North-Central

Region, 1994. Resour. Bull. NC-174. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 39 p.

Piva, Ronald J. 1997. Pulpwood production in the North-Central

Region, 1995. Resour. Bull. NC-180. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 39 p.

Piva, Ronald J. [In press]. Missouri timber industry—an

assessment of timber product output and use, 1994. St. Paul,

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North

Central Forest Experiment Station.

Piva, Ronald J.; Jones, Shelby B. 1997. Missouri timber

industry—an assessment of timber product output and use,

1994. Resour. Bull. NC-184. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment

Station. 54 p.

President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). 1996.

Sustainable America: a new consensus for prosperity,

opportunity, and a healthy environment for the future.

Washington, DC: President’s Council on Sustainable

Development. 186 p.

Price, Cynthia R. 1980. [Archeologist, USDA Forest Service,

Mark Twain National Forest, Doniphan, MO.] An archeological survey of selected construction locales at Big

Spring, Round Spring and Logyard campground in the

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Carter and Shannon

Counties, Missouri. Report 351. Springfield, MO: Southwest

Missouri State University, Center for Archeological

Research. 19 p. [Unpublished report on file at Southwest

Missouri State University, Center for Archeological

Research, Springfield, MO.]

Price, Cynthia R. 1993. [Archeologist, USDA Forest Service,

Mark Twain National Forest, Doniphan, MO.] Determination

of eligibility and effect, Herrygers site, 23WE693, Wayne

County, Missouri. Rep. No. 09-05-04-206 Part II. Rolla, MO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mark Twain

National Forest, Poplar Bluff Ranger District. 63 p. [Unpublished report on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, USDA

Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Price, Cynthia R. 1996. [Archeologist, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest,

Doniphan, MO.] Preliminary damage assessment for Big

Creek Trails and road closure project, Ava-Cassville-Willow

Springs Ranger District, Mark Twain National Forest.

Doniphan, MO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Mark Twain National Forest. 36 p [Unpublished

report on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, USDA Forest

Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Price, James E.; Price, Cynthia R.; Cottier, John [and others].

1975. An assessment of the cultural resources of the Little

Black Watershed. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri,

American Archeology Division. 375 p.

Purdue, A.H. 1909. The slates of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR:

State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission. 95 p.

Rafferty, Milton D. 1980. The Ozarks—land and life. Norman,

OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 282 p.

Robbins, Christopher S. 1998. American ginseng: the root of

North America’s medicinal herb trade. Washington, DC:

TRAFFIC North America. 94 p.

Rolingson, Martha Ann.; Howard, J. Michael. 1997. Igneous

lithics of central Arkansas: identification, sources, and

artifact distribution. Southeastern Archeology. 16(1): 33–50.

Romund, Camilla. 1997. Ecotourism development manual.

Harrison, AR: Northwest Arkansas Resource Conservation

and Development Council, Inc. 143 p.

Roper Starch, Inc. 1994. Outdoor recreation in America, 1994.

[Report prepared for the recreation roundtable.] Washington, DC: Roper Starch, Inc. 50 p.

Sabo, George, III. 1992. Paths of our children. Pop. Ser. No. 3.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 144 p.

Sabo, George, III; Early, Ann M.; Rose, Jerome C. [and others].

1990. Human adaptation in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains. Res. Ser. No. 31. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 296 p.

Sabo, George, III; Waddell, David B.; House, John H. 1982. A

cultural resource overview of the Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests, Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 283 p.

271
Schambach, Frank F. 1970. Pre-Caddoan cultures in the transMississippi South: a beginning sequence. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University. 464 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

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 of Missouri and Arkansas, and other

sections of the Western country. New York: C. Wiley and

Co. 302 p.

Schwaab, E.L. 1973. Travels in the Old South. Lexington, KY:

University Press of Kentucky. 579 p. Vol. 1.

Sebren, Ray. 1997. [Chief of Fiscal Division, State of Arkansas,

Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, AR.] License sales

data, fiscal years 1976–1996. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas

Game and Fish Commission. [Various pagination]. [Unpublished report on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, USDA

Forest Service, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

Seeger, Cheryl. 1997. [Staff Geologist, State of Missouri,

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and

Land Survey, Rolla, MO.] Minerals, geologic, and mining

related resources and social issues for the Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Assessment—Missouri section. Rolla, MO: State

of Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Geology and Land Survey. 111 p. [Unpublished

report on file with the Forest Minerals Geologist, USDA

Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

Seventh American Forest Congress (SAFC). [Accessed 1997].

Many voices—a common vision: news of activities following the Seventh American Forest Congress. <http:www.yale.

edu/forest_congress /rtvision.html>. New Haven, CT:

Seventh American Forest Congress. [Various pagination].

Sloan, G. Marie. 1989. [Archeological Technician, USDA Forest

Service, Rolla, MO.] Black cultural history and research on

the Nevins Farmstead, Callaway County, Missouri. Rolla,

MO: USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest,

Cedar Creek Ranger District. 136 p. [Unpublished report on

file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, USDA Forest Service,

Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Smith, Kenneth L. 1986. Sawmill: the story of cutting the last

great virgin forest east of the Rockies. Fayetteville, AR: The

University of Arkansas Press. 246 p.

Smith, Kenneth L. 1988. History and land use in project area. In:

Spears, Carol S.; Taylor, Robert A.; Smith, Kenneth L.;

Morris, Ellen M. Ouachita National Forest: archeological

survey and predictive model evaluation. Fin. Rep. 88-1.

West Fork, AR: Spears Professional Environmental and

Archeological Research Service: 15–21.

Smith, W. Brad; Jones, Shelby. 1990. Missouri timber industry—an assessment of timber product output and use.

Resour. Bull. NC-120. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment

Station. 51 p.

Sponsored Research Program. 1995. Bibliography of phase II

and phase III archeological investigations at historic rural

domestic sites in Arkansas, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 7 p.

Spurr, Stephen; Barnes, Burton. 1973. Forest ecology. New

York: The Roland Press Company. 569 p.

Steen, Harold K. 1977. The U.S. Forest Service: a history. 2d ed.

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 356 p.

Steuart, Charles T.; Holbrook, Drew F.; Stone, Charles G. 1984.

Arkansas novaculite: Indians, whetstones, plastics and

beyond. Misc. Pub. 18-B. Little Rock, AR: State of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Commission: 119–134.

Stewart, Jack H. 1995. Archeological investigations at site

3SC980 and 3SC981 within the Ouachita National Forest,

Scott County, Arkansas. Proj. Rep. 924. Fayetteville, AR:

Arkansas Archeological Survey. 40 p.

Stewart, Jack H.; Coleman, Roger E.; Hilliard, Jerry E. [and

others]. 1995. Archeological investigations in the southern

Ouachita Mountains: excavations at the Shady Lake

Recreation Area and vicinity. AAS Proj. Rep. 856.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 218 p.

Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C. 1986. The Moser Farmstead,

independent but not isolated: the archeology of a late

nineteenth century Ozark farmstead. Res. Ser. No. 26.

Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 183 p.

Strausberg, Stephen; Hough, Walter A. 1997. The Ouachita and

Ozark-St. 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.

Stroud, R.B.; Arndt, R.H.; Fulkerson, F.B.; Diamond, W.G. 1969.

Mineral resources and industries of Arkansas. U.S. Bureau

of Mines Bull. 645. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Mines. 418 p.

Suneson, Neil H. 1997. [Staff Geologist, State of Oklahoma,

Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, OK.] Minerals,

geologic, and mining-related resources and social issues for

the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment—Oklahoma

Section. Oklahoma City, OK: State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma

Geological Survey. 44 p. [Unpublished report on file in the

office of the Forest Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest

Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

272
SYNERGY Group. 1996. 1996–2001 Missouri Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation plan (MO SCORP). Jefferson

City, MO: Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

Division of State Parks. 92 p.

Talbert, Robert. 1994. [Landscape Architect, USDA Forest

Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville,

AR.] Accessibility transition plan for Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests. Russellville, AR: USDA Forest Service,

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. 119 p. [Unpublished

report on file at the Forest Supervisor’s office, USDA Forest

Service, Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, Russellville, AR.]

Tolbert, Charles M.; Beggs, John J.; Boudreaux, Gerry D. 1995.

PUMS-L data and associated files. CD-ROM. Baton Rouge,

LA: Louisiana State University, Louisiana Population Data

Center.

Travel Industry Association of America (TIAA). 1995.

TravelScope® annual 1995 summary—Oklahoma. Washington, DC: Travel Industry Association of America. 1 p.

Turner, Victor. 1995. Arkansas SCORP ’95—Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas

Department of Parks and Tourism. 112 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. Resource

conservation and development programs. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 21 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Presidential

initiative on rural development. Background: State Rural

Development Councils. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Under Secretary for Small Community and

Rural Development. 6 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

(USDA ERS). [Accessed 1997]. 1989 ERS county typology

codes. <http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/other/typolog/

TYP89.TXT>. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

[n.d.]. Land acquisition records. Various pagination.

[Unpublished records on file at the Forest Supervisors’

offices, USDA, Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR; Ozark-St. Francis National Forests,

Russellville, AR; Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1986a. Final supplement to the Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Mark

Twain National Forest. Rolla, MO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 388 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1986b. Final supplement to the Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests. Russellville, AR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 467 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS). 1988.

Forest Service grazing statistical summaries. Washington,

DC, USDA Forest Service. [Various pagination]. [Unpublished documents on file with the District Silviculturist,

USDA Forest Service, Ozark National Forest, Clarksville, AR.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1990. Final supplement to the Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita

National Forest. Hot Springs, AR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 596 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1992. Forest maps of the United States (maps). 1993 RPA

program. CD-ROM. Starkville, MS: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Forest Inventory and Analysis.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1994. Accessibility transition plan: Mark Twain National

Forest. 5 p. [Unpublished report on file at the Forest

Supervisor’s Office, USDA Forest Service, Mark Twain

National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1996a. Landscape esthetics, a handbook for scenery

management. Agric. Handb. 701. Washington, DC: U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 103 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1996b. Permitted mine reference information for Mark Twain

National Forest, MO, Ouachita National Forest, AR and OK.

