Proceedings [of the] Annual Forestry Symposium Proceedings [of the] Annual Forestry Symposium

Volume 1 Issue 28 Article 1

1981

Timber Harvesting in Wetlands: 30th Annual Forestry Symposium, Timber Harvesting in Wetlands: 30th Annual Forestry Symposium,

1981 1981

School of Forestry, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

Ben D. Jackson Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana USA

Jim L. Chambers Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA USA

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/pafs

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation School of Forestry, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA; Jackson, Ben D.; and Chambers, Jim L. (1981) "Timber Harvesting in Wetlands: 30th Annual Forestry Symposium, 1981," Proceedings [of the] Annual Forestry Symposium: Vol. 1 : Iss. 28 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/pafs/vol1/iss28/1

1981 30TH ANNUAL FORESTRY SYMPOSIUM

Copyright c 1981

by Louisiana State University Division of Continuing Education

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Printed in the United States of America

30TH ANNUAL FORESTRY SYMPOSIUM

TIMBER HARVESTING IN WETLANDS

Edited by:

Ben D. JacksonAssistant Professor of Forestry Louisiana State University

and

Jim L. ChambersAssociate Professor of Forestry Louisiana State University

Published through the academic direction of the

SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

by theDIVISION OF CONTINUING EDUCATION LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY BATON ROUGE

FOREWORD

With the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 has come a new era in the continuing controversy over man's impact on the environment. At the center of this controversy exists the role of forestry practices on the quality of the nation's land and water resources.

Of particular interest the past several years in the southern states is the future of silviculture and timber harvesting in wetland areas.This concern gathered monentum in 1979 with the Avoyelles Sportmen's League, et al versus Alexander, et al case in which the plaintiffs filed suit to enjoin land-clearing activities on 20,000 acres in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.

The dispute involved whether clearing activities constituted dredge and fill practices subject to Section 404 permit. Since timber har­vesting could have been considered a clearing activity, foresters were concerned as to the impact decisions from this litigation would'have on the future of gathering cypress and bottomland hardwood timber from wet areas.

The purpose of this symposium is to trace the history of the wetland controversy and to determine the impact of the Avoyelles Parish case on forestry activities on affected areas. Specifically, points have been covered on what constitutes a wetland, what forestry activities are allowed or prohibited, and what constitutes dredge or fill practices. Insight as to the future of the wetland movement have also been consi­dered.

We wish to acknowledge the contribution of each of the speakers and authors as well as the guidance of the symposium by the moderators. Our most sincere gratitude is expressed to Judith Hite for making the meet­ing arrangements and to Patricia Faulkner for editing and typing the final manuscript.

Ben D. Jackson

Jim L. Chambers

v

Page

Foreword---------------- --Ben D. Jackson and Jim L, Chambers v

PART I THE WETLAND RESOURCE

Definition of Wetlands--------------------- Dr. Donal D. Hook 5

Classification of Wetland Resources: Land,Timber and Ecology---- — ----Dr. James G. Gosselink 28

Land-Use Competition in Wetlands------------ Frank Shropshire 50

PART II MANAGING AND HARVESTING WETLAND TIMBER RESOURCES

Wetland Silvicultural Systems---------- -Dr. Robert L. Johnson 63

Economic and Physical Constraints Relative to Harvesting Wetlands in the ExtremeSection of Georgia's Coastal Plain-- Richard Koger,and Tommy Patrick 81

Wetland Harvesting Systems--------------------Earl R. Priegel 88

Potential Site Disturbance form HarvestingTimber in Wetlands--------------------- W. H. Hanna 92

PART III REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS ON TIMBER HARVESTING IN WETLANDS

Federal Regulatory Constraints on TimberHarvesting in Wetlands----------------- Mark E. Rey 99

Legal Constraints to the Use of Wetlands inLouisiana--------------------Joseph E. LeBlanc, Jr. 113

Wetland Forestry and the 1972 CleanWater Act---------------------------Michael Osborne 126

Timber Landowners View of the WetlandsIssue-------------------------------Marc Dupuy, Jr. 135

PART IV APPENDIX

Author Index to Papers Presented at the Twenty-first through the Thirtieth Annual LSU Forestry Synposia 1972-1981-------------------------------- 159

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Page

9

16

19

22

30

33

34

35

37

LIST OF FIGURES

Map and acreage of wet land needing drainage in 1919 (Gray et al. 1923).

Diagram of interested parties in wetland controversy and their influence (direction of arrow) on COE and EPA.

Depicts wetlands as being tightly contained within a bucket and the problem of trying to force broad inter­pretation of Section 404 definition into this definition.

Illustrates problem of a girdle that is too tight for comfort to problem of including all lowland forest types into Section 404 definition. It is unlikely that the person can keep the girdle on very long or that the broad interpretation of Judge Scott will stand the test of time.

Southeastern United States alluvial bottoms, hammocks, and swamps supporting stands that are almost totally hardwoods (after Putnam et al. 1960).

Areal changes of southern bottomland hardwood forest expressed as total area and as percent change per year for the southeastern United States. The data were summarized from the forest survey results of the U. S. Forest Service from 1940 to 1970 and include the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (after Turner et al. 1981).

The percent of bottomland hardwood forest remaining in the various counties and parishes of the lower Missis­sippi River alluvial floodplain, circa 1969 (after Frey and Dill 1971).

The distribution of land use in the Mississippi River alluvial floodplain from 1950 to that projected for the year 2000 (from Turner et al. 1981).

Volume in Louisiana of tree species ranked according to their flood tolerance. The plotted line represents the culmulative timber volume as one moves from low to higher land. (Volume data from Earles 1975).

ix

X

Page

10. Tree species composition of three Louisiana swamp areas with different flooding regimes (from Conneret al. 1981). 40

11. Net aboveground primary productivity (NPP) of various swamp areas classified by their flooding regime (fromConner and Day in press). 41

12. Relationship between recent precipitation and inor­ganic nitrogen to phosphorus ratio. A representsa bayou receiving runoff from agricultural fieldsand B represents water flowing through the swampforest (from Kemp 1978). 42

13. Organic carbon export as a function of runoff from various upland and swamp-draining watersheds (from Mulholland and Kuenzler 1979). 44

14. Simulated hydrographs of the Gordon River basin near Naples, Florida. A shows the seasonal nature of rain­fall and evapo-transpiration in the area while B illustrates the changes in surface discharge withchanges in land use (after Littlejohn 1977). 45

15. Actual and projected decrease in bottomland hardwood acreages, 1937-1995 (from: Bottomland hardwoods along the Mississippi: a disappearing resource. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Jackson,Mississippi). 52

Page

6

10

31

54

58

65

66

68

70

72

74

LIST OF TABLES

Wetland species listed in the Federal District Court Opinion handed by Judge Nauman S. Scott on March 12, 1981.

Acreage of land drained by period from 1870 to 1950 (Wooten and Jones 1955).

Area of wetland hardwoods by physiographic classes and states (Boyce and Cost 1974).

Conceivable uses of wetlands and their effects on other uses.

Hypothetical yields and values from a well managed bottomland hardwood stand of even-aged, mixed species (Putnam et al. 1960).

Species occurrence and associated site indices based on 21 common lowland soils (Broadfoot 1976).

Species to favor or not favor in management on Sharkey clay and Commerce silt loam with associated site indices (Broadfoot 1976).

Hypothetical stocking and estimated yields for even- aged hardwood stand (Putnam et al. 1960).

Hypothetical stocking and diameter distribution for well-managed uneven-aged southern hardwoods on aver­age or better sites (Putnam et al. 1960).

