Private Property to Public Property: the Beginnings of the National Forests in the South

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Private Property to Public Property: the Beginnings of the National Forests in the South PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC PROPERTY: THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE SOUTH Gerald W. Williams, Ph.D. National Historian USDA Forest Service Washington, D.C. March 29, 2003 The federal government has been actively involved with forests in the South since 1799 with the establishment of several live oak reservations for naval purposes. However, large land allocations for national forests would have to wait for 120 years. The national forest system began on March 3, 1891, with passage of a bill–referred to as the Creative Act by the Forest Service–that was designed to eliminate problems with previous homestead laws (26 Stat. 1095). Attached to the bill was a one sentence amendment that allowed the president to proclaim forest reserves (later called national forests) from the timber covered public domain. The only problem was that the public domain (unclaimed public land) was almost all in the West. Within days of the passage of the act, President Harrison had proclaimed forest reserves on some 15 million acres of land. By the end of President Cleveland’s second term, a total of 40 million acres of forest reserves had been proclaimed, some very controversial. President McKinley was faced with a huge problem of trying to overcome opposition to the new reserves and still fund the daily operations of the government, since abolishment of the reserves was tied to the annual sundry appropriations bill. Finally, the Congress passed and the president signed a bill know known as the Organic Act of 1897. However, as the forest reserves in the West grew in leaps and bounds, there was no federal protection for timber areas in the East. In addition, the timber covered mountains in the North east and South were quickly being converted to stumps. There were huge problems with land erosion and timber companies leaving the now cut-over land behind–taxes were often not paid and the lands became the property of the counties and states. In 1911, an act was passed that was intended to resolve at least part of the situation. Called the Weeks Act, it allowed the federal government to purchase lands that once had trees/forests. Within a few years, many acres of land were purchased from willing owners and willing counties and states. These lands, after many purchases of often very small pieces of land, were converted to national forests by Congress–the first was the Pisgah National Forest in 1916 in the state of North Carolina. Today, there are approximately 25 million acres of national forests in the East–12 million acres of these in the South). The unique challenges and obstacles that had to be overcome to establish these national forests in the South, as well as the management problems (including that of the “light burning” controversy) after the national forests were established, are the issues to be described below. In addition, each southern state is discussed briefly in relation to the establishment of national forests within the boundaries. This paper was prepared for the American Society for Environmental History meeting held in Providence, RI, on March 26-30, 2003. 1 LIVE OAK RESERVATIONS The Federal Timber Purchasers Act of February 25, 1799 (1 Stat. 622) appropriated $200,000 to buy timber and timberland for naval purposes. Live oak trees were highly valued for lumber used in the planking and large wood pieces used by the wooden fleets of the time. BlacKbeard’s and Grover’s Islands off the Georgia were purchased–these were the first federal purchases of timbered land for government use. The Act of March 1, 1817 (3 Stat. 347), renewed the 1799 act, directed the president to reserve live oaK or cedar timbered public lands that may have use for the U.S. Navy. Under this act, 19,000 acres were reserved on Commissioners, Cypress, and Six Islands in Louisiana. The live oaK lands were administered by the Navy Department. The Federal Timber Reservation Act of March 3, 1827 (4 Stat. 242) established the Santa Rosa live oaK timber reserve near Pensacola, Florida, for the exclusive use by the Navy. This was the first federal timberland reservation that is used for forestry purposes. About 30,000 acres of the Santa Rosa peninsula (that extends into the Bay of Pensacola) was intended to be the first forest experiment station with planting live oaKs, clearing brush, creating fire breaKs, and Keeping trespassers out, but the idea becomes a political issue and is dropped. The Naval Appropriations Act of 1828 approved spending not more than $100,000 to purchase land necessary for the continuous supply of live oak and other timber, especially cedar, for the Navy. This appropriation was spent on the Santa Rosa naval timber reserve and experiment station near Pensacola, Florida. Henry M. BracKenridge, supervisor of the reserve, wrote a letter to Secretary Southard of the Navy Department where he discussed innovative the culturing of live oaK. This was one of the first American papers on silviculture. The Timber Trespass Act of March 2, 1831 (4 Stat. 472), relating to the live oaK and other timber reservations, became the basis for present-day law for the prevention of timber trespass on federal land. Fines for timber trespass were to be not less than three times the value of the timber cut. By the 1830s, trespass cutting on the reserves was flagrant. Congress requested in early 1832 that the Secretary of the Navy report on the reserves, which he did on December 18, 1832. In conclusion, the report as recorded by Kephart (1983: 471), stated that there should be no “further purchases on private lands on which this [live oak] tree grows, or to carry the artificial cultivation of it, on any of the public lands, beyond what had already ben attempted.” For a 30-year period from 1830 to 1860, 14 presidential orders set aside approximately 200,000 acres of live oaK reserves from public lands (Kephart 1983). Congress passed an act in 1871 that authorizing the expenditure of $5,000 for the “protection of timberlands.” This was intended to be used for protection of the naval timber (live oak) reservations. This was the first appropriation for the protection of publically owned timber. The next year, the amount was doubled and applied to all public lands. Reservations of live oaK lands in Louisiana were opened for settlement in 1843. The disposal of live oak reservations continued until 1923 when the last of the reservations was sold. THE SOUTH AND TIMBER Settlement in many parts of the South began in the middle-1700s, displacing the native American Indians. By the middle 1800s, millions of acres of land in the southern state were extensively cleared for farms and plantations. As the better lowlands were taken and used for cotton and tobacco production, many new settlers moved to the often inaccessible mountain areas where farms were often scratched from the forests. A typical mountain-type or “hardscrabble” farm was described as having: both bottomland and steep hillsides. About a quarter was in crops, a fifth in cleared pasture, and the remainder, over half, was in forest. Springs and a nearby creek provided plentiful water. About half the land under cultivation was devoted to corn, which provided a household staple and basis for whiskey [one of the few cash “crops”], as well as grain for horses and hogs. Secondary crops were oats, wheat, hay, sorghum, rye, potatoes, and buckwheat. An orchard of apple and other fruit trees was planted. Many farmers had their own bee hives, and every farm had a large vegetable garden–where green beans, pumpkins, melons, and squash were commonly grown. Contour farming was still unKnown 2 here. Crops and gardens often stretched vertically up the side of a hill, hastening erosion, runoff, and siltation of mountain streams... Usually 8 to 12 people–parents, children, and occasionally grandparents or other relatives–live on the farm...Homes were usually built in sheltered spots with good water readily accessible and within easy walKing distance–but not sight–of neighbors. The traditional mountain homestead was a handhewn cabin, usually one room with a loft, front porch, and possibly a lean-to at the bacK...Eventually two- to four-room box houses and larger frame houses became more common (Mastran and Lowerre 1983: xx). Gifford Pinchot, who started his forestry experience in 1892 on the forest lands of the George Vanderbilt (Biltmore) estate near Asheville, North Carolina, described the people that he came in contact with during management of the forest lands and purchase of additional lands in the state: people knew nothing of game preserves and but little of property rights. On the contrary, they regarded this country as their country, their common. And that was not surprising, for they needed everything usable in it–pasture, fish, and game–to supplement the very meager living they were able to scratch from the soil of their little clearings, which often were no clearings at all, but mere “deadenings,” filled with the whitening sKeletons of trees killed by girdling... The lives of these mountain people were literally as cribbed, cabined, and confined as the country in which they had their being was spacious, rich, and beautiful. They dwelt and slept mostly in one-room cabins, and they lived very far from high. An open fireplace was cookstove and furnace, with a kettle hanging from a crane [a wrought iron, swinging arm device that held pots over the fire for cooking]. Glass was rare, and windows were closed by solid board shutters. Homespun [cloth] was the common wear. There was, of course, nothing approaching sanitation, shoes were little worn around home, and hookworm was everywhere.
Recommended publications
  • PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 10-1265 and 10-2332 MINARD RUN OIL COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA
    PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 10-1265 and 10-2332 MINARD RUN OIL COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA INDEPENDENT OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION; ALLEGHENY FOREST ALLIANCE; COUNTY OF WARREN, PENNSYLVANIA, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; KENT P. CONNAUGHTON, in his official capacity as regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service, Eastern Region; LEANNE M. MARTEN, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Allegheny National Forest; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; ALLEGHENY DEFENSE PROJECT; SIERRA CLUB Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Allegheny Defense Project, Sierra Club, Appellants. (Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43 (c)(2)) (Amended Pursuant to the Clerk's Order of June 18, 2010) On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-09-cv-00125) District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin Argued on January 27, 2011 Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 20, 2011) Brian J. Sonfield, Esquire Assistant General Counsel United States Department of Agriculture Washington, DC 20250 Ignacia S. Moreno, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Aaron P. Avila, Esquire Ruth Ann Storey, Esquire United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044 2 Lane N. McFadden, Esquire Robert P. Stockman, Esquire (Argued) United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 23795, L‟Enfant Plaza Station Washington, DC 20026 Counsel for Federal Appellants Timothy M.