Russellville, AR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Ozark National Forest. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

[Accessed February 1997a]. Eastwide forest inventory

database. <http://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/scripts/

OOHA_INDEX.htm>. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS).

1997b. Forest Land Use Report—FLUR database. Hot

Springs, AR: USDA Forest Service. [Not paged]. [Unpublished report on file in Forest Supervisor’s office, USDA

Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1997c. Forest Service grazing statistical summaries. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. [Not paged]. [Unpublished

273
documents on file with the District Silviculturist, USDA

Forest Service, Ozark National Forest, Clarksville, AR.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1999a. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: aquatic

conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-33. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. Xx p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS).

1999b. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: terrestrial

vegetation and wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-35. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Xx p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (USDA FS FIA). [Accessed 1997]. Forest

Inventory and Analysis data records, Eastwide Forest

Inventory Data Base: user’s manual. <http://

www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/ewdata/ewrec.htm>. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

[Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mark Twain

National Forest (USDA FS MTNF). 1987–1996. Annual

reports. Rolla, MO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Mark Twain National Forest. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest (USDA FS ONF). 1987–1996. Annual reports.

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

Service, Ouachita National Forest. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ouachita

National Forest (USDA FS ONF). 1996. Participating

agreement between Ouachita National Forest and the

Arkansas Archeological Survey. Agree. No. 96-PA-025. Hot

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

Ouachita National Forest. 6 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ozark-St.

Francis National Forests (USDA FS OZ-SFNF). 1987–1996.

Annual reports. Russellville, AR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ozark-St. Francis National

Forests. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Region (USDA FS SR). 1996. Assembled data base from the

1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses of population and housing.

[Machine-readable data files.] Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 1992. 1992 National Resources

Inventory. [Machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 1997a. Broad land cover/use for

selected major land resource areas. 16 p. [Unpublished data

summary on file at the Forest Supervisor’s office, USDA

Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 1997b. Resource conservation

and development in Missouri. Columbia, MO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service. 20 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). [Accessed 1997c]. Resource

conservation and development: partnerships serving

America’s communities. <http://www.ncg.nrcs.usda.gov/

rcnd_2.html>. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (USDA and HUD). [Accessed

September 1997]. EZ/EC: Building Communities Together.

<http://www.ezec.gov>. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1987–1996. Current industrial reports, MA24T. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1988 and 1993. Census of manufactures. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

[Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1988–1996. Annual survey of manufactures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1992. Technical documentation for the 1990 census of

population and housing: summary tape file 3. [Documentation and CD-ROM.] CD-ROM. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 374 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1993. 1990 census of population and housing: summary

tape file 3c. [Machine-readable data files.] CD-ROM.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1996. USA counties: 1996. [Machine-readable data

files.] CD-ROM. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

274
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). [Accessed 1997a]. County population estimates.

<http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/

co_97_1.html>. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). [Accessed 1997b]. Estimates of the population of cities

with populations of 10,000 and greater. <http://

www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/

SC10K96.txt> Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). [Accessed October 13, 1997c]. Popclock projection.

<http:/www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock>. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

[Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1997d. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1997.

117th ed. [Also available at <http://www.census.gov/prod/

www/abs/cc97stab.html>.] Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1,023 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). [Accessed 1998a]. County population estimates.

<http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/

co_crh.htm>. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). 1998b. Special census of Washington County, Arkansas, 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census. 92 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (USDC

BC). [Accessed May 1999]. Explanation of race and Hispanic origin categories. <http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/rho.txt>. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. [Various pagination].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

(USDC BEA). 1996. Regional economic information system:

1969 to 1994. [Machine-readable data files.] CD-ROM.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (USDI BM).

1991. Out of the rock. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Mines. 47 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI

FWS). 1997. 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting, and

wildlife-associated recreation: State overview, preliminary

findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI

FWS). [Accessed 1998]. National Wildlife Refuge System

mission and goals. <http://refuges.fws.gov/NWRSFiles/

General/MissionAndGoals.html>. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[Various pagination].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USDI GS).

1996. Mineral Industry Surveys: statistical summary, annual

review—1995. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Geological Survey. 36 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USDI GS).

1997a. Mineral Industry Surveys (MIS)—Arkansas, 1996

annual estimate. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Geological Survey. 6 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USDI GS).

1997b. Mineral Industry Surveys (MIS)—Missouri, 1996

annual estimate. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Geological Survey. 6 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USDI GS).

1997c. Mineral Industry Surveys (MIS)—Oklahoma, 1996

annual estimate. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Geological Survey. 6 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1965. Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas

[Brochure]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service. 2 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1982. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 30 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1989. Fort Smith National Historic Site [Brochure].

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service. 2 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1990a. Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Missouri

[Brochure]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service. 2 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1990b. George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri [Brochure]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1991. Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri

275
[Brochure]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service. 2 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1993. Register of National Recreation Trails. Washington, DC: National Park Service. 10 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1997a. [Accessed September 1, 1997]. Buffalo National

River. <http://pigpen.itd.nps.gov/buff/>. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

[Various pagination].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI

NPS). 1997b. [Accessed September 1, 1997]. Ozark National

Scenic Riverways. <http://www.nps.gov/ozar/>. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service.

1 p.

U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (USDL MSHA). [Accessed 1997]. Mining accident and

injury statistics data base. <http//www.msha.gov>. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and

Health Administration. [Various pagination].

U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). 1994. Ecosystem

management: additional actions needed to adequately test a

promising approach. Rep. GAO/RCED-95-111. Washington,

DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 87 p.

U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Domestic

Assistance Catalog Staff (U.S. GSA FDACS). [Accessed

1997]. Catalog of Domestic Federal Assistance.

<http:www.gsa.gov/fdac>. [Various pagination].

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (U.S. OMB). 1987.

Standard industrial classification manual. Washington, DC:

Office of Management and Budget. 705 p.

U.S. Travel Data Center (U.S. TDC). [n.d.]. The economic

impact of travel on Arkansas counties, 1994. Washington

DC: The U.S. Travel Data Center. 45 p.

University of Arkansas, Division of Community Affairs (UA

DCA). 1972. Guidelines for municipal planning in Arkansas:

a manual of statutory requirements and authorizations.

Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, Division of

Community Affairs. 44 p.

Vance, Nan C. 1997. The challenge of increasing human

demands on natural systems. In: Vance, Nan C.; Thomas, J.,

eds. Special forest products: biodiversity meets the marketplace. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-63. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 2–7.

Vasquez, Maria Cristina Arcos. 1994. Forest dependency and

community stability in Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, Department of Agricultural Economics and

Rural Sociology. 107 p. M.S. thesis.

Vasquez, Maria Cristina Arcos; Voth, Donald E.; Fendley, Kim.

1996. [Former graduate student, Professor, and former

Assistant Professor, respectively; University of Arkansas,

School of Human Environmental Science, Department of

Rural Sociology, Fayetteville, AR.] Resource dependency

and community investment in human capital in Arkansas.

Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, School of Human

Environmental Science. 33 p. [Unpublished manuscript on

file at University of Arkansas, School of Human Environmental Science.]

Vaughn, Denise Henderson. 1997. Prediction: landowner

decisions will determine if chip mill friend or foe. West Plains

[MO] Daily Quill. August 8: 1, 12.

Voth, Donald E. 1995. A brief history and assessment of Federal

rural development programs and policies. The University of

Memphis Law Review. 25(5): 1,265–1,292.

West, Patrick C. 1994. Natural resources and the persistence of

rural poverty in America: a Weberian perspective on the role

of power, domination, and natural resource bureaucracy.

Society and Natural Resources. 7(5): 415–427.

Wettstaed, James R. [n.d.]. [Shared Service Archeologist,

USDA Forest Service, Potosi, MO.] A look at early 19th

century life in an Ozarks mining town: the view from the

company store day books. 29 p. [Unpublished manuscript

on file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, USDA Forest

Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Wettstaed, James R. 1996. [Shared Service Archeologist, USDA

Forest Service, Potosi, MO.] A consideration of the Late

Woodland and Mississippian occupations of the northeastern Ozarks of Missouri. Paper presented at the 61st Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archeology, 1996 April

10–14; New Orleans, LA. 34 p. [Unpublished manuscript on

file at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, USDA Forest Service,

Mark Twain National Forest, Rolla, MO.]

Wettstaed, James. 1997. [Shared Service Archeologist, USDA

Forest Service, Potosi, MO.] Personal communications. 2 p.

[Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals

Geologist, USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, AR.]

Wettstaed, James R. [In press.] A different view of the lead

mines of Missouri: archeological investigations in the

Palmer Mining District. The Missouri Archaeologist.

Williams, G. Ishmael; Reed, Mary Beth; Abbott, Lawrence E.;

Joseph, J.W. 1993. An archeological survey of 7,741 acres in

the Caddo, Cold Springs, Fourche, Poteau, and Womble

276
Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Scott, Yell,

Garland, and Montgomery Counties, Arkansas. Tech. Rep.

147. Stone Mountain, GA: New South Associates, Inc. 296 p.

Williams, Richard A. 1997. [Project Manager, Reynolds Aluminum, Benton, AR.] Personal communications. 2 p. [Unpublished report on file with the Forest Minerals Geologist,

USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot

Springs, AR.]

Williams, Richard A.; Walkingstick, Tamara; Voth, Donald E.

[and others]. 1998. A characterization of the nonindustrial

private forest landowners of Arkansas. Monticello, AR:

University of Arkansas, School of Forest Resources,

Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. 47 p.

Witter, Daniel J. 1998. [Policy Coordination Chief, Missouri

Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.] Personal

conversation.

Wood, W. Raymond; O’Brien, Michael J.; Murray, Katherine;

Rose, Jerome C. 1995. Holocene human adaptations in the

Missouri prairie-timberlands. Res. Ser. No. 45. Fayetteville,

AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. 218 p.