Estimated stand age by dbh class, basal area, and species group for leave trees.

Expected regeneration following harvest cutting systems in different species groups (McKnight and Johnson 1980).

xi

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

1.

30TH ANNUAL

FORESTRY SYMPOSIUM

1981

PART I THE WETLAND RESOURCE

DEFINITION OF WETLANDS

Donal D. Hook Professor and Director

The Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute of Clemson University Georgetown, South Carolina

Introduction

What is a wetland? The answer to this question was resolved, at least for a tract of land in Louisiana in a Court Opinion by Nauman S. Scott, United States District Judge, Alexandria, Louisiana on March 12, 1981. The case concerned the Avoyelles Sportmen's League Inc. et al. vs. Alexander et al. regarding the clearing of bottomland hardwoods for soybean farming in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana and interpretation of the definition of wetlands according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977.

Judge Scott ruled that all tree species which were prevalent in the forest communities on this 20,000 acre tract of land adjacent to the Red River, were wetland species except those that were classified as intolerant to flooding by Whitlow and Harris (1979) and Teskey and Hinckley (1977). None of the species on the tract were classified as intolerant (see Fact 8 in Opinion table 1). Exceptions were made for two soil types which occurred along the Red River on the northern portion of the property.

The steps leading up to this decision and the historical position of the parties involved have occurred within the last 15-to-20 years. However, some of the underlying reasons for the position taken by various groups can be traced back to early American history and the attitude of settlers and government bodies toward swamps and poorly drained land.

As an introduction, the recent events in wetland laws, regulations and concerned parties are identified and summarized.

The trend to restrict use of wetlands began with three recent federal legislative Acts, i.e., the Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) of 1965, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972, and the Clean Water Act of 1977. Intermixed in with the latter two Acts were several attempts by the Corps of Engineers (COE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to define the Nation's waters. Also at the same time litigation occurred in courts in several parts of the country in attempts to resolve this issue. On the scientific and edu­cational side a series of symposia and workshops were started in the 1970's. The most recent workshop was sponsored by the National Wetlands

5

Table 1. Wetland species listed in the Federal District Court Opinion handed by Judge Nauman S. Scott on March 12, 1981.

Water logging tolerance ratingsSpecies Whitlow & Harris (1979) Teskey & Hinckley (1977)

American Elm ST TBaldcypress* VT VTBitter Pecan VT STBlack Willow* VT VTBoxelder ST TButtonbush* VT VTDeciduous Holly VT VTDrummond*8 Red Maple T TEastern Cottonwood T VTGreen Ash VT VTHawthorn ST STHoneylocust ST STNuttall Oak VT TOvercup Oak VT TPersimmon T TSugarberry T STSwamp Privet* VT VTSwamp Tupelo ST VTSweetgum T TSycamore ST TWater Elm* VT TWater Locust VTWater Oak ST TWater Tupelo* VT VTWillow Oak ST T

* Only wetland plant species in the opinion of Dr, Donald Rhodes, Dale Thomas, J, S. McKnight and Dr, Donal D, Hook,

6

7

Technical Council on June 1-5, 1980. It was concerned with how to characterize bottomland hardwood sites, delineate vegetation zones, identify transitions, and evaluate impacts. In addition, a plethora of literature on wetlands values, functions, and needs to protect wet­lands for various reasons have been recently published and an Executive Order was issued by President Carter (E0#11990) in 1977 to assure that federal agencies did their part to protect wetlands.

Through the above processes it had been resolved to almost everyone's satisfaction that swamps, marshes, and bogs were legal wet­lands as defined in Section 404 of the FWPCA of 1972 and CWA of 1977. However, until Judge Scott's recent ruling there was considerable dis­agreement among users and regulatory agencies concerning where the upper boundary of the Nation's waters (wetlands) stopped in forested areas and where the uplands began.

There were a number of legitimate reasons for and against adopting a broad definition which reached well above the swamp boundary. On one side of the issue there were groups of people who strongly disagreed with the practice of clearing forested wetlands and putting them into non-forest uses because of ecological and aesthetic losses. In addition, some saw the need to preserve a portion of the wetlands for future gen­erations. Also, those concerned with extinction of the wildlife and plant species and those people responsible for protecting and managing wildlife and fish habitats in areas that are periodically wet during the year had legitimate reasons for being concerned about dwindling habitats in the lowland areas. On the other hand agriculturists, developers and some other users did not want such lands to be classified as wetlands because it would prohibit or greatly restrict clearing and using such lands for farming or other non-forestry uses, which provide greater economic returns to the landowner. The latter strikes close to the heart of the free enterprise system and cannot be taken lightly.

Foresters found themselves embroiled in this issue with opposing feelings. They were naturally concerned about loss of bottomland hard­wood sites to non-forestry uses but they saw the potential for excessive restrictions and regulations of forestry practices on these sites if a broad definition was adopted.

To more fully understand these opposing and mixed views and why they exist, it is necessary to know something about the estimated size of the original wetlands, changes in sizes of these wetlands during the past century and a half, and the historical attitude of Americans toward use of swamps and poorly drained lands.

These topics are reviewed briefly to set the stage for further discussions on the recent ruling of Judge Scott and its possible implications to forestry.

8

Resource

Since wetlands have not been precisely defined historically, it is easy to understand why the extent of wetlands in the United States at the time of settlement by white man cannot be precisely reconstructed. Best estimates by the Soil Conservation Service place the original wet­land acreage at approximately 127 million acres. In 1954, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted an inventory of wetlands in the United States. It identified 20 wetland types with regard to their value as waterfowl habitat. Its definition of wetlands was rather loose in that it, in "....general, refers to lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters. They are referred to by such names as marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, pot­holes, sloughs, and river-overflow lands." Shallow lakes and ponds, usually with emergent vegetation as a conspicuous feature, are included in the definition, but the permanent waters of streams, reservoirs, and deep lakes are excluded..,." Under this definition, FWS inventoried 82 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 states (Shaw and Fredine 1954). This indicates a loss of approximately 35 percent of the ori­ginal resource.

Other evidence of wetland losses can be obtained from USDA inventories of 1906 and 1922 (Wright 1907 and Gray et al. 1923) and a review of the drainage enterprises by Wooten and Jones (1955). Much of this data is conflicting but it does substantiate a significant reduc­tion in swamp and poorly drained forest land through drainage enterprises financed by local, state, and federal programs.

Figure 1 shows approximately 75 million acres of potential cropland that was deemed by USDA as unfit for farming without clearing of timber and drainage in 1919. Also acreage of areas drained by periods (table 2), indicates the extent of how much poorly drained land in the U.S. has been altered by drainage.

Losses of wetlands in some regions both historically and recently have been substantial. The most notable example of forest and wetland losses are those for the Mississippi Delta (that arbitrary portion of the Mississippi River floodplain south of Cairo, Illinois). Originally this basin of about 24 million acres, with the exception of the Grand Prairie of eastern Arkansas, was covered with forest primarily bottom­land hardwoods. Obviously not all the forested land in this geographic region was wetland but certainly under Judge Scott's interpretation much would have been. By 1937 only 11.8 million acres of forest land were left. At about this time soybeans were introduced and due to their short growing season (100 days) they were found to be suitable crops on much of the remaining forested areas. By 1977 only 5.2 million acres were left in forests (Spencer 1981). Projections are that by 1995 only 2.1-to-3.9 million acres of bottomland hardwoods will remain (Turner et al. in press and Spencer 1981). Other regions in the U.S. show similar losses in wetland (Horwitz 1978), while lowland forests along the Atlantic Coast are stable or may have increased slightly within the past few years (Langdon et al. in press).