    [Show full text]
  • Curt Teich Postcard Archives Towns and Cities
    Curt Teich Postcard Archives Towns and Cities Alaska Aialik Bay Alaska Highway Alcan Highway Anchorage Arctic Auk Lake Cape Prince of Wales Castle Rock Chilkoot Pass Columbia Glacier Cook Inlet Copper River Cordova Curry Dawson Denali Denali National Park Eagle Fairbanks Five Finger Rapids Gastineau Channel Glacier Bay Glenn Highway Haines Harding Gateway Homer Hoonah Hurricane Gulch Inland Passage Inside Passage Isabel Pass Juneau Katmai National Monument Kenai Kenai Lake Kenai Peninsula Kenai River Kechikan Ketchikan Creek Kodiak Kodiak Island Kotzebue Lake Atlin Lake Bennett Latouche Lynn Canal Matanuska Valley McKinley Park Mendenhall Glacier Miles Canyon Montgomery Mount Blackburn Mount Dewey Mount McKinley Mount McKinley Park Mount O’Neal Mount Sanford Muir Glacier Nome North Slope Noyes Island Nushagak Opelika Palmer Petersburg Pribilof Island Resurrection Bay Richardson Highway Rocy Point St. Michael Sawtooth Mountain Sentinal Island Seward Sitka Sitka National Park Skagway Southeastern Alaska Stikine Rier Sulzer Summit Swift Current Taku Glacier Taku Inlet Taku Lodge Tanana Tanana River Tok Tunnel Mountain Valdez White Pass Whitehorse Wrangell Wrangell Narrow Yukon Yukon River General Views—no specific location Alabama Albany Albertville Alexander City Andalusia Anniston Ashford Athens Attalla Auburn Batesville Bessemer Birmingham Blue Lake Blue Springs Boaz Bobler’s Creek Boyles Brewton Bridgeport Camden Camp Hill Camp Rucker Carbon Hill Castleberry Centerville Centre Chapman Chattahoochee Valley Cheaha State Park Choctaw County
    [Show full text]
  • 102 Stat. 1774 Public Law 100-446—Sept
    102 STAT. 1774 PUBLIC LAW 100-446—SEPT. 27, 1988 Public Law 100-446 100th Congress An Act Sept. 27, 1988 Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for [H.R. 4867] *^® fiscal year ending September 30,1989, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989, and for other purposes, nsimely: TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, develop­ ment, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, and performance of other functions, including maintenance of facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of Ismds and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, including the general administration of the Bureau of Land Management, $508,462,000, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 to be derived from the specisJ receipt account established by section 4 of the Land and Water C!onservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(i)), $70,000,000 for firefighting and repayment to other appropriations from which funds were transferred under the author­ ity of section 102 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988, and $23,000,000 for the Auto­ mated Land and Mineral Record Sjrstem Project shcdl remain avail­ able until expended: Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or 43 use 1474.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness in Context
    Denver Law Review Volume 76 Issue 2 Symposium - Wilderness Act of 1964: Article 6 Reflections, Applications, and Predictions January 2021 Wilderness in Context Robert L. Glicksman George Cameron Coggins Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Robert L. Glicksman & George Cameron Coggins, Wilderness in Context, 76 Denv. U. L. Rev. 383 (1998). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. WILDERNESS IN CONTEXT ROBERT L. GLICKSMAN* GEORGE CAMERON COGGINS** INTRODUCTION Wilderness is both a geophysical reality and a legally defined land category. As a matter of geography, wilderness is any place that has so far escaped human development.' Legally, wilderness consists of those places designated by Congress for preservation from such development, areas that we call "official wilderness areas." Other writers in this sym- posium discuss many aspects of wilderness designation and manage- ment. Our aims in this article are to cover some of this same territory by placing official wilderness in several contexts-historical, legal, and managerial. By doing so, we intend to demonstrate that a wider range of geographic wilderness is compatible with official wilderness and that the implementation of other federal land management statutes may provide a basis for resolving several key outstanding wilderness management questions. In retrospect, the creation of official wilderness was nearly inevita- ble.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Mountain Valley Pipeline, Llc Supporting Petitioners ------ ------Thomas C
    Nos. 18-1584 and 18-1587 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC, Petitioner, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petitions For Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC SUPPORTING PETITIONERS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THOMAS C. JENSEN MURRAY D. FELDMAN HOLLAND & HART LLP Counsel of Record 975 F St. NW, Ste. 900 ALISON C. HUNTER Washington, DC 20004 HOLLAND & HART LLP (202) 393-6500 800 W. Main St., Ste. 1750 Boise, ID 83702 GEORGE P. S IBLEY, III (208) 342-5000 HUNTON ANDREWS [email protected] KURTH LLP 951 E. Byrd St. Richmond, VA 23219 Counsel for Amicus (804) 788-8200 Curiae Mountain July 26, 2019 Valley Pipeline, LLC ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED This case involves the