Worthington, Virginia E.; Le Doux, Chris B.; McWilliams,

William H. [and others]. 1996. Methodology for assessing

current timber supplies and product demands. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NE-226. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 25 p.

Wyckoff, Don G. 1967a. The E. Johnson site and prehistory in

southeast Oklahoma. Archeol. Site Rep. No. 6. Norman, OK:

Oklahoma River Basin Survey Project, University of

Oklahoma Research Institute. 231 p.

Wyckoff, Don G. 1967b. Archeological sequence in the Broken

Bow Reservoir Area. Norman, OK: Oklahoma River Basin

Survey Project, University of Oklahoma Research Institute;

Stovall Museum of Natural History. 211 p.

Wyckoff, Don G. 1968. The Beaver site and archeology of the

Broken Bow Reservoir area, McCurtain County, Oklahoma.

Archeol. Site Rep. No. 9. Norman, OK: Oklahoma River

Basin Survey, University of Oklahoma Research Institute.

202 p.

Wyckoff, Don G.; Brooks, Robert L. 1983. Oklahoma archeology: a 1981 perspective. Archeol. Surv. Res. Rep. No. 16.

Norman, OK: Oklahoma Archeological Survey. 365 p.

Wyckoff, Don G.; Peterson, Dennis. 1985. Spiro Mounds:

prehistoric gateway . . . present day enigma. Norman, OK:

Oklahoma Museums Association. 12 p.

Yamin, Rebecca; Metheny, Karen Bescherer, eds. 1996. Landscape archeology: reading and interpreting the American

historical landscape. Knoxville, TN: The University of

Tennessee Press. 26 p.

Young, Gloria A.; Hoffman, Michael P. 1993, eds. The expedition of Hernando de Soto west of the Mississippi, 1541–

1543: Proceedings of the de Soto symposium, 1988 and

1989; 1988 October 3; 1990 March 28-30; Fayetteville, AR.

Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press. 311 p.

277

Glossary of Terms

acquired lands: lands currently managed by the Forest Service

that were acquired through the Weeks Law (1911), ClarkeMcNary Act (1924), or the McNary-Woodruff Act (1928).

These acts allow the purchase or acquisition through

exchange of land to improve regulation of the flow of

navigable streams and/or for timber production.

alluvial: composed of material—such as soils and gravels—

deposited by running water.

animal unit month (AUM): a measure of the amount of livestock grazing over time. For cattle grazing, an animal unit

month is equivalent to one cow-calf pair grazing for 1

month.

anthropocentric: considering human needs of greater value than

those of any other life forms, regardless of circumstance.

Arkansas Natural and Scenic River: a State designation that

protects certain rivers from permanent dams or structures

and actions that would harm their scenic and recreational

qualities. Designated rivers are part of the Arkansas

System of Natural and Scenic Rivers. (From <http://

www.heritage.state.ar.us/her_ansr.html>: “The system

designation requires an act of the Arkansas General

Assembly based upon the review and recommendations of

local governments and citizens from the area through which

the river flows. A river or river segment listed in the system

is protected from any permanent dam or structure that

would impound waters or channelization or realignment of

the principal channel of the stream.”)

attitude: “a predisposition to respond to a focal object. [These]

predispositions or sets are learned through experience,

[and] the existence of an attitude is inferred from consistencies in an individual’s behavior” (Lachman 1991). Attitudes

are considered to predispose people toward certain behaviors; typically, they change more readily than values. Each

attitude has three components: (1) a belief, (2) a favorable or

unfavorable evaluation, and (3) a behavioral disposition.

band: a small, territorially based social group consisting of two

or more nuclear families.

barite: heavy, dense mineral essential to oil and gas drilling

operations and other applications.

bauxite: ore from which aluminum is made.

biocentric: considering all life forms as important as humans.

cairn: a rounded or pyramidal heap of stones made as a

monument or memorial.

Champion Communities: communities that applied for but did

not receive recognition and funding as Empowerment Zones

or Enterprise Communities; now eligible for other forms of

support for planning and development.

chert: a stone comprised primarily of silica, commonly used as

a source material for making chipped stone tools.

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC): President Franklin D.

Roosevelt created the corps in 1933 as a recovery program

to combat the effects of the Great Depression. The corps

was disbanded in 1942.

cohort: age group.

commodities: timber, water, minerals, and other resources that

are bought and sold in markets.

communities of interest: see interest community.

communities of place: see geographic community.

commuting county: a county in which 40 percent or more of all

workers aged 16 and older commuted to jobs outside their

county of residence in 1990 (see also policy-dependent

county).

component: an assemblage of artifacts, structures, or other

remains (found on a particular site) that is associated with a

certain cultural period or group. Heritage resource sites may

contain multiple components: for example, an assemblage

indicating the presence of Caddoan occupation and an

assemblage indicating historic European occupation.

delivered log prices: the price paid by a mill to a logger for

timber brought to the mill.

dependency ratio: a rough estimate of the number of dependents per worker. The ratio is computed by dividing the

number of people who are most likely to be dependent

(those under age 19 plus those over 64) by the number of

people in the working-aged population (ages 19 through 64).

developed camping: camping in areas where facilities such as

restrooms, picnic tables, campfire rings, information boards,

and constructed camping pads are provided. Fees are

sometimes charged in developed camping areas and

encounters with many other campers can be expected.

devolution: the delegation of power, authority, and/or mandate

from a central government to local governing units (as, for

example, from the United States to the various States or from

a State to its counties or municipalities).

279
dimension stone: building stone.

direct effect: economic response in an industry that results

from a change in that industry’s output.

dispersed or primitive camping: camping in areas where no

facilities such as restrooms, picnic tables, or other developments are provided for the convenience of campers. This

type of camping can occur in the general forest area—near

roads or deep in the backcountry.

draw area: in this report, the area within which most of those

who enjoy outdoor activities in the Highlands reside—

typically within 300 mi (1 day’s drive) of the border of the

three national forests.

economic multiplier: see response coefficient.

ecotourism: a form of tourism that involves visiting places to

learn about the cultural and natural history of an area in

ways that minimize impacts on the land and ensure the

maintenance of ecosystem integrity. The concept involves

providing economic opportunities for local people through

natural resource-based tourism.

employee compensation: wage and salary payments as well as

benefits including health and life insurance, retirement

payments, and any other noncash compensation; includes

all income to workers paid by employers (p. 229, MN

IMPLAN 1997b).

employment: total waged and salaried employees and selfemployed individuals in a region; includes both full-time

and part-time workers and is measured in total jobs (p. 211,

MN IMPLAN 1997b).

energy minerals: primarily coal, gas, and oil.

environmental justice: the pursuit of equal justice and equal

protection under the law for all environmental statutes and

regulations without discrimination based on race, ethnicity,

and/or socio-economic status. Presidential Executive Order

No. 12898 (issued February 11, 1994) requires Federal

agencies to respond to the issue of environmental justice by

“identify[ing] and address[ing] disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental effects of its

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low

income populations.”

epoch: a division of geologic time with a typical length between

5 and 15 million years.

even-aged management: timber management methods that

result in the creation of forest stands in which all trees are

essentially the same age.

exurb: a region outside a city and usually beyond its suburbs.

family: defined by the Census Bureau as two or more persons

living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Federal lands county: a county in which Federal lands made up

30 percent or more of the area in 1987 (see also policydependent county).

fiscal year: a year set by a governing body for budgeting and

billing purposes; the Federal Government’s fiscal year

begins on October 1 and ends on September 30.

forest dependency: as used in this report, a measure of dependence upon national forest revenues for a portion of school

budgets.

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA): a USDA Forest Service

research program that periodically conducts a forest

inventory for each State. See the following Web site for

more information: <http://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/wo/

wofia.htm>.

gauging station: a station set up along a river or stream to

document the water level and flow in that stream.

General Educational Development (GED): The GED program is

designed for persons preparing to take the GED examination

to qualify for a state-issued high school equivalency

diploma. The equivalency certificate is also known as a

GED.

geographic community (community of place): a group of

individuals who live in a particular geographic area (usually

smaller than a county; may be as small as school districts or

neighborhoods). See also interest community.

grazed woodland: see woodland range.

green offered volume: volume of timber offered for sale on a

national forest that is not dead, dying, or otherwise considered salvage.

Gross Regional Product (GRP): a measure of total income in a

given area. The GRP includes employee compensation,

property income, and proprietary income plus indirect

business taxes. The GRP is equal to total value added and is

the local or regional equivalent of the national measure of

economic growth, the Gross Domestic Product.

growing stock: the volume of sound wood in cubic feet in trees

that are at least 5.0 in. in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.),

from a 1-ft stump to a minimum 4.0 in. in top diameter

(outside bark) of the central stem or to the point where the

central stem breaks into limbs.

growth/removals ratio: a ratio obtained by dividing volume of

timber growth by volume of timber removals during a

particular time period, usually 1 year.

280
hardrock minerals: metallic and nonmetallic mineral deposits

including such nonenergy-related (or nonfuel-related)

mineral resources as quartz, novaculite, and gemstones. In

this report, the term includes building and dimension stone,

sand, and gravel.

heritage resource: archeological site, building, structure, or

object greater than 50 years old that can help humans

understand prehistory and history or that has some other

significance in a local, regional, or national event.

historic: relating to or existing in times of written history;

Within the Assessment area, the historic period is considered to begin with the expedition of Hernando de Soto in the

1540’s.

Homestead Act: an act passed in 1862 by Congress that allowed

citizens to settle on, improve, and establish a claim to public

lands; claims were generally restricted to 160 acres (ac).

impoundment: human-engineered and dammed lake, pond, or

reservoir.