WET LAND UNFIT FOR CROPS WITHOUT DRAINAGE

LAND UNFIT FOR CROPS WITHOUT DRAINAGE

STATE ACRES STATE ACRES

FLA. 16,846,000 MICH. 5,111,000LA. 10,431,000 MISS. 4,752,000GA. 6,876,000 s.c. 4,589,000TEX. 6,824,000 ARK. 4,220,000MINN. 5,909,000 OTHER 20,595,000N.C. 5,390,000

U.S. 91,543,000

Figure 1. Map and acreage of wet land needing drainage in 1919 (Gray et al, 1923).

9

APPROXIMATE ACREAGE, 1919

Table 2. Acreage of land drained by period from 1870 to 1950 (Wooten and Jones 1955).

Year Acreage Drained (millions)

1870-1899 6.3

1900-1909 16.5

1910-1919 41.5

1920-1929 16.8

1930-1939 5.0

1940-1949 16.6

Total 102.7

10

11

Heritage

From the time of the first settlers of the United States until the late-1950's and early-1960's the attitude of the people and the tenor of the local, state and federal programs and laws was that swamps and poorly drained lands were undesirable and even a hindrance to develop­ment and a menace to man.

This sentiment was first expressed by Congress in the Swamp Land Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860. Through these Acts almost 65 million acres of swamps and poorly drained land were transferred from the Public Domain to 15 states, for the purpose of reclaiming these lands by draining and constructing levees to prevent flooding.

These Acts were the results of more than 20 years discussion by Congress. They are important in that they more or less set-the-stage, through failures and successes of associated flood control and drainage projects in the lower Mississippi River Basin for State and Federal Programs which are still in existence today (Wooten and Jones 1955).

In a documentary two volume history of conservation of Water Resources in the United States from 1492 to 1970 by Smith (1971a and 1971b) it is easy to follow the clear and drain attitude and sentiment toward poorly drained land of responsible people, government programs, and laws beginning with the Swamp Land Act of 1849 to the WPCA of 1965, Hence, much of the early conservation education of this country has had this sentiment, subtly if not directly, as its core. It's not surpris­ing that it has taken three Acts by Congress since 1965, litigation in numerous courts across the nation, and reassessment through research and education to slow this clear and drainage enterprise machine down and alter its course.

The Term Wetland

Origin

It's not unusual for a term to be widely accepted without clearly understanding its meaning. Foresters are probably most familiar with the term multiple-use and its many meanings. The term is still used today but it seems to be losing favor because of its vagueness (Hook and Dunn 1979). The term wetlands seems to suffer some of the problems that multiple-use does.

In searching literature three possible origins for the term wetland were found. In 1919, "wet land" was used on a USDA map (fig. 1) showing the location of lands that would require drainage before they could be used for arable crops (Gray et al. 1923). It was used as two words on the map but did not appear in the text. Apparently in the early 1950's and at least by 1953, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began using the term wetlands with regard to classifying and inventorying waterfowl habitat (Martin et al. 1953 and Shaw and Ferdine 1954). It appeared in forestry literature in 1962, as a catch-all term to describe those

12

forest types in the Atlantic Coastal Plain that had an abundance of water sometime during the year (Stubbs 1962), Later it was used by Boyce and Cost (1974) in evaluating the potential production of wetland hardwoods of the southeastern United States. Hook (1978) also used it in discussing timber management in wetland hardwoods. In the forestry context it was used to encompass lowland forest types of pine and cypress which do not fit under the term bottomland hardwoods.

It was used in political literature by the Kennedy-Johnson Natural Resources Advisory Committee, February 18, 1961 discussing the need to purchase wetlands for protecting waterfowl habitat (Smith 1971b).

Legal Use

Federal regulatory control of U.S. waters began with the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, which prohibited the discharge of refuse into navigable waters under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. This control was updated by the WPCA of 1965, FWPCA of 1972, and amended by the CWA of 1977, all under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army. In this process, the law evolved from protecting navigable waters for commerce purposes, to a greatly expanded purpose of "...restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water." Indeed this step was a long time in coming but it was a big one. What did "Nation's water" mean? The Corps first interpreted this to mean navigable waters. Another important part of the FWPCA of 1972 was Section 402 which established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers to regulate discharge into the waters of the United States of dredged material and those pollutants that comprise fill material.

In 1974 the Department of the Army published permit regulations to implement Section 404 to the same waters as fell under the 1899 Act.This was Immediately challenged in court by the National Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation as being inconsis­tent with the intent of Congress to regulate "all waters of the U.S." Concern was expressed over the need to regulate the entire aquatic system, including all the wetlands that are a part of it. On March 27, 1975 the District Court of the District of Columbia ordered the revoca­tion and recession of the Department of the A m y regulation which limits permits of Section 404 and ordered publication of proposed regulations within 15 days to meet the mandate of the FWPCA of 1972. COE responded and published four alternative proposed regulations in the Federal Register (FR) on May 6, 1975. It received over 4500 comments which assisted In developing the 1975 definition.

The Corps published revised regulations in the FR on July 25, 1975 of Section 404 which defined "the navigable waters, wetlands, mudflats, swamps, and similar areas; freshwater lakes, rivers and streams that are used, were used in the past, or are susceptible to use to transport

13

interstate commerce, including all tributaries to these waters, interstate waters, certain specified intrastate waters, the pollution of which would affect interstate commerce, and freshwater, wetlands, including marshes, shallow swamps, and similar areas that are conti­guous or adjacent to the above described lakes, rivers, and streams, and that are periodically inundated and normally characterized by the prevalence of vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction."

These regulations also exempted certain types of activities, i.e., plowing, seeding, cultivation, and harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products. These regulations were published on September 5, 1975 in the FR. These were tested in a number of court cases to determine whether wetlands are waters of the U.S. in 1974,1975, and 1976.

Prior to the FWPCA of 1972 the mean high tide line or high water mark was used to delinate the shoreward extent of jurisdiction. However it was recognized at this time that pollution did not begin or stop at such an artificial line.

Several terms in the definition were questioned:

- coastal and freshwater wetlands

- periodic inundation

- normally characterized

- vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

From the court cases and comments on proposed regulations the current definition of wetlands evolved to: "Those areas that are inun­dated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in satu­rated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (as published in the FR July 19, 1977 by COE).

This definition was challenged in Federal Court in Louisiana in 1978 and as mentioned earlier an Opinion of its interpretation was given on March 12, 1981. In this case, the COE and EPA disagreed on what was a wetland. To settle the jurisdiction matter they appealed to the Attorney General of the United States. He ruled that the Admin­istrator of EPA had the final jurisdiction. This caused considerable concern among agencies and the public with regard to timely considera­tion of permit requests. Because of the confusion of which and when

Note: EPA gets into the act via Section 402, as previously mentioned.

14

each agency had jurisdiction, COE and EPA developed a Memorandum of Understanding which specifies conditions when EPA may override or supercede COE jurisdiction. It specified COE's responsibilities in day-to-day administration of the Section 404 permit program. The COE will set Section 404 jurisdiction and EPA will automatically agree except in instances designated in advance as special cases. These were to cover situations where significant issues or technical diffi­culties existed.