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness in the Northern Rockies| a Missoula-Lolo National Forest Perspective
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1993 Wilderness in the northern Rockies| A Missoula-Lolo National Forest perspective Todd L. Denison The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Denison, Todd L., "Wilderness in the northern Rockies| A Missoula-Lolo National Forest perspective" (1993). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4091. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4091 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's written consent. MontanaUniversity of WILDERNESS IN THE NORTHERN ROCKIES: A MISSOULA-LOLO NATIONAL FOREST PERSPECTIVE By Todd L. Denison B.A. University of Montana, 1986 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Montana 1993 Approved by Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School UMI Number: EP36297 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulane Environmental Law Journal
    TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 10 WINTER 1996 ISSUE 1 HABITAT PROTECTION AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT SCOTT FINET* I. INTRODUCTION: THE ACCELERATION OF EXTINCTION ................... 2 II. THE ORIGINS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT ............................................................................ 5 A. Forces that Contributed to the Creation of the MBTA ................................................................................... 5 B. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act’s Legislative History ................................................................................. 7 C. The MBTA Treaties ............................................................. 9 D. Pre-ESA MBTA Cases ......................................................11 E. Factors Influencing the MBTA Habitat Preservation Cases ...........................................................13 1. MBTA’s Text .......................................................14 2. Hunting Regulation Precedent .............................16 3. Strict Liability .......................................................17 4. The Endangered Species Act ...............................19 III. THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT HABITAT PRESERVATION FRAMEWORK .........................................................21 IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................30 * Law Librarian and Associate Professor of Law, Temple University. I am grateful to my colleagues Alice Abreu, Jane Baron, Jeff Dunoff and Muriel
    [Show full text]
  • 7 CFR Subtitle a (1–1–12 Edition)
    § 2.60 7 CFR Subtitle A (1–1–12 Edition) Under Secretary only with respect to 70 Stat. 632) is limited to acquisitions the area or responsibility assigned to of less than $250,000 in value. him or her. (3) As necessary for administrative purposes, divide into and designate as § 2.60 Chief, Forest Service. national forests any lands of 3,000 acres (a) Delegations. Pursuant to or less which are acquired under or § 2.20(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(7)(ii) and subject to the Weeks Act of March 1, (a)(8), the following delegations of au- 1911, as amended, and which are contig- thority are made by the Under Sec- uous to existing national forest bound- retary for Natural Resources and Envi- aries established under the authority ronment to the Chief of the Forest of the Weeks Act. Service: (4) Plan and administer wildlife and fish conservation rehabilitation and (1) Provide national leadership in for- habitat management programs on Na- estry. (As used here and elsewhere in tional Forest System lands, pursuant this section, the term ‘‘forestry’’ en- to 16 U.S.C. 670g, 670h, and 670o. compasses renewable and nonrenewable (5) For the purposes of the National resources of forests, including lands Forests System Drug Control Act of governed by the Alaska National Inter- 1986 (16 U.S.C. 559–f), specifically des- est Lands Conservation Act, forest-re- ignate certain specially trained officers lated rangeland, grassland, brushland, and employees of the Forest Service, woodland, and alpine areas including not exceeding 500, to have authority in but not limited to recreation, range, the performance of their duties within timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife the boundaries of the National Forest and fish; natural scenic, scientific, cul- System: tural, and historic values of forests and (i) To carry firearms; related lands; and derivative values (ii) To enforce and conduct investiga- such as economic strength and social tions of violations of section 401 of the well being).