Indian Territory: present day Oklahoma.

indirect effect: the economic effect that occurs when a

producer purchases goods and services from another

producer, who, in turn, also purchases goods and services.

induced effect: the economic effect that occurs through the

payment of wages to employees of directly or indirectly

affected industries.

inholder (national forest): owner of land surrounded by or

adjacent to a national forest.

inholding: private land surrounded by or adjacent to a national

forest or other public land area.

in-migration rate: the rate at which people move into a

community or region over a given time period.

input-output model: a computer model designed to account for

all linkages in an economy between industrial sectors and

consumers. Some pertinent mechanics of the model include:

•Total industrial output (TIO) = total value added + total

value of inputs,

•Total value added (also called Gross Regional Product)

= total income + indirect business taxes, and

•Total income = employee compensation + proprietary

income + other property type income.

The following hypothetical example of the forest products

industry illustrates the relationship of the various economic

measures:

interest community (community of interest): group of individuals belonging to an organization that has an identifiable

set of interests. See geographic community.

inventory elasticity: a measure of the responsiveness of

harvest to changes in standing timber inventory.

labor force: a group consisting of persons who are either

working or looking for work.

labor market: a “place” in economic theory where labor

demand and supply interact.

lanceolate: refers to long slender stone projectile points

characteristic of Paleo-Indian culture.

lithic: stone; generally refers to waste debris resulting from

manufacturing stone tools.

lithic debris: waste resulting from manufacturing stone tools

from chert or other siliceous stone materials.

lithic scatter: site with lithic debris covering a small or large

area. Depending on the types (e.g., kinds of stone tools,

burned rock) and densities of materials found, inferences

can be made regarding the age and length of occupation

and function of the site (e.g., campsite, workshop, resource

extraction site).

Timber Logging Sawmill

Measure sector sector sector Total

Value of inputs 2 10 27 39

Value added 8 17 35 60 (GRP)

Value of outputs 10 27 62 99 (TIO)

The model calculates direct, indirect, and induced effects of

each industry or user-designed influence (e.g., increase in a

national forest harvest). For the sawmill sector, for example,

these effects could be:

Type of Number of

effect employees How jobs occur

Direct 165 Mill employment

Indirect 27 Mill operations result in expenditures

(e.g., on trucks, repair, deliveries,

food services, accounting)

Induced 18 Employees spend income (e.g., on auto

repair, housing, clothing, groceries,

insurance)

Total 200

281
market zone: counties with mills that purchase timber from the

respective national forests.

metropolitan area (MA): a core area containing a large population nucleus plus adjacent communities (usually additional

counties) having a high degree of economic and social

integration with that core, as defined by the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). Currently defined MA’s

are based on the application of 1990 standards (which

appeared in the Federal Register on March 30, 1990) to 1990

census data and to subsequent Census Bureau population

estimates and special census data. (According to the

Census Web site <www.census.gov/population/www/

estimates/aboutmetro.html>, accessed March 2, 1999, “The

current standards provide that each newly qualifying MSA

must include at least [1] one city with 50,000 or more

inhabitants, or [2] a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area

(of at least 50,000 inhabitants) and a total metropolitan

population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England).” The

same source reports, “Standard definitions of metropolitan

areas were first issued in 1949 by the then Bureau of the

Budget (predecessor of the OMB), under the designation

‘standard metropolitan area’ (SMA). The term was changed

to ‘standard metropolitan statistical area’ (SMSA) in 1959,

and to ‘metropolitan statistical area’ (MSA) in 1983. The

collective term ‘metropolitan area’ (MA) became effective in

1990. MA’s include metropolitan statistical areas (MSA’s),

consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSA’s), and

primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSA’s). The

standards for defining metropolitan areas were modified in

1958, 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1990, and currently are undergoing review.”

metropolitan county: one that is included in an MA (see

metropolitan area).

metropolitan statistical area (MSA): a Census Bureau-defined

urbanized area of at least 50,000 inhabitants with a total

metropolitan population of at least 100,000. Additional

contiguous counties are included in the MSA if they meet

certain requirements of commuting to the central counties

and other selected requirements of metropolitan character

(such as population density and percent urban).

midden: a deposit of camp refuse (e.g., food remains, lithic

debris, broken ceramics); soils are usually black and

sometimes greasy.

minerals-significant county: a county where the minerals

industry represents a significant share of the economy (see

significant).

multiple use management: the management of all the various

sustainable resources of the National Forest System so they

are used “in the combination that will best meet the needs of

the American people; making the most judicious use of the

land for some or all of these resources or related services

over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for

periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs

and conditions; that some lands will be used for less than all

of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without

impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various

resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that

will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit

output” (adapted from 36 CFR 219.3).

natural decrease: decline in a population due to deaths

exceeding births.

natural increase: increase in a population due to births

exceeding deaths.

natural open land: land that is mostly free of trees due to the

ecological conditions of the site.

nonfuel (nonenergy) minerals: mineral deposits that are not

burned to produce energy (see hardrock minerals).

nonmetropolitan county: a county lying outside a defined

metropolitan area (see metropolitan area).

novaculite: mineral used as sharpening stones for knives and

other tools and crushed for other applications.

nutting stones: anvil stones used for processing plant foods

and flint knapping.

Oklahoma Scenic River: a State designation that establishes

restrictions on activities to preserve the scenic qualities of

certain rivers.

opinion: “a time-bound judgment or speculation that fluctuates

unpredictably. . . . Opinions, then, generally are short-run

impressions or ‘guesses’ about specific objects, ideas,

issues, or events that are usually involved with aspects of

public affairs” (Lachman 1991).

ore: an economically valuable mineral deposit.

out-migration rate: rate at which people move out of a county

or region over a given period of time.

Paleo-Indian: a prehistoric cultural group considered to be the

“first Americans.” Paleo-Indians are considered to have

been “big game hunters,” hunting now-extinct animal

species such as the mammoth and giant bison. The PaleoIndian period dates to approximately 11,500 to 9,900 B.P.

participation day: a day in which a person participated in a

particular recreation activity for any length of time.

282
persistent poverty county: a county in which persons with

poverty-level incomes in the preceding year were 20 percent

or more of the population in 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 (see

also policy-dependent county).

person trip (definitions used in different State studies): in

Arkansas, a person trip is one person traveling 100 miles

(mi) or more one way and/or spending at least 1 night away

from the point of origin; in Oklahoma, a person trip is one

person traveling at least 50 mi one way and/or spending at

least 1 night away from point of origin; in Missouri, a

person trip equals total participation days divided by 3.1.

persons at one time (PAOT): a measure of the potential

capacity (number of people) a recreation area can accommodate at any given time.

petroglyph: pictures, symbols, or other artwork pecked, carved,

or incised onto natural rock surfaces. Natural or abstract

motifs may be represented.

phase: the basic unit in classifying archeological cultures. A

phase represents a cultural unit characterized by enough

unique traits to set it apart from others in time and place.

pictograph: picture, symbol, or other artwork painted on natural

rock surfaces. Natural or abstract motifs may be represented.

poletimber: trees 5.0 to 8.9 in. d.b.h. for softwoods and 5.0 to

10.9 in. d.b.h. for hardwoods.

policy-sensitive county: a nonmetropolitan county that the

Economic Research Service (Cook and Mizer 1994) classifies

as particularly sensitive to policies and decisions made

external to the county, e.g., by Congress, by State or Federal

agencies, or by neighboring communities. See also: commuting county, Federal lands county, persistent poverty

county, retirement-destination county, and transfersdependent county.

polity: organized government as a whole.

prehistoric: relating to or existing in times predating written

history. This term generally refers to those North American

cultures in existence prior to A.D. 1540.

price elasticity: a measure of the sensitivity of supply and

demand to changes in price. If price elasticity is low, a large

change in price will lead to a small change in supply.

primitive camping: see dispersed camping.

projectile points: often referred to as “arrowheads,” these

stone tools were often given handles and used as knives or

placed onto dart or spear shafts and used as hunting

implements or weapons.

proprietary income: income from self-employment.

public domain lands: originally, all lands ceded to the Federal

Government by the 13 original colonies and all lands

acquired through purchase or treaty. Public domain lands in

the Highlands were acquired through the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Subsequent congressional actions disposed

of two-thirds of the public domain through sales to individuals, homesteaders, railroads, and others. The largest

portion was granted to States when they were admitted to

the Union in return for an agreement not to tax or contest

Federal land holdings. Lands that remained in the public

domain until the creation of forest reserves, national forests,

national parks, or Bureau of Land Management districts

remain public domain lands under the current management

of the USDA Forest Service or various USDI agencies

(Cubbage and others 1993).

public opinion: an opinion generally shared by a significant

number of people on matters considered to be of public

significance, and hence predisposes people toward certain

behaviors on such matters. In a democratic society, a public

opinion is the major determinant of public policy. The two

distinct components of public opinion are (1) the “average

view” of the public on a particular issue and (2) how the

public actually articulates attitudes and values to

policymakers, administrators, elected officials, and others.

pulpwood: trees in the poletimber size class that are harvested

for use.

range allotment: a designated area of national forest land

available for livestock grazing upon which a specified

number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range

allotment management plan.

real price: price of products adjusted for the effects of general

inflation. Adjustments were made using the Gross Domestic

Product deflator from the Economic Report of the President.

recharge area: area around a spring or a group of springs

through which water enters the underground aquifer. The

recharge area may be close to or distant from the springs,

depending on the location’s specific geology.

recreational rivers: rivers or segments of rivers included in the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) (P.L. 542-

82 stat. 906, as amended) that are readily accessible by road,

may have some development along their shorelines, and may

have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): a system of

classifying land according to the types of recreation

opportunities that it can provide. The six classes are based

on the extent to which the natural environment has been

283
modified, the type of recreation facilities provided, the

degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the

relative density of recreation use. The six classes are as

follows:

• Urban—high levels of human activity and concentrated

development. Human-built structures dominate the

landscape. City parks, play fields, cemeteries, and small

undeveloped areas provide the only open space.

• Rural—sights and sounds of human activity vary from

moderate to high. While human-constructed features

such as fields, pastures, and roads may dominate the

landscape, there is still a strong sense of open space.

• Roaded-natural—predominantly natural-appearing

settings, with moderate sights and sounds of human

activities and structures. Evidence of human activity

varies and can include improvements such as highways, railroads, developed campgrounds, small resorts,

livestock grazing, and timber harvesting.