EPA on October 24, 1980 listed a blanket set of special cases for 12 SAF forest cover types in 184 counties and parishes in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas,

Cover types were:

River Birch - Sycamore Type 61

Silver-Maple-American Elm Type 62

Cottonwood Type 63

Pine Oak - Sweetgum Type 65

Laurel Oak - Willow Oak Type 88

Sweetgum-Nuttall Oak—Willow Oak Type 92

Sugarberry-American Elm-Green Ash Type 93

Sycamore-Pecan-American Elm Type 94

Beech - Magnolia Type 90

Loblolly Pine - Hardwood Type 82

Slash Pine - Hardwood Type 85

Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak Type 92

In the new Forest Cover Types released in 1980, several of the above types were combined into other types; hence they no longer exist (Eyre 1980). Also Barber (1981) cautioned EPA on misuse of the cover types for jurisdictional purposes.

In addition EPA developed on August 14, 1980 a draft Rationale for identifying wetlands under the Section 404 permit program and circu­lated it to all EPA regions and to a number of agency and non—agency wetland specialists. They revised the Rationale based on comments and reissued it on October 15, 1980 to all regional personnel. In essence it discusses several portions of the 404 definition with regard to using soils, hydrology, and vegetation in defining a Section 404 wetland.

15

It adds one caveat, that not all wetlands under Section 404 definition are "...’waters of the United States' subject to regulation; the wetland must be adjacent to another non-wetland water of the United States or be such that its destruction of degradation could have as effect on interstate commerce."

Components of Wetland Controversy

In the Introduction, several groups were mentioned in relation to wetland delineation. In figure 2, they have been separated into four main groups, i.e., forestry, fish and wildlife, preservationists and environmentalists, and agriculturists. Two lesser groups, developers and new energy users (peat and biomass) were also included. These groups are offered as those having the most interest and potential affect upon the delineation of forested wetlands. In the figure, COE is shown initially as orbiting tightly around the wetlands as defined in Section 404. External to COE, EPA is shown in a much wider orbit which is influenced by each group making it more eliptical in shape. Forestry and agricultural interests tend to favor a more restricted interpretation of 404 wetlands and preservationists, environmentalists, fish and wildlife people favor a much broader interpretation. This figure does not imply good or bad for any group but is offered as my view of how 404 delineation was influenced or at least reflected the pressures being applied to the regulatory agencies as they attempted to carry out their charge under Section 402 and 404, It appears Judge Scott's ruling will bump the COE into the same orbit as EPA.

Pocosins are being cleared, drained, and used for agriculture in eastern North Carolina. The Environmental Defense Fund has developed a scoping document on the potential impacts of conversion of 23,000 acres of pocosins to agricultural use by Purlean Farms, One other large farm in this area is preparing to mine pocosins for peat as a source of energy (Mixon and Tripp 1981). Also, it is worthy to note that the National Science Foundation has developed a film on the use of wetlands for secondary sewerage disposal. It appears that some wet­lands near urban areas may have real potential for such use. The film is entitled Wetlands: Our Natural Partners and is being distributed free by Talking Films, Washington, D.C. One statement made in the film says that possibly the strongest reason for protecting the wetlands is so that they may be used for treating secondary sewage.

Problems with Interpreting Section 404 Definition

As mentioned above the Federal Western District Court of Louisiana Alexandria Division began studying the interpretation of the Section 404 definition of a wetland in 1978 and made a ruling in March 1981. Basically, the testimony in this case was either that (1) only a few tree species were adapted to life in a saturated soil, therefore only those sites on which these species dominated were wetlands or (2) most tree species in the floodplain were adapted in some manner to cope with periodic soil saturation and therefore the entire floodplain was a wetland. Obviously there were great differences between these ex­tremes and I wish to expose my bias at this point.

PRESERVATIONISTS&ENVIRONMENTALISTSFigure 2. Diagram of interested parties in wetland controversy

and their influence (direction of arrow) on COE and EPA.

16

FORESTED

WETLANDS

17

Based on the published literature on adaptations of yascular plants to waterlogging and my own experience and research with a few tree species, I was led to hypothesize and testify that those species which are adapted to life in a saturated soil are a very elite group. Tempo­rary or restricted adaptations are not sufficient for most tree species to live in a soil which is essentially devoid of oxygen. In order to do this effectively, the species must have one or both types of adapta­tions. They are (1) the anatomical structure of the tree must adapt so that oxygen diffuses freely from the atmosphere above the saturated soil through to the stem to the rhizosphere. Hence, the roots through this mechanism essentially avoids the highly reduced root environment or (2) species must have sufficient metabolic adaptations in the roots to carry on the physiological processes of root growth water absorption and anabolic and catabolic metabolism in the absence of oxygen and in the presence of numberous toxic compounds. Few species can do one or both (Hook and Scholtens 1978). In fact, there are questions whether anaerobic metabolic adaptations are sufficient for a plant to do any­more than survive in such environments (Davis 1980).

If plants are prevalent (I interpret this to mean the plants thrive in such conditions) on the site as the definition calls for, then its quite probable that they can diffuse oxygen to their rhizo­sphere, and have control of metabolic process in reduced soils. There is not sufficient time and space to fully develop this argument here but rice (Oryza sativa), swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), and water tupelo (N. aquatica) are species well known for flourishing in poorly aerated and flooded soils. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), a closely associated species, does well on fairly wet sites along swamp margins but not in swamps or sites that are typically inundated during most of the growing season. Green ash seedlings will develop new water roots in response to flooding but the new roots do not diffuse oxygen into their rhizosphere and it is questionable whether they can maintain metabolic control in roots in the absence of oxygen.

My argument is that a strict interpretation of the Section 404 wetlands definition is more consistent with the scientific literature and known responses of several wetland species than a broad interpre­tation.

This does not mean that floodplains are not important to fish and wildlife nor does it mean that floodplain forests do not perform some very desirable ecological functions. The point that I wish to make is that the definition appears to be nery narrow, i.e., "...the frequency and duration of saturation, sufficient to support....a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in a saturated soil condition." Only a few species can meet this requirement. This interpretation was quite similar to Rhodes' (1978) where he identified almost the same species based on their prevalence in areas typically saturated during the growing season in the lower Mississippi River Basin.

The reasons for stretching the definition so that it encompasses all those sites which these groups have sought to include are very

18

good. However, some problems seem to accompany this "stretched definition." They will be mentioned after the Court ruling is dis­cussed.

Under my interpretation of the Section 404 definition,•I agree with COE's historical approach to interpreting the wetlands definition as a very restricted group of sites, i.e., swamps, bogs, and marshes and similar areas. As a consequence, these sites are depicted as being contained in a bucket (fig. 3). Therefore when the Court (see comments below) jammed the entire floodplain into the container, it seems obvious that it does not fit too well. I assume the move that EDF has already made concerning the drainage of pocosins on the Purlean Farms in eastern North Carolina that the other site types, such as pocosins, bays, wet pine flats and savannahs, will be crammed into this bucket in future court cases or by regulatory decree. Whether all wet­lands under the broad definition meet the test of being "waters of the United States" as mentioned earlier, remains to be seen.

Comments on Court Ruling

Obviously the twenty-five page Opinion given by Judge Scott cannot be adequately reviewed in detail here. Therefore at the risk of not doing justice to the overall Opinion, I will try to target what I con­sider to be the most critical and/or most questionable points brought out in the document.

Grounds for Interpretations

In reviewing the historical aspects of the definition, its revisions, and Congressional intent, the Court concluded "that the terms 'waters of the United States' and 'wetlands' are not terms of pure science. They are not meant to be. Wetlands is a jurisdictional term, the product of the legislative process, of political pressure groups." "....Thus, the wetlands definition does not answer a scientific need, it satisfies a practical, a social, a political need, the need to define the scope of Section 404 jurisdiction."