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain Region 2 – Historical Geography, Names, Boundaries
    NAMES, BOUNDARIES, AND MAPS: A RESOURCE FOR THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION (Region Two) By Peter L. Stark Brief excerpts of copyright material found herein may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, education, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder under 17 U.S.C § 107 of the United States copyright law. Copyright holder does ask that you reference the title of the essay and my name as the author in the event others may need to reach me for clarifi- cation, with questions, or to use more extensive portions of my reference work. Also, please contact me if you find any errors or have a map that has not been included in the cartobibliography ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the process of compiling this work, I have met many dedicated cartographers, Forest Service staff, academic and public librarians, archivists, and entrepreneurs. I first would like to acknowledge the gracious assistance of Bob Malcolm Super- visory Cartographer of Region 2 in Golden, Colorado who opened up the Region’s archive of maps and atlases to me in November of 2005. Also, I am indebted to long-time map librarians Christopher Thiry, Janet Collins, Donna Koepp, and Stanley Stevens for their early encouragement and consistent support of this project. In the fall of 2013, I was awarded a fellowship by The Pinchot Institute for Conservation and the Grey Towers National Historic Site. The Scholar in Resi- dence program of the Grey Towers Heritage Association allowed me time to write and edit my research on the mapping of the National Forest System in an office in Gifford Pinchot’s ancestral home.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Forest Service a Historical Bibliography, 1876-1972
    I CAL CON SERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES The United States Forest Service A Historical Bibliography, 1876-1972 Compiled by Gerald R. Ogden Bibliographer,Forest History Society 1973 Forest History Society, Inc. Santa Cruz California UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE WO REPLY TO: 168o-Forest Service History May 21i., 19714 SUBJECT: Forest Service Bibliography TO: Rgiona1 Foresters, Station and Area Directors ATTENTION: History Coordinators We enclose one copy of the Bibliography of References dealing with the USDA Forest Service, done by the Forest History Society, Santa Cruz, Calif., for the WO Forest History Unit. Because this edition was done in such limited numbers, we have not heretofore made any general Field distribution. Since we now have plans to republish this bibliography, with still additional historical references and in a larger edition (more cpies) we are making Field distribution of the limited number we ha& on hand in the WO. Since this is a highly valuable and useful document in our push to record and publish Service history, please keep it in your reference library. Also, whenever possible please publicize and make it available to universities and scholars who may be engagedinresearching Forest Service history. CIJEFORD D. OWSLEY History Officer Enclosure THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE A HISTORICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 1876-1972 COMPILED BY GERALD R. OGDEN PUBLISHED BY THE FOREST HISTORY SOCIETY, INC. 1973 SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THE COMPILER OF A LARGE BIBLIOGRAPHY PLACESHEAVY DEMANDS ON THE PERSONNEL OF LIBRARIES AND OTHER DEPOSITORIESWHICH HE MUST USE. I WISH TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO THEFOLLOWING PEOPLE WITHOUT WHOSE HELP THE PREPARATION ANDCOMPLETION OF THIS BIBLIOGRAPHY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE: MR.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing Market Adjusted Based Base Period Prices for Forest Service Timber Sales
    Preparing Market Adjusted Based Base Period Prices for Forest Service Timber Sales And using them in a 2400-17 appraisal form to compute an Advertised Rate Richard Haynes, Consulting Forest Economist, Meti Inc. Kenneth Skog, Consulting Forest Economist, Meti Inc. Richard Aubuchon, Appraisal Specialist Forest Management, National Headquarters, USDA Forest Service Michael Paterni, Program Analyst, Meti Inc. December 26 2019 1 Table of Contents Part 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 The TOOLs .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Part 2 TOOL1 - Updating End Product Market Prices ........................................................................ 8 Part 3 TOOL2 - Computing Base Period Price, Market Adjustment factor and Adjusted Base Period Price ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Choosing Appraisal zone z2 and Base period b ...................................................................................... 12 Tool 2 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Base Period Price - BPP(z2,g,b) .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Land We Cared For-- : a History of the Forest
    V Mlq^iI A 13.2:H 62/9 ^ THE LAND WE CARED FOR ... A History of the Forest Service's Eastern Region S$t^5i** s ^<* Original from Digitized by Go gle UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA THE LAND WE CARED FOR... A History of the Forest Service's Eastern Region by David E. Conrad AMERICAN RESOURCES GROUP, LTD. Carbondale, Illinois Edited by: Jay H. Cravens, George Banzhaf & Company for the U.S. Forest Service, Milwaukee, Wisconsin FIRST EDmON 1997 USDA-Forest Service, Region 9 310 West Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 Cover by: U.S. Forest Service UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS LIBRARY OCT 2 8 1997 U.S. DEPOSITORY PROPERTY U.S.G.P.0.0-295 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or 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, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 1-800- 245-6340 (voice) or 202-720-1 127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. NOTE TO READERS This work has been written under a 1985 contract between the USDA Forest Service and American Resources Group, Ltd., of Carbondale, Illinois. The authors had the cooperation of the Forest Service and the National Archives and Records Administration.
    [Show full text]