• Semi-primitive motorized—characterized by predominantly natural or natural-appearing landscapes, these

areas are large enough to impart a strong feeling of

remoteness. Roads are low standard and used primarily

by four-wheel drive and off-highway vehicles. Interaction with other visitors is infrequent.

• Semi-primitive nonmotorized—user has ample opportunities to practice outdoor skills and self-reliance. Roads

are either closed or used only in case of emergencies

and are visually unobtrusive.

• Primitive—naturally evolving, unmodified environments.

Their size and configuration ensure remoteness from

the sights and sounds of human activity. The use of

motor vehicles and equipment is forbidden except in

extreme emergencies.

recreation visitor day (RVD): a measure of recreation use

equivalent to 12 hours of participation in one recreational

activity by one person.

registry river (Arkansas): a river studied by the AR NSRC

and placed in a registry, which is a list of streams that the

commission has determined to be worthy of addition to the

State system of Natural and Scenic Rivers (see Arkansas

Natural and Scenic River). The commission can draw from

this list for nominations to the system for the Arkansas

General Assembly. (This definition is adapted from

<www.heritage.state.ar.us/her_ansr.html>.)

removal policies: policies of the Federal government to relocate

American Indian tribes from their native territories to lands

designated for that purpose.

removals: the net volume of growing stock trees removed from

the inventory by harvesting or cultural operations such as

timber stand improvement (e.g., thinning), land clearing, or

change in land use.

Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA): passed by Congress in 1974 and updated in 1993, this law requires the Forest

Service to conduct an assessment of the Nation’s forests

every 10 years (and to provide updates every 5 years).

response coefficient: effects on jobs, wages, or incomes per

unit of production or output such as per million dollars of

mineral extracted, million board feet harvested, or million

recreation trips.

retirement-destination county: a county in which the population aged 60 years and over in 1990 increased by 15 percent

or more from 1980 to 1990 through the in-migration of people

(see also policy-sensitive county).

rockhound: generally, a person interested in the noncommercial

search for and removal of rocks and minerals for personal

purposes, typically using only small hand tools.

roundwood: volume of harvested timber (usually smaller than

9.0 in. d.b.h.) destined for use in pulp and paper production.

salvage volume: timber that is dead or dying.

sawtimber: trees with a 9 in. d.b.h. and larger for softwoods

and 11 in. d.b.h. and larger for hardwoods.

scenic rivers: rivers or segments of rivers included in the

NWSRS (P.L. 542-82 stat. 906, as amended) that are free of

impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds that are still

mostly primitive and undeveloped, but accessible in places

by roads.

section: subdivision of a township measuring 1 square mi (640

ac) in area.

significant: counties were defined as “significant” if they had

at least twice the Assessment area average percentage of

total industrial output, employment, and/or employee

compensation from the industry in question (e.g., forest

products, mining, or travel).

social context: the social, cultural, economic, and political

setting in which forest (or other resource) management

takes place.

southwide: including or affecting all the Southern States of the

United States.

special forest products: the array of biotic resources, other

than timber, minerals, and wild game, that people harvest

from the forest for personal or commercial purposes.

Examples include firewood, ginseng, and grapevines.

284
special uses: uses of national forest land allowed under permit

to private individuals, organizations, or other governmental

agencies. Examples include road easements, communication

transmission sites, and outfitter and guide operations.

stakeholders: those who have a “stake” in something,

including those who use public lands directly for such

purposes as food, livelihood, or recreation as well as those

who simply are interested in how the public lands are

managed or how they look, or who have some other interest

in these lands.

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP):

report prepared by States that want to be eligible for the

Land and Water Conservation Fund program, which

provides Federal matching funds for acquisition and

development of outdoor recreation lands and facilities.

stumpage price: the price paid by a logger to a landowner for

standing timber.

Subregional Timber Supply (SRTS) model: a model developed

by Robert C. Abt, North Carolina State University, Durham,

NC. The model uses a timber supply framework consistent

with the RPA models but tracks inventory and growth

trends by individual FIA survey unit or subregion as well as

by ownership category (forest industry and nonindustrial

private forest).

suitable acres: timberland capable of and available to produce

20 cubic feet per acre (cf/ac) of industrial wood per year.

Some lands allocated to other resource uses to meet forest

plan objectives, such as recreation sites, experimental

forests, areas with threatened or endangered species, and

areas not economically efficient for timber harvesting are

classified as “not appropriate” for timber production. Some

land is classified as “not inventoried” and is currently

excluded from suitable timberland.

system river: a river classification in Arkansas, designated by

the Arkansas General Assembly, to protect it from any

permanent dam or structure that would impound the waters

or any channelization or realignment of the principal channel

of the stream.

timber dependency: as used in this report, the percentage of all

earnings in a county represented by timber-related earnings

(SIC codes 08 and 24 of the U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis).

timberland: forested land that is capable of producing crops of

industrial wood at a rate of at least 20 cf/ac per year and has

not been withdrawn from timber production. (Some forest

lands are not classified by the FIA as timberland because

they are unproductive and some—such as national parks

and wildernesses—because by law, they are off limits to

harvesting.)

timber market zones: geographic areas used as a basis for

analyzing the economic effects of timber sale programs on

national forests. The zones comprise counties with national

forest lands plus those counties that have mills that

purchase national forest timber.

timber-significant county: a county where the forest products

industry represents a significant share of the economy (see

significant).

total income: the sum of employees’ compensation,

proprietor’s income, and property type income.

total industrial output (TIO): the value of production by

industry for a given time period. Output can be measured by

the total value of purchases by intermediate and final

consumers, or by intermediate outlays plus value added.

Output can also be thought of as value of sales plus or

minus inventory (p. 233, MN IMPLAN 1997b).

township: federally mandated division of land encompassing 36

square mi and consisting of 36 sections.

transfers-dependent county: a county in which the income from

transfers payments (Federal, State, and local) contributed a

weighted annual average of 25 percent or more to total

personal income from 1987 through 1989; transfer payments

consist of income from (1) retirement and disability programs, (2) medical programs, (3) income maintenance

programs, (4) unemployment insurance, (5) veterans’

programs administered by the U.S. Department of Veteran’s

Affairs, and (6) education and training programs (see also

policy-dependent county).

travel-significant county: a county where the travel industry

(for recreation, business, entertainment, and other purposes) represents a significant share of the economy (see

significant).

tripoli: a very finely divided form of microcrystalline silica

formed locally within the upper section of the Arkansas

novaculite in the Ouachita Mountains (central Arkansas)

and also from massive-bedded chert developed in limestones of the Boone Formation in northern Arkansas.

Tripoli is used as an abrasive and as a filler in paint and

other industrial products.

25-percent returns: the annual payments the Forest Service

makes to States and counties based on gross revenues from

timber, recreation, and other revenue-generating activities

on national forests. These funds are used for schools and

county roads according to State formulas.

285
uneven-aged management: timber management method that

results in forest stands characterized by trees of many ages

or sizes intermingled singly or in groups.

value added: the sum of all income deriving from an industry,

including wage income and owner income, less business

taxes.

values: relatively firmly held and socially shared positions or

expressions about what is good or right; they are abstract

and normative and are considered to be somewhat stable.

vandalism: in the context used in Chapter 1, the uncontrolled,

undocumented, and unauthorized excavation and removal

of artifacts from archeological sites (both prehistoric and

historic); activities that destroy archeological information.

wild rivers: rivers or segments of rivers included in the

NWSRS (P.L. 542-82 stat. 906, as amended) that are free of

impoundments; are generally inaccessible except by trail;

and the watersheds and shorelines of which are essentially

primitive and unpolluted.

wilderness: a Congressionally-designated area that provides

opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined

recreational experiences. There are no constructed facilities

such as campgrounds, picnic areas, or interpretive sites and

motorized and mechanized vehicles are prohibited. See

Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Act: The Federal Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System,

declared it the policy of the United States to “secure...the

benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness” and

provided guidelines for managing wilderness areas. The

Wilderness Act prohibits motorized and mechanized vehicles

as well as recreation facilities such as campgrounds, picnic

areas, and interpretive sites in wilderness areas.

withdrawn lands: those lands that are legally unavailable for

harvest, e.g., wilderness areas.

woodland range: forest land (within range allotments) that

produces minor amounts of forage. It includes occasional

even-aged timber harvest areas that have higher forage value

for several years before being replaced by shrubs and trees.

286
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ac: acre(s)

A.D.: (anno Domini ) refers to the number of years after the

birth of Christ

AR AS: Arkansas Archeological Survey

AR DPCE MD: Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology, Mining Division

AR DPT: Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism

AR GFC: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

AR HPP: Arkansas Historic Preservation Program.