Through this process, the Court reasoned if elements of the definition could be found through testimoney and various types of evi­dence (vegetation, soils, hydrology, etc.) then the tract in question could be declared a wetland. If the elements were not present then it would not be a wetland.

Definition

As mentioned above, the heart of the definition appears to lie in three parts, i.e.,"....(1) inundated or saturated at a frequency and duration, (2) sufficient to support.... (3) a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."

According to my interpretation and judgement given above and some other defendants who testified in the case, this statement seems to only

19

Figure

3. Depicts

wetlands as

being

tightly

contained

within

a bucket and

the problem

of trying

to force

broad

interpretation

of Section

404 definition

into

this definition.

20

apply to a very elite group of vascular plants. In addressing this issue, the Court ruled that such a restricted interpretation "...implies that wetlands as used in the CWA is a scientific term, that it is immu­table and that it must be interpreted with no consideration for the goals and purposes of the Act." The Court also contended that this interpretation represented the same interests which had been rejected in previous litigation and in the revision of the CWA of 1977. Also the Court held that the words "for life" "...means simply the ability to live, to exist, to tolerate" and "...includes all vegetation which is capable of and does adapt regardless of a mechanism it might employ to do so." The only point in contention the court asserted was degree of tolerance.

Conclusions

The Court resolved that disputes among the expert witnesses only revolved around standards of waterlogging tolerance; e.g., very tol­erant (VT), tolerant (T), and slightly tolerant (ST). Since all species on the tract were tolerant to a greater or lesser degree, the entire tract was wetland. Hence, the loophole of the 1975 definition of cer­tain vegetation species "requiring saturated soil" was closed. Also in referring to the 1977 definition, the Court ruled that the use of terms "inundated or saturated by surface or ground water" makes it clear that inundation is not necessary; therefore, the restricted inter­pretation of the defendants in the case "is strained and inappropriate in the context of the definition and completely in conflict with the first sentence in the revised definition."

The Court further ruled that "...we court hold the scientific evidence shows without substantial disagreement that all of the plant species which appear in prevalence on the Lake Long tract (Finding of Fact No. 8) are tolerant..." Significantly none are found to be intol­erant. Thus where these species appear in prevalence as they do here in a wetland environment of soils and hydrology the elements of the wetland definition are present. The Lake Long tract is therefore wetlands.

The implication of the latter statement seems to be far reaching.I interpret it to mean all species listed in the publications by Whitlow and Harris (1979) and Teskey and Hinckley (1977) as having some degree of waterlogging tolerance and when found in prevalence on soils described as wet by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service and having a hydroperiod of inundation comparable to the Lake Long tract would be interpreted as a wetlands.

Implications to Forestry

It is assumed through the various exemptions promulgated by COE and EPA under the FWPCA and CWA, that in the immediate future this ruling will have little or no impact on forestry beyond current restric­tions and exemptions. In fact, it seems to create a situation where under the minor drainage, harvesting, and road exemptions of these

21

sections, it would be possible to convert areas from very tolerant species, such as swamp and water tupelos and cypress (Taxodium distichum) to less tolerant hardwoods or perhaps even pines such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), slash pine (P. elliottii) and pond pine (p. serotina) without changing it from a wetland.

Whether all the wetlands can be contained within the definition for a long time appears to be similar to a problem that rather plump people have when he or she puts on a girdle or other restraining object that is too tight (fig. 4). First one can question the wisdom of such action although the intentions are good. Second, the girdle usually does not achieve the objective, things tend to bulge out here and there. Third, it is very difficult if not impossible to keep such a restrain­ing object on for a very long time.

Because of the economic and social implications of this ruling to many landowners throughout the United States, it would seem likely that this ruling will be challenged in higher court or Congressional action will be taken to alleviate the problem this ruling imposes on land use. The later seems likely in view of the current conservative nature of Congress and national concern for increasing production to restore the economy. Only time will tell.

I had the opportunity to talk by telephone to Bill Sipple, Section 404 Regulatory Program, EPA in Washington, D.C. in March 1981 before the ruling was made. Bill raised the question of why so many foresters were concerned over the wetlands jurisdictional matter since normal forestry practices were exempt. I responded that foresters were aware of the exemptions but they had great misgivings about the long term policies of the regulatory agencies and their ability to withstand pressure to remove these exemptions. Some foresters feel that the exemptions can be deleted in the future by regulatory decree under political or court pressure. He quickly responded that this would never happen. If it did, he thought Congress would react by taking away the Section 404 permit program as it almost did in 1976 during the CWA hearings. However, such concerns by foresters will not easily be dis­pelled considering the amount of political pressures that surrounded this case.

Figure 4. Illustrates problem of a girdle that is too tight for comfort to problem of including all lowland forest types into Section 404 definition. It is unlikely that the person can keep the girdle on very long or that the broad interpretation of Judge Scott will stand the test of time.

22

LITERATURE CITED

BARBER, J. 1981. Letter; caution to EPA on use of SAF cover types publication. J. For. 79(3):176.

BOYCE, S. G. and N. D. COST. 1974. Timber potential in wetland hard­woods. In M. C. Blount, ed. Water Res., Util., and Conser. in the Environment. Taylor Printing Co., Reynolds, Ga.

DAVIES, D. 1980. Anaerobic metabolism and the production of organic acids. In P. K. Stumps and E. E. Conn, editors-in-chief. The biochemistry of plants. Vol. 2. Metabolism and respiration. Academic Press, New York. 687 p.

EYRE, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Soc. Am. For. 148 p.

GRAY, L. C., 0. E. BAKER, F. J. MARSCHNER, B. D. WEITZ, W. R. CHAPLINE, W. SHEPARD, and R. ZON. 1923. The utilization of our lands for crops, pasture, and forests. USDA Yearb. of Agric. p. 415-506.

HOOK, D. D. and B. A. DUNN, eds. 1979. Multiple-use management of forest resources. Proceedings of the Symposium. Dept, of For., College of For. and Recreation Res., Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C. 167 p. .

HOOK, D. D. and J. R. SCHOLTENS. 1978. Adaptations and flood tolerance of tree species. Pages 299-331. In D. D. Hook and R. M. Crawford, eds. Plant life in anaerobic environments. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc. Aim Arbor, Michigan.

HOOK, D. D. 1978. Management of wetland hardwoods for timber produc­tion. In W. E. Balmer, ed. Proc. Soil Moisture Site Productivity Symposium. Myrtle Beach, S.C. USDA For. Serv.

HOROWITZ, E. L., ed. 1978. Our nation's wetlands. An interagency task force report. Council of Environmental Quality. Stock No'. 041- 011-00045-9. 70 p.

LANGDON, 0. G., J. P. McCLURE, D. D. HOOK, J. M. CROCKETT, and R. HUNT. In press. Extent, condition, management, and research needs of bottomland hardwood-cypress forests in the Southeast. In Proc. Bottomland Hardwood Workshop. National Wetlands Technical Council.

MARTIN, A. C., N. HOTCHKISS, F. M. UHLER, and W. S. BOURN. 1953.Classification of wetlands of the United States. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Special Scien. Rep.: Wildl. No. 20. 14 p.

MIXON, M. and J. R. B. TRIPP. 1981. Scoping comments of the Environ­mental Defense Fund for environmental impact statement on Purlean Farms' proposed conversion of wetlands to agriculture use, 404 Permit Application SAWC081-N-028-000037, Wilmington District. COE.

23

RHODES, D. G. 1978. Wetlands delineation and vegetative mapping inAvoyelles Parish, Louisiana (Prevot case). Report toj M, Strachn, Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch. Vicksburg District. Corps of Engineers (COE).

SCOTT, B. S. 1981. Opinion. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Alexandria,La. Civil Action No. 78-1428. The Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc., et. al. v. Clifford L. Alexandria, et. al. 25 p.

SHAW, S„ P. and C. B. FREDINE. 1954. Wetlands of the United States - their extent and their value to waterfowl and other wildlife.Fish and Wildl. Serv. Circ. 39. 67 p.

SMITH, F. E. 1971a. Conservation in the United States: land and water 1492-1900. Chelsea House Publishers, New York. 779 p.

SMITH, F. E. 1971b. Conservation in the United States: land and water 1900-1970. Chelsea House Publishers, New York. 782 p.

SPENCER, J. 1981. Soybean boom, hardwood bust. Am. For. 87(2): 22-25,49-52.

STUBBS, J. 1962. Wetland forests. For. Farmer 21:6-7,10-13.

TESKEY, R. 0. and T. M. HINCKLEY. 1977. Impact of water level changes on woody riparin and wetland communities. Vol. II. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biological Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS/-77-59.

TURNER, R. E., S. W. FORSYTHE, and N. J. CRAIG. In press. Bottomland hardwood forest resources of the Southeastern United States. In Proc. Bottomland Hardwood Workshop. National Wetlands Technical Council.

WHITLOW, E. H. and R. W. HARRIS. 1979. Flood tolerance in plants: a state-of-the-art review. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Environmental and Water Quality Operational Studies. Tech. Rep. E-79-2.

WOOTEN, H. H. and L. A. JONES. 1955. The history of our drainage enterprises. USDA Yearb. of Agric. p. 478-491.

WRIGHT, J. 0. 1907. Swamp and overflow lands in the United States.USDA Circ. 76.

24

DISCUSSION

Question:Anonymous

Dr. Hook:

Question:Anonymous

Dr. Hook:

Question: Ray Adams

Dr. Hook:

When you used the term tolerance as a microspecies, did you mean tolerance in the traditional sense or tolerance in the sense of tolerance to flooding?

Tolerance here refers to tolerance to water levels.

I'd just like to make an observation. I thought your diagram was very interesting, but I thought you left out probably the most important aspect of the dia­gram in your talk and that was water quality. I'd like to have your opinion on my observation.

To answer the question, I did not include water quality in my diagram simply because certain issues must be eliminated to fit the talk into a reasonable period of time. I realize water quality is very important in regards to road building or drainage operations in forest lands. I am aware that there have been some real questions raised about drainage in relation to water quality in the panhandle of Florida. I thought it was reflected in the concerns of environmentalists, and would fall under that group. Wetlands do have a very important part in filtering out certain elements in the water. In fact, it is rather interesting that the National Science Founda­tion has developed a film on wetlands that is entitled, "Wetlands: Our Natural Partners." It refers to the issue of using wetlands for sewage disposal, and pushes that one of our most important values in wetlands may be using them for sewage treatment near urban areas.

The special case— bottomland hardwood timber types— the EPA has listed, are found in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. According to the SAF publication those same types are found in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and maybe Virginia. Why aren't these special case wetlands recognized, and what is your opinion on it? And related to this there is quite a discre­pancy between the bottomland hardwood acreage figures reported here and what the National Forest Survey shows. Do you know what that literature says?

To answer the first part of the question, I think the rationale here concerns a problem of the EPA's methodology to define a wetland. This is a signifi­cant issue because I believe it revolves around the

25

Question: Ray Adams

Dr. Hook:Question:Anonymous

Dr. Hook:

Question:Anonymous

Dr. Hook:

fact that so much of the forested land in the Mississippi Delta has been lost most recently. So I think they are keying in on the Mississippi Delta.I believe the definition is going to stay much as it stands. With regard to the acreage of bottomland hardwoods, there is a lot of discrepancy in the data. I think the 5.8 million acres is correct.

I was talking with forest survey people from Arkansas last year and they came up with something like 3 million acres in Arkansas alone,

I have no answer to that.

Do you see the Corp of Engineers, the EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service definition of wetlands as an alternative?

Their interpretation of the definition is quite long, and I think this definition we have now is adequate for anyone who wishes to classify wetlands.

What are some of the intolerant species?

Actually there aren't many listed in that category. Most of the bottomland hardwoods withstand a few days of flooding, particularly in the warm season.

26

CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND RESOURCES:

LAND, TIMBER AND ECOLOGY

J. G. Gosselink, W. H. Conner, J. W. Day, Jr., and R, E, Turner Coastal Ecology Laboratory Center for Wetland Resources Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Introduction

While acreage of bottomland hardwood forest in the United States has been declining, the area of forest classified as wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has increased dramatically as a result of recent court decisions. In the following pages we consider (1) the area of bottomland hardwood forests in the southeastern United States and how this has been changing through time, (2) the timber species volumes involved, (3) timber covered by the Section 404 defini­tion of wetlands, and finally (4) the ecological basis for legislative changes that have occurred in the definition of wetlands.

Location and Size of Bottomland Hardwood Forests in the Southeastern United States

Forests in areas subjected to periodic flooding are classified differently by the U.S. Forest Service than in the recently completed Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). The latter publication defines wetlands as "...lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodi­cally, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil, and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year," (Cowardin et al. 1979). This classification contains two communities relevant to this report, Needle­leaved Deciduous Forested Wetlands and Broad-leaved Deciduous Forested Wetlands. It also contains a Scrub-Shrub Wetland category that may represent juvenile forest stages in some areas but is probably mostly a stable community of species that will never achieve commercial timber size. Needle-leaved Deciduous Forests in the southeast are doninated by bald and pondcypress (Taxodium distichum and T. ascendens). The Broad­leaved Deciduous Forested Wetland is typified by red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm (Ulmus americana), ashes (Fraxinus pennsylvanica and F. nigra), black and tupelo gum (Nyssa sylvatica and N. aquatica), swamp

28

29

white oak (Quercus bicolor) and overcup oak (Q . lyrata). The needle­leaved wetland forests are dominated by species with broad flooding tolerance, but type-species for the broad-leaved category are variable in flooding tolerance, from the tolerant tupelos to much less flood- tolerant oaks. Since this classification system is new and current inventories using it are incomplete it is presently of little use in evaluating historical trends in acreage of forested wetlands.

The U.S. Forest Service uses a classification system which includes bottomland hardwood forests. Bottomland is a general term used for riverine (and coastal) floodplains. The term is neutral in the sense that, in contrast to the term wetlands, its use had no legal connota­tion (at least as far as the Clean Water Act is concerned). Most of the forests we are concerned with in this report grow on floodplains; and therefore, we use the term bottomland hardwood to refer to these forests, reserving the term wetlands for use in its legal sense.

The U.S. Forest Service classifies bottomland hardwood as either an oak-gum-cypress association or an elm-ash-cottonwood forest type.The former type often includes cottonwood, willow, ash, elm, hackberry and maple, but if pines comprise 25-49 percent of the vegetation, the forest is classified as oak-pine and not bottomland hardwood. Common species associated with this classification are willow, beech, maple, sycamore and sugarberry. Along with area data for each forest type volumes of dominant species are also reported. The U.S. Forest Service classification encompasses many of the same tree species as the Fish and Wildlife Service classification but groups the species differently.