AR NSRC: Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers Commission

AR SHTD: Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department

AUM: animal unit month

B: billion

B.C.: years before the birth of Christ

bf: board foot or feet

bf/ac: board feet per acre

B.P.: years before the present date

CCC: Civilian Conservation Corps

CES: Cooperative Extension Service

cf: cubic foot or feet

cf/ac: cubic feet per acre

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CPI: Consumer Price Index

CSU: Colorado State University

CVMM: common variety mineral material

d.b.h.: a measurement of the diameter of a tree at breast height

(4.5 ft from the ground)

EZ/EC: Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community

(program of the USDA and HUD)

FIA: Forest Inventory and Analysis

FS: Forest Service

ft: foot or feet

GED: General Educational Development

GLO: General Land Office

GRP: Gross Regional Product

HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

IMPLAN: IMPact analysis for PLANing computer model

in.: inch(es)

IWSRCC: Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating

Council

lb: pound

lbs: pounds

M: million

mbf: thousand board feet

mcf: thousand cubic feet

mmbf: million board feet (of sawtimber)

mmcf: million cubic feet (roundwood timber)

MO DC: Missouri Department of Conservation

MO DNR MD: Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

Mining Division

MO HTD: Missouri Highway and Transportation Department

MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSHA: Mine Safety and Health Administration (U.S. Department of Labor)

NABFCB: National Advisory Board of First Commercial Bank

NF: national forest

NIPF: nonindustrial private forest

non-NF county: county without national forest lands

NORSIS: National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information

System

NPLOS: National Private Land Owner Survey

NRA: National Recreation Area

NRI: Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NSR: National Scenic Riverways

NSRE: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

NWPS: National Wilderness Preservation System

NWSRS: National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

287
OK DM: Oklahoma Department of Mines

OK DT: Oklahoma Department of Transportation

OK DWC: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

OK SRC: Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission

OK TRD: Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department

OMB: U.S. Office of Management and Budget

ORV: off-road vehicle

PAOT: persons at one time

P&DD: Planning and Development District

PILT: payment in lieu of taxes

PUMS-L: Public Use Microdata Sample-L

RCA: Rural Community Assistance (program of the USDA

Forest Service)

RC&D: Resource Conservation and Development

ROS: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

RPA: Renewable Resources Planning Act

RVD: recreation visitor day

SCORP: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

SEELA: Social, Economic, Environmental, Leisure, and

Attitudes (data set)

SIC: Standard Industrial Classification

SRTS: Subregional Timber Supply model

TIO: total industrial output

tpd: tons per day

U.S. ACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USDA FS: USDA Forest Service

USDI: United States Department of the Interior

USDI BM: USDI Bureau of Mines

USDI FWS: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

USDI GS: USDI Geological Survey

USDI NPS: USDI National Park Service

USDL: United States Department of Labor

U.S. OMB: U. S. Office of Management and Budget

WPA: Works Progress Administration

288
List of Tables

Page

Table 1.1—Partial listing of State-managed areas in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 1.2—National Park Service management units in Assessment area counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 1.3—National wildlife refuges in Assessment area counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 1.4—Assessment area water bodies managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 1.5—National forests within the Highlands or Assessment area States, with establishment dates,

locations, and acres (as of September 30, 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 1.6—Types and numbers of documented heritage resource sites and acres surveyed for heritage

resources on the Ouachita, Ozark-St. Francis, and Mark Twain National Forests through 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2.1—Estimated Assessment area population, population density, and percent population growth

(1970–1996) plus projected population in 2010 and projected population growth from 1996 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 2.2—Sources of recent (1990–1996) population growth in the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 2.3—Land use in the Assessment area, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 2.4—Age characteristics of the population in the Assessment area, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 2.5—Racial makeup of Assessment area residents and percent Hispanic-American, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 2.6—Household and family characteristics in the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 2.7—Educational characteristics of Assessment area adults 25 years and older, 1990 dropout rates,

and percent increase from 1970 to 1990 of adults with college degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 2.8—Unemployment rate and extent and type of labor force participation in the Assessment area, 1990 . . 45

Table 2.9—Assessment area employment in 12 industrial sectors, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 2.10—Percent employment in the Assessment area, 1990, by occupational category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 2.11—Sources of household income in the Assessment area, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 2.12—Land ownership patterns in the Assessment area and States, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 2.13—Family and household income and poverty rates in the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 2.14—Housing characteristics in the Assessment area, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 2.15—Policy-sensitive nonmetropolitan counties in the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 2.16—Demographic comparisons of the Assessment area and PUMS-L analysis area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 2.17—Population characteristics of three age groups in the PUMS-L analysis area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 2.18—Living arrangements among three age groups in the PUMS-L analysis area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 2.19—Means of making a living among three age groups in the PUMS-L analysis area, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 2.20—Socioeconomic well-being among three age groups in the PUMS-L analysis area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 2.21—Characteristics of people in the PUMS-L analysis area grouped according to four levels of

educational achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 2.22—Living arrangements of groups of people who have completed various levels of schooling

(PUMS-L analysis area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

289
Page

Table 2.23—Means of making a living among groups of people who have completed various levels of

schooling (PUMS-L analysis area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 2.24—Socioeconomic well-being of groups of people who have completed various levels of schooling

(PUMS-L analysis area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table 2.25—Population characteristics associated with three racial categories (PUMS-L analysis area) . . . . . . . . 74

Table 2.26—Living arrangements associated with three racial categories (PUMS-L analysis area) . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table 2.27—Means of making a living associated with three racial categories (PUMS-L analysis area) . . . . . . . . 76

Table 2.28—Socioeconomic well-being associated with three racial categories (PUMS-L analysis area) . . . . . . . 77

Table 3.1—Assessment area communities and 1990 population by community size class and State . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 3.2—Average biennial CPI-adjusted expenditures per student by Arkansas communities that have

various levels of dependency on national forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 3.3—Rural Community Assistance (RCA) grants awarded to communities in the Highlands of

Arkansas and Oklahoma in fiscal years 1990 through 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 4.1—Total industrial output, employment, and employee income across 10 industrial sectors of the

tri-State (AR, MO, OK) and Assessment areas, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 4.2—Proportions of industrial output, employment, and employee income associated with 10 industrial

sectors of the tri-state (AR, MO, OK) and Assessment areas, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 4.3—Average annual wages by industrial sector for the Assessment and tri-state (AR, MO, OK) areas,

1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Table 4.4—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation across selected industrial sectors

of the Assessment area, 1977 and 1993, and percent change in these measures from 1977 to 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Table 4.5—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation of the forest products industry and

its share of total output, employment, and employee compensation for timber-significant counties in the

Assessment area, the entire Assessment area, the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), and the U.S.A., 1993 . . . . . . . . . 105

Table 4.6—Total industrial output, employment, and employee compensation generated by components of the

forest products industry in the tri-state (AR, MO, OK) and Assessment areas and in timber-significant counties

in the Assessment area, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Table 4.7—Relative contributions of components of the forest products industry to the total output,

employment, and employee compensation of the timber-significant counties in the Assessment area, the

Assessment area as a whole, and the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table 4.8—Total industrial output, employment, and employee compensation in components of the minerals

industry in the Assessment area, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 4.9—Percentage of total industrial output, employment, and employee compensation in the Assessment

area produced by components of the minerals industry, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 4.10—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation of the minerals industry, and its share

of total output, employment, and employee compensation, for minerals-significant counties in the Assessment

area, the entire Assessment area, the tri-State area (AR, MO, OK), and the U.S.A., 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 4.11—Total industrial output, employment, and employee compensation generated by components of the

minerals industry in the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), the Assessment area, and the minerals-significant counties

in the Assessment area, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

290
Page

Table 4.12—Percentage that the minerals industry comprises of total output, employment, and employee

compensation in the tri-state area (AR, MO, OK), the Assessment area as a whole, and the minerals-significant

counties of the Assessment area, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Table 4.13—Industrial output, employment, and employee compensation of the travel industry and its share of

total output, employment, and employee compensation for travel-significant counties of the Assessment area

of Arkansas and Missouri, for the entire Arkansas-Missouri portion of the Assessment area, and for the

two-State area (AR, MO) (1996 dollars adjusted for inflation to 1993 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Table 4.14—Economic impacts of national forest timber harvesting for fiscal year 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table 4.15—Economic impacts of national forest timber, recreation, and minerals programs by national forest

and resource, fiscal year 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Table 4.16—Economic impacts of national forest recreation use in fiscal year 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 4.17—Economic impacts of mineral extraction from national forests in fiscal year 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table 4.18a—Payments to Arkansas and Oklahoma counties with national forest land, fiscal years 1987

through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Table 4.18b—Payments to counties with national forest land in Missouri and total for the tri-state area

(AR, MO, OK), fiscal years 1987 through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 4.19—Average payments to counties by revenue-generating resource program and national forest,

1987–1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Table 4.20—Economic impacts of national forest payments to counties for fiscal year 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Table 4.21—Economic impacts of national forest expenditures for fiscal year 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table 4.22—Economic contributions of national forests to the Assessment area economy in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table 5.1—1996 travel-related expenditures, payroll, tax receipts, jobs, and “person trips” in Arkansas,

Missouri, and portions of those States lying within the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Table 5.2—1996 expenditures for wildlife-related recreation in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma by individuals

16 years old and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Table 5.3—Availability of private land for recreation expressed as a percent of an average private tract of land

in the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Table 5.4—Acres and percent of national forest land by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class . . . . . . . 139

Table 5.5—Number and capacity of national forest campgrounds and picnic areas by State and county . . . . . . . 143

Table 5.6—Miles of national forest trails in States of the Assessment area by trail-use category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Table 5.7—Federal wilderness in the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Table 5.8—Acres of Federal wilderness in the Assessment area by State, county, and managing agency . . . . . . 147

Table 5.9—Representation of Federal wilderness areas in ecological sections and subsections of the

Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Table 5.10—Endangered and threatened species found in wilderness areas in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . 148

Table 5.11—National Recreation Trails in the Assessment area, their lengths, and respective administering

agencies or units, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Table 5.12—Assessment area streams having Federal legislative designation(s) by State, managing unit or

agency, and length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

291
Page

Table 5.13—Assessment area rivers with State legislative protection, by State classification and length . . . . . . . 152

Table 5.14—Assessment area streams with potential for special designation but requiring further study and/or

legislative action, by State, length, and current status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Table 5.15—National forest and State scenic byways by designating entity, traffic counts, and ecological

subsection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Table 5.16—Percent of population and number of people in the Nation and the draw area, 16 years of age and

older, participating in selected outdoor recreation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Table 5.17—Average number of trips per participant per year in the Nation and the draw area by activity . . . . . . 158

Table 5.18—Annual average number of participation days(per participant) in selected recreation activities by

U.S. and draw area residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Table 5.19—Estimated number of draw area residents 16 years of age and older participating in recreation

activities, rate of participation, and total days of participation per year, by activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Table 5.20—Estimates of recreation use in Highlands’ national forests for 1986, 1991, and 1996 and percent

change from 1986 through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Table 5.21—1995 participation rates and projected changes in participation rates for recreation activities for

the years 2000 and 2010, for RPA regions, the Nation, and the draw area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Table 6.1—Average annual changes in prices of stumpage and delivered log prices for selected Timber Mart