The U.S. Forest Service has used standardized techniques and statistically-defined confidence limits for its forest surveys since 1930. Sampling error for estimates of whole states are generally less than 0.5 percent, but are higher for smaller areas. We used U.S. Forest Service survey data here, as reported by Turner et al. (1981), since it provides good replication within and between surveys. Surveys of diff­erent states were not all made in the same year, leading to possible minor discrepancies with other published data. We prorated changes between surveys in order to standardize the reporting dates. No distinc­tion is made between commercial and non-commercial acreage.

Bottomland hardwood forests occur principally along the major rivers of the United States, especially on the southeast coastal plain and in the Mississippi River alluvial floodplain (MRAF). In 1970 there were about 23.5 million ha (58 million acres) of bottomland hardwood forests in the United States. Fifty-five percent was located in the southern states of (in order of decreasing acreage) Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia (fig. 1). About 3 million ha (7.5 million acres or 13 percent) was in the MRAF. The kinds of habitats or communities these forests occurred in are not well documented for the whole southeast. However, Boyce and Cost (1974) used U.S. Forest Service records to determine the area of bottomland forests by physiographic class in five south Atlantic states (table 1). The swamps, bays, wet

30

Figure

1. Southeastern United

States

alluvial bottoms, hammocks,

and

swamps supporting

stands

that

are

almost

totally

hardwoods

(after Putnam

et al.

1960).

Table 1. Area of wetland hardwoods by physiographic classes and states (Boyce and Cost 1974).

Thousand acres

Virgina 336 139 62 89 42 4

North Carolina 2,706 1,267 790 640 10 -

South Carolina 2,090 956 589 408 134 3

Georgia 3,154 2,358 322 117 324 33

Florida 3,732 1,076 1,079 534 1,005 37

Total 12,018 5,796 2,842 1,788 1,515 77

Physiographic classesSwamps, bays, Flatwoods Cypress ponds

All Stream and and and RollingStates classes margins wet pocosins dry pocosins channels uplands

32

pocosins, cypress ponds and channels (the traditional wetlands) covered about one—third of the area. In addition almost half was stream margins which are seasonally inundated by overbank flooding.

It is instructive to estimate changes in bottomland hardwood area in recent years (Turner et al. 1981, fig. 2). In the southeastern United States there was a slight increase in bottomland hardwood forest acreage during the period 1940-1960, associated with the reforestation of abandoned riparian farmland, as the rural population moved to the cities. This is especially evident in Kentucky. Since 1960 bottomland hardwood area has declined precipitously at a rate of over one percent per year.

This pattern is not uniform across all the southeastern states.From 1960 to 1975 bottomland hardwood forests in Florida and Alabama increased in size, Mississippi maintained its status quo, Kentucky and Louisiana lost about 15 percent of their bottomland forests, and the other states lost even more. Arkansas and Missouri lost one-half of their bottomland hardwood forests during that 15-year interval.

The high loss rates in Arkansas and Missouri result from human development of the MRAF. Figure 3 shows the proportion of original bottomland hardwood forests remaining in 1969 in the MRAF. The figure shows how forest loss is proceeding from north to south as the land is cleared for agricultural use (fig. 4). At the present rate of clearing only about 810 thousand ha (2 million acres) will remain in the year 2000.

Louisiana is an interesting case, because although it has steadily lost bottomland hardwood forests since the Swampland Acts of 1850-60, it presently retains the largest expanses of bottomland hardwood forests in the United States. With the current poor market for hardwoods and the relatively favorable market for soybeans there is strong pressure to clear and till this land; and, in spite of increasing awareness of the environmental consequences of clearing bottomland hardwood forest, land clearing continues at an accelerated rate.

The legal definition of the term wetland is an important issue here because it influences bottomland hardwood management options.The Swampland Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860 ceded to the states all lands then unfit for cultivation due to floodine. Much of the land now classi­fied as bottomland hardwood forest falls into that category— that is, it was considered swampland or wetland for purposes of that Act. The definition of wetland was sharpened in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Clean Water Act, the purpose of which, as the title indicates, was to improve water quality. Section 404 of the Act requires the Secretary of the Army to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of the United States.The Act covers freshwater wetlands, which are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in

% CHA

NGE/

YEAR

MILLION ACRES

33

Figure 2.

Areal

changes

of southern bottomland hardwood forest expressed

as total

area

and as

percent

change per yea

r for the southeastern United States.

The data were summarized from

the forest

survey results

of the U.S. Forest Service

from

1940

to 197

0 and include

the states of

Alabama

Arkansas,

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

Louisiana, M

ississippi,

Missouri,

North

and South

Carolina,

Tennessee

and Virginia

(after Turner et

al. 1981).

FORE

ST

REM

AIN

ING

:

40-5

9%

0-19

%

34

Figure 3,

The percent

of bottomland hardwood forest remaining

in the various

counties and parishes of

the

lower

Mississippi

River

alluvial floodplain,

circa

1969

(after Fre

y and Dill 1971).

20-3

0%

60%

OR M

ORE

19

50

DIS

TR

IBU

TIO

N

OF

LA

ND

U

SE

:

Figu

re

4. Th

e d

istr

ibu

tio

n

of la

nd

use

in th

e M

issi

ssip

pi

Riv

er

allu

via

l fl

oodp

lain

fro

m 19

50

to th

at

proj

ecte

d fo

r th

e ye

ar

2000

(fr

om

Turn

er

et al

. 19

81).

20

00

19

77

19

69

CR

OP

LA

ND

GR

AS

SL

AN

D

FO

RE

ST

OT

HE

R

35

36

saturated conditions" (Federal Register Vol 42(138) Part 323, July 19, 1977). This definition was translated into operational terms by iden­tifying plant communities that were considered to fit the definition.In guidelines issued in 1977, for instance, communities dominated by such species as cypress and tupelo gum were considered indicators of wetland communities, but generally excluded were such hardwood species as bitter pecan, persimmon, overcup oak, water oak and sycamore.

In a recent challenge of the wetland definition in a case in Avoyelles Parish, La., U.S. District Court Judge Naumann Scott has ruled that the Act was intended to cover areas dominated by all of these species. The effect on timber volume covered by Section 404 of the FWPCA Act of 1972 is shown in figure 5. In this figure we have placed individual tree species on a gradient of flood tolerance (Gosselink et al. 1981), and plotted the cumulative timber volume included as one moves from low to higher land. The earlier interpretation of Section 404 includes about 3000 million cubic feet in Louisiana; Judge Scott's reinterpretation includes about 5600 million cubic feet, virtually all the state's bottomland hardwood forest.

In summary, bottomland hardwood forest acreage in the United States, southeastern United States, and Louisiana are decreasing, largely because of clearing for cropland, but the percentage of bottomland hard­wood forest defined as wetland, and therefore requiring a Corp of Engineers permit before clearing, has increased as a result of federal legislation and its interpretation.

Forest Classification— An Ecological and Functional Perspective

Since recent legislative action brought about by the Clean Water Act is apparently in conflict with traditional rights of ownership, it is appropriate to analyze its validity from an ecological and functional perspective. This is particularly true because it is clear from a reading of the guidelines issued by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that wetlands are covered in Section 404 because of their functional attribures (33CFR209.120 (g)(3)). There is substantial agreement that the deeply flooded cypress swamps are wetlands, and their functional ecology has been discussed in a number of recent reports (Conner et al. 1981, Brown et al. 1978, and Mitsch et al. 1979). Therefore we emphasize here the ecological relation­ships of the seasonally flooded forests that flank the major rivers of the southeast.