South regions from 1988 through 1994 (Oklahoma) and 1988 through 1996 (Arkansas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Table 6.2a—Inventories and average annual removals of hardwood growing stock and hardwood sawtimber by

subregion, timber category, and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Table 6.2b—Inventories and average annual removals of softwood growing stock and softwood sawtimber by

subregion, timber category, and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Table 6.3—Growth/removals ratios by subregion, timber category, and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Table 6.4a—Trends in average annual removals of hardwood growing stock and hardwood sawtimber

by ownership category and timber subregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Table 6.4b—Trends in average annual removals of softwood growing stock and sawtimber by ownership

category and timber subregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Table 6.5—Removals of roundwood and sawlogs in the Missouri Ozarks, 1987 and 1994, for both hardwoods

and softwoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Table 6.6—Timber sold by fiscal year and national forest ranger district, 1988 through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Table 6.7—National forest acres suitable for timber production, total acres, percent suitable, average annual

timber sale volume (1988 through 1996), and average volume sold per suitable acre, by national forest ranger

district . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Table 6.8—Timberland acres by ownership category and timber subregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Table 6.9—Timberland acres by forest type and timber subregion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Table 6.10—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Highlands by timber resource and

ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Table 6.11—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Missouri Ozarks by timber resource

and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

292
Page

Table 6.12—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Arkansas Ozarks by timber resource

and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Table 6.13—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Arkansas Ouachitas by timber

resource and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Table 6.14—Timber volume, growth, and mortality on timberland in the Oklahoma subregion by timber

resource and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Table 6.15a—Trends in hardwood inventory by ownership category, subregion, and timber category . . . . . . . . 194

Table 6.15b—Trends in softwood inventory by ownership category, subregion, and timber category . . . . . . . . . 194

Table 6.16a—Hardwood sawtimber volume by FIA subregion, tree grade, and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . 195

Table 6.16b—Softwood sawtimber volume by FIA subregion, tree grade, and ownership category . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Table 6.17—Timberland acres and percent of acres in various stand size classes, by ownership category . . . . . . 197

Table 6.18—Percent growing-stock volume in trees greater than 20 inches in diameter by ownership category

and timber type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Table 6.19—Reductions in timber volume available on private timberland due to physical constraints for

growing stock and sawtimber and both softwood and hardwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Table 7.1—Highlights of mineral resources in the Assessment area by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Table 7.2—Minerals for which Assessment area States had significant national production or were in the

top 10 in United States’ production in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Table 7.3—Production levels and sales values of minerals produced in the Missouri portion of the Assessment

area (including Mark Twain National Forest lands) from 1987–1995 (or as noted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Table 7.4—Production levels of nonmetallic mineral materials from the Missouri portion of the Assessment

area, 1987–1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Table 7. 5—Recent and historic mineral production in the Oklahoma portion of the Assessment Area . . . . . . . . 219

Table 7.6—Synopsis of available information concerning production levels and values of minerals produced

within the Arkansas portion of the Assessment area (partial data for various periods) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Table 7.7—Mines, gas wells, and related industry employees in State portions of the Assessment area, 1996 . . . 222

Table 7.8—Activities (cases) and revenue generated by minerals programs on the Highlands’ national forests,

1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Table 7.9—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the Arkansas Ozarks and

Arkansas Valley (excluding Oklahoma) portions of the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Table 7.10—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the Ouachita Mountains

(Arkansas) portion of the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Table 7.11—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the Missouri portion of

the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Table 7.12—Reserve estimates and potential for discovery of mineral commodities in the Oklahoma portion of

the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Table 7.13—Actions and associated time and cost to develop a large lead mine on private or national forest lands

in the Missouri portion of the Assessment area (with comparisons to time and cost in previous decades) . . . . . 228

293
Page

Table 7.14—Typical size requirements for mining activities within the Assessment area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Table 7.15— Change in price and range of prices for 19 mineral commodities from 1987 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Table 7.16—Average annual per capita consumption in the United States of nonfuel minerals and

U.S. population supplied with minerals from the Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Table 8.1—Area of grazed woodland, grazed natural open land, and improved pasture in national forests of the

Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Table 8.2—Active and inactive national forest range allotments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Table 8.3—Special forest products sold on Highlands’ national forests in 1996, number of permits, quantity,

and revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Table 8.4—Special uses under permit or easement on national forests in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Table 9.1—Summary of responses (mean score and levels of agreement and disagreement) to questions

posed in the Forest Service Values Poll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Table 9.2— Percentages of Seventh American Forest Congress participants who agreed or disagreed with or

had mixed feelings about proposed elements of a vision statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Table 9.3—Percentages of Seventh American Forest Congress participants who agreed or disagreed with or

had mixed feelings toward 21 proposed principles of forest management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Table 9.4—Percentages of Seventh American Forest Congress participants who agreed or disagreed with or

had mixed feelings toward seven additional draft principles of forest management proposed at the Seventh

American Forest Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Table 9.5—Percent satisfaction and percent dissatisfaction with selected aspects of life in Missouri,

1996 and 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Table 9.6—Percentages of stakeholders who agreed or disagreed with statements concerning management

of the Ouachita National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Table 9.7—Percentages of Ouachita National Forest stakeholders who agreed or disagreed with statements

concerning forest environments and the ways that they are used and managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Table 9.8—Percentages of Ouachita National Forest stakeholders who agreed or disagreed with statements

concerning the relationship of people to natural environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Table 9.9—Reasons nonindustrial private forest landowners own forest lands in Arkansas (percent of

respondents who selected each reason) by geographic area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

Table 9.10— Percentage of respondents to a survey of nonindustrial private forest landowners in Arkansas

who agreed, disagreed, or expressed neutrality toward statements concerning private property rights,

by geographic area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

294
List of Figures

Page

Figure 1.1—Counties included in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx

Figure 1.2—Number of documented archeological sites in the Assessment area, by county. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Figure 1.3—Chronology of the prehistoric cultural history of the Highlands area. (Broken line segments near

left margin indicate that ending and beginning dates of transitions between cultural periods are approximate.) . . 3

Figure 1.4—Chronology of the history of the Highlands (from 1500 through 1950). (Broken line segments

indicate transitions between historic periods.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 1.5—Principal Federal and State lands and water bodies in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment

area, by managing agency. (Green areas are lands within national forest “proclamation boundaries;” private

lands are intermingled with Federal lands within these boundaries.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2.1—Assessment area counties containing national forest lands. (National forest acres per county

range from less than 1,000 to more than 360,000 acres.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 2.2—Metropolitan areas in and near the Assessment area (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2.3—Percent of the population living in a nonmetropolitan county (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 2.4—Population densities in the Assessment area, 1996 (USDC BC 1997a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 2.5—Population growth in the Assessment area, 1970 to 1996 (USDA FS SR 1996, USDC BC 1997a). . . . . 31

Figure 2.6—Population changes in Assessment area counties, 1970 to 1996 (USDA FS SR 1996, USDC BC

1997a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 2.7—Population growth in the Assessment area and three States due to natural increase and

in-migration, 1990 to 1996 (USDC BC 1993, 1997a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 2.8—Farmland use as a percent of total acreage, 1990 (USDA NRCS 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 2.9—Age structure of the population in the Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 2.10—Assessment area counties with relatively young or relatively old populations, 1990

(USDC BC 1993). (Unshaded counties fit neither category.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 2.11—Racial composition of Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 2.12—Educational achievements of adults (25 years and older) in Assessment area counties and

three States, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 2.13—Counties in which residents have relatively high or relatively low educational achievements,

1990 (third category represents combination of first two; unshaded counties fit none of the categories)

(USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 2.14—Unemployment and seasonal employment patterns in Assessment area counties, 1990 (third

category represents the combination of the first two; unshaded counties fit none of the categories)

(USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 2.15—Occupational employment patterns in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties within the

Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 2.16—Assessment area counties in which the proportion of white-collar or blue-collar jobs is relatively

high, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). (Unshaded counties fit neither category.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

295
Page

Figure 2.17—Sources of household income in the Assessment area other than wages and salaries, 1990

(USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 2.18—Relative contribution of retirement-related incomes to total incomes in Assessment area counties,

1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 2.19—Land ownership patterns in the Assessment area, 1992 (USDA NRCS 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 2.20—Incomes within the Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 2.21—Median household incomes in the Assessment area, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 2.22—Poverty rates in Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 2.23—Poverty rates among older persons in Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 2.24—Median housing values in Assessment area counties, 1990 (USDC BC 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 2.25—Per capita income growth in Assessment area counties (USDA FS SR 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 2.26—Reductions in poverty rates in Assessment area counties, 1970 to 1990 (USDA FS SR 1996). . . . . . 63

Figure 2.27—Persistent poverty counties in the Assessment area, 1960 to 1990 (Cook and Mizer 1994). . . . . . . . 65

Figure 2.28—Retirement-destination counties in the Assessment area (Cook and Mizer 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 3.1—Natural Amenities Index for the Assessment area and surrounding counties (Nord and Cromartie

1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 3.2—Planning and Development (or Economic Development) Districts in the Assessment area

(all shaded counties except two southernmost counties in District 14 and one in District 21 that include

national forest lands attached administratively to the Ozark and Ouachita National Forests, respectively)

and adjacent areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure 3.3—Metropolitan Planning Organizations (shaded counties) in the Assessment area and adjacent

portions of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 3.4—Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D’s) areas in the Assessment area (all shaded

counties except those in RC&D areas 8 and 15) and adjacent portions of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma;

shaded counties in RC&D areas 8 and 15 include national forest lands attached administratively to the Ozark

and Ouachita National Forests, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 4.1—Percent of total industrial output by selected industries in the Assessment area (travel for AR

and MO only) (from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Figure 4.2—Percent of total employment by selected industries in the Assessment area (travel for AR and MO

only) (from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 4.3—Percent of total employee compensation by selected industries in the Assessment area (travel for

AR and MO only) (from MN IMPLAN (1997a, b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 4.4—Timber-significant counties in the Assessment area (see “Glossary of Terms” for definition;

data from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 4.5—Minerals-significant counties in the Assessment area in 1993 (see “Glossary of Terms” for

definition; data from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 4.6—Travel-significant counties in the Assessment area (see “Glossary of Terms” for definition;

data from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b; AR DPT 1997; Certec, Inc. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

296
Page

Figure 4.7—Timber market zones for Highlands’ national forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 4.8—Percentages that the timber, recreation, and minerals programs comprise of employee

compensation, total income, and employment generated by the production of goods and services on the

Highlands’ national forest (from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Figure 4.9—Payments to counties by national forests for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted

for inflation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Figure 4.10—Payments to counties from the Ouachita National Forest by revenue generating resource program

for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted for inflation). (Payments from grazing, recreation, and special

land uses totaled less than $75,000 per year and are not shown.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 4.11—Payments to counties from the Mark Twain National Forest by revenue generating resource

program for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted for inflation). (Payments from grazing, recreation,

and special land uses totaled less than $30,000 per year and are not shown.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 4.12—Payments to counties from the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests by revenue generating

resource program for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 (not adjusted for inflation). (Payments from grazing and

special land uses totaled less than $30,000 per year and are not shown.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Figure 4.13—Expenditures by program categories of the Ouachita National Forest for fiscal years 1989 through

1996 (adjusted to 1992 dollars). (“Other” category includes land uses, range, soil, water, air, minerals,

construction, fire, law enforcement, and ecosystem management.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Figure 4.14—Expenditures by program categories on the Mark Twain National Forest for fiscal years 1989

through 1996 (adjusted to 1992 dollars). (“Other” category includes land uses, range, soil, water, air, minerals,

construction, fire, law enforcement, and ecosystem management.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Figure 4.15—Expenditures by program categories on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests for fiscal years

1989 through 1996 (adjusted to 1992 dollars). (“Other” category includes land uses, range, soil, water, air,

minerals, construction, fire, law enforcement, and ecosystem management.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Figure 4.16—Average annual wages of workers affected by each national forest program in fiscal year 1996

(from MN IMPLAN 1997a, b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Figure 5.1—Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment area and draw area (latter includes the Assessment area;

selected cities shown for perspective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure 5.2—Percent distribution of public lands among managing agencies (Cordell 1995c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Figure 5.3—Ecological sections and subsections (modified from Keys and others 1995 and forest types

of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure 5.4—Percent distribution of timberland by ecological section and landowner category (USDA FS 1997a). . 142

Figure 5.5—Percent distribution of developed campsites by ownership category (Cordell 1995a). . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Figure 5.6—Percent of total trail system in the Assessment area by managing agency (Cordell 1995a). . . . . . . . . 144

Figure 5.7—River segments with Federal and/or State legislative designation(s) for protection of their

recreational values (IWSRCC 1997, OK SRC 1997, AR NSRC 1997, USDI NPS 1997a,b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Figure 5.8—National forest and State scenic byways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Figure 6.1—Timber subregions of the Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Figure 6.2—Highlands’ national forest timber sales as a percentage of U.S. national forest timber offered,

sold, and cut, 1988 through 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

297
Page

Figure 6.3—Average high bid prices for (A) softwood roundwood timber sales, (B) softwood sawtimber sales,

(C) hardwood roundwood timber sales, and (D) hardwood sawtimber sales on national forests by fiscal year

(1988 through 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Figure 6.4—Inventory and removals of softwood and hardwood growing stock and sawtimber in the

Assessment area, expressed as a percent of the Highlands’ total by landowner category (USDA FS FIA 1997). . 176

Figure 6.5—Timber volume (A) offered, (B) sold, and (C) cut on the Highlands’ national forests by fiscal year,

1988 through 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Figure 6.6—Percentage of county acres in timberland (USDA FS FIA 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Figure 6.7—Percentage of county timberland acres owned by nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners

(USDA FS FIA 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Figure 6.8—Percentage of county timberland acres in national forests (USDA FS FIA 1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Figure 6.9—Percentage of county timberland acres owned by forest industry (USDA FS FIA 1997). . . . . . . . . . . 187

Figure 6.10—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both national forest and NIPF ownership classes

(USDA FIA 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Figure 6.11—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both national forest and forest industry

ownership classes (USDA FS FIA 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Figure 6.12—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both national forest and State and local

ownership classes (USDA FS FIA 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Figure 6.13—Shaded counties have above average acreage in both national forest and other Federal

ownership classes (USDA FS FIA 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Figure 6.14—Percentages of the (A) Ozark-St. Francis, (B) Ouachita, and (C) Mark Twain National Forests in

various land suitability classes, 1997. (Part B of this figure does not reflect a major land adjustment on the

Ouachita National Forest in 1996.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Figure 6.15—Lumber production in the Highlands’ States, 1986 through 1995 (USDC BC 1987–1996). . . . . . . . . . 200

Figure 6.16—Annual Highlands’ States lumber production as a percent of U.S. lumber production,

1986 through 1995 (USDC BC 1987–1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Figure 6.17—Annual Highlands’ States value added as a percent of U.S. value added for lumber, furniture,

and paper industries, 1987 through 1995 (USDC BC 1988, 1993; USDC BC 1988–1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Figure 6.18—Annual Highlands’ States capital investment in wood products as a percent of U.S. capital

investment for lumber, furniture, and paper industries, 1988 through 1995 (USDC BC 1988, 1993; USDC BC

1988–1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Figure 6.19—Projected southwide softwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands using RPA acres

and harvest trends and assuming plantation growth increase by 30 percent from 1990 through 2020 (developed

from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Figure 6.20—Projected southwide softwood price using RPA acres and harvest trends and two different

assumptions about productivity (tree growth rates in plantations), 1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998). . . . 204

Figure 6.21—Projected southwide hardwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands using RPA acres

and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Figure 6.22—Projected southwide hardwood price trends using RPA acres and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020

(developed from Abt 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

298
Page

Figure 6.23—Projected softwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands in the Highlands using

RPA acres and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Figure 6.24—Projected total softwood inventory on private lands in the Highlands using RPA acres and

harvest trends, 1990 to 2020, by timber subregion (developed from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Figure 6.25—Projected hardwood inventory, growth, and removals on private lands in the Highlands using

RPA acres and harvest trends, 1990 to 2020 (developed from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Figure 6.26—Projected total hardwood inventory on private lands in the Highlands using RPA acres and

harvest trends, 1990 to 2020, by timber subregion (developed from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Figure 6.27—Projected shifts in southern softwood harvests on private lands between 1990 and 2020

(developed from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Figure 6.28—Projected shifts in southern hardwood harvests on private lands between 1990 and 2020

(developed from Abt 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Figure 7.1—Operations within the Assessment area in 1996 by commodity groups (USDL MSHA 1997,

AR DPCE MD 1997, MO DNR MD 1997, OK DM 1997, Gates 1997, Claxton 1997, USDA FS 1996b). . . . . . . . . . . 212

Figure 7.2—Distribution and number of hardrock mineral and coal operations within the Assessment area

(USDA MSHA 1997, AR DPCE MD 1997, MO DNR MD 1997, OK DM 1997, USDA FS 1996b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Figure 7.3—Assessment area mines, mineral industry employees, and acres by State as a percentage of

total Highlands mines, employees, and land (USDL MSHA 1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Figure 9.1—Responses to Forest Service Values Poll question 25, “My interest in public forest management

is best represented by the following organizations” (Hammond 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Figure 9.2— Responses to Forest Service Values Poll question 26, “The highest priority use of American

dollars to manage public forests should be concentrated on the following . . .” (Hammond 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

299
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment: social and economic conditions. Report 4 of 5. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SRS-34. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 299 p.

This publication provides information about the social and economic conditions in and

near the national forests in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands: the Mark Twain in Missouri,

the Ouachita in Arkansas and Oklahoma, and the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests in

Arkansas. This report includes an archeological and historical background, describes

demographic conditions and trends and communities, provides an economic profile,

discusses recreation, timber, minerals, range, and other important resources in the

Highlands, and examines attitudes, values, and public opinions about natural resources.

Keywords: Archeology, communities, mineral resources, population trends, public

opinions, recreation, timber resources.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides leadership in the

management, protection, and use of the Nation’s forests and rangelands. The Agency

takes an ecological approach to the implementation of multiple-use management,

providing sustained yields of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife,

wood, and recreation. The Forest Service has embraced ecosystem management as its operating

philosophy and is committed to the preservation of wilderness, biodiversity, and landscape beauty

as well as the protection of the basic resources of soil, water, and air quality.

The Forest Service is responsible for the 191.8-million-acre National Forest System, with its 155

national forests and 20 grasslands in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In addition, the

Agency works with State land management organizations to help private landowners apply good

natural resource management practices on their lands. The International Program of the Forest

Service enables the Agency to share its technical expertise and managerial skills with other nations.

The Research and Development Program of the Forest Service conducts extensive research to

enhance and protect productivity on all of America’s forests and rangelands, with special attention

to long-term natural resource issues of national and international scope.

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250, or call 202-720-5964

(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer.
This report is one of five that documents the results of the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands

Assessment. Three of the remaining reports examine Air Quality, Aquatic Conditions, and

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife, respectively, and the fourth provides an overall summary.

Air Quality

REPORT

2

OF 5

Highlands Assessment

Ozark-Ouachita

General Technical

Report SRS-32

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Aquatic Conditions

REPORT

3

OF 5

Highlands Assessment

Ozark-Ouachita

General

Technical Report

SRS-33

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife

REPORT

5

OF 5

Highlands Assessment

Ozark-Ouachita

Summary Report

REPORT

1

OF 5

Ozark-Ouachita

Highlands Assessment

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

General Technical

Report SRS-31

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

General Technical

Report SRS-35