The unique characteristics of riparian forests arise from their periodic inundation by overbank flooding of the adjacent stream. Adap­tations to this flooding are of two types: those which enable the trees to survive the stress of anoxia associated with flooding, and those which take advantage of the energy subsidies provided by periodic inun­dation. In general, organisms perceive oxygen limitation and associated modifications of the physical environment (i.e., changes in nutrient availability) as a stress, and are limited by that stress. In contrast,

A CYPRESS

B TUPELO GUM

C WILLOW

D BITTER PECAN

E ASH

F MAPLE

G COTTONWOOD/ PERSIMMON

H WHITE OAK

I SWEET GUM

J SUGARBERRY

K ELM

L SYCAMORE

M LOBLOLLY PINE

N BLACK GUM

O BEECH/CHERRY/ SASSAFRASS

Figure 5. Volume in Louisiana of tree species ranked according to their flood tolerance. The plotted line represents the cumulative timber volume as one moves from low to higher land, (Volume data from Earles 1975).

37

38

flooding water subsidize the riparian ecosystem with nutrients and sediments, and open up new habitat to aquatic organisms. Adaptation to these natural subsidies are entirely ignored in the wetland definition even though they are responsible for the enhanced productivity of periodically flooded systems.

In a typical riparian forest along the lcwer Mississippi River valley, flooding almost always occurs during the late winter and spring when local heavy rainfall combines with northern snow melt in spring thaws. The rising river backs through small tributaries into the forest, flooding it with sediment and nutrient-laden water. As the water spreads out and slows down, sediments settle out and nutrients are absorbed by the bottom sediments. These inorganic nutrients are subse­quently taken up by roots and converted to organic material; that is, leaves, twigs, stems, flowers and fruit. During the fall season the leaves abscise, forming a ground layer of litter (detritus). During the winter this litter decays rather slowly because, typically, the ground is not flooded during this period and temperatures in winter are low enough to inhibit metabolic rates. With the caning of the spring floods, aquatic organisms move from the river into the forest where they consume the litter and where a number of organisms spawn. As the water retreats at the end of the spring flood, it carries with it newly spawned organisms, organic detritus, and organic nutrients into the adjacent stream.

During low river stages the forest acts as a buffer between the mesic uplands and the river. Rainfall on the watershed is efficiently absorbed by the litter-covered forest floor. Evapotranspiration rates are high so that runoff through the forest is generally kept at a mini­mum. Runoff from adjacent uplands flowing across the riparian forest is cleaned by removal of inorganic nutrients, eroded sediments, and other materials such as agricultural pesticides.

During flood periods, the ecosystem acts as a storage reservoir to reduce river stages down stream and to dampen the water level fluctua­tions of intermittent severe storms.

In summary, for vegetation and animals adapted to riparian habitats, the periodic flooding and flushing by floodwaters from adjacent streams provides an energy pulse which brings in inorganic nutrients to stimulate plant production, improving habitat diversity for deer, squirrels, raccoons, and other consumers. It provides a habitat for spawning fish and shellfish and improves water quality of the adjacent stream. The whole system is adapted to and depends on this periodic flooding.

It is apparent from this brief summary of the way a riparian forest functions that the characteristics of the forest are closely determined by the quality, quantity, and frequency of flooding water, and that, conversely, the quality and quantity of water flow downstream are strongly influenced by the floodplain forests. A few specific examples emphasize these interrelationships.

39

Cypress and water tupelo dominate in deep swamp forests in southern Louisiana subjected to overland flow (fig. 6). We have found that when this flooding regime is changed the forest changes dramatically (Conner et al. 1981). In one area that was impounded in the 1950's flood- intolerant species such as ash are dying out and recruitment of the tolerant species cypress and tupelo is prevented by the permanent pool of water. As a result the canopy has opened and shrubs such as button- bush have invaded. An adjacent area, also leveed, has been managed as a crawfish farm. Here water is deep from late fall through spring, but is drained during the summer. This regime, which mimics the seasonal flooding of riparian wetlands along the Mississippi River, has stimulated the growth of seedlings of less flood-tolerant species, such as ash, and of shade-tolerant maples. The permanently flooded area is the least productive of the three; the crawfish farm the most productive. This relationship is in agreement with several other studies that show sea­sonally flooded forests to be the most productive type of forest (fig.7). The flooding regime seems to be the primary agent in these changes (Conner et al. 1981).

So riparian or bottomland hardwood forests benefit from upstream subsidies of water, silt and nutrients from upstream. Conversely the forests themselves influence adjacent and downstream aquatic habitats.

A good example of the latter is the role riparian forests play in nutrient transformations. Kemp (1978) found that storm water draining from uplands into swamp bayous in southern Louisiana had a high nitro­gen to phosphorus atomic ratio reflecting runoff from fertilized agricultural fields (fig. 8). In contrast water draining from swamps was extremely low in nitrogen relative to phosphorus and showed no relationship to precipitation.

In another study Mitsch et al. (1979) computed a detailed phosphorus budget for a riparian swamp in Illinois. They found that most of the phosphorus influx gccurred during flooding of the adjacent river, which deposited 3.6g P/m as sediment-born phosphorus. This was about 4.5 percent of the total phosphorus passing through the forest. Over the year over 90 percent of this 3.6g P/m2 was retained in the forest, indi­cating that the swamp acted as a phosphorus sink.

Both of these studies show that the forest floor permanently removes nitrogen and phosphorus from overflooding waters. The mechanisms are complex and not canpletely understood, but both physical and bio­chemical processes appear to be important. Much of the incoming nitrogen and phosphorus is adsorbed to soil particles which settle out on theforest floor and are buried by successive layers of silt. In addition

nitrogen and phosphorus are immobilized by microorganisms in the highly organic substrate. In anaerobic sediments denitrification can also be an important mechanism of permanent nitrogen loss.

In addition to its ability to trap nutrients bottomland hardwood forests transform them, usually to an organic form that is a potential food source for organisms downstream. This was dramatically demonstrated

CYPR

ESS

I

TUPE

LO

I

MAP

LE

I

ASH

I

BU

TTO

NB

US

H

BLAC

K W

ILLO

W

|

sn

ow

be

ll

ELM

oa

k!

sw

ee

tg

um

I

OTH

ER

S!

CY

PR

ES

S

TUP

ELO

MA

PLE

ASK

BU

TTO

NB

US

H

BLAC

K W

ILLO

W

SN

OW

BE

LL

ELM

HIC

KO

RY

SW

EE

TGU

M

OTH

ER

S

CY

PR

ES

S

TUP

ELO

MA

PLE

ASH

BU

TTO

N B

US

H

BLA

CK

WIL

LOW

HA

CK

BER

RY

SN

OW

BE

LL

IMPO

RTA

NC

E V

ALU

ED

EN

SIT

Y(st

ems/h

a)B

A (m

*/ ha

)

NATURAL FLOODING PERMANENTLY FLOODED

Figure 6, Tree species composition of three Louisiana swamp areas with different flooding regimes (from Conner et al. 1981),

40

Figure 7, Net aboveground primary productivity (NPP) of various swamp areas classified by their flooding regime (from Conner and Day in press).

Flooding Regime

i . i i i Stagnant Slowly Flowing Seasonal Drained Swamp

(Continually Flooded)

41

INO

RGA

NIC

N:

P AT

OMIC

R

ATI

O

W EIG H TED 5 DAY PRECIPITATION AVERAGE (CM)

Figure 8. Relationship between recent precipitation and inorganic nitrogen to phosphorus ratio. A represents a bayou receiving runoff from agricultural fields and B represents water flowing through the swamp forest (from Kemp 1978).

42

43

by Milholland and Kuenzler (1979) who reviewed the literature on organic carbon export versus runoff and found that export from swampy watersheds was much higher than from upland watersheds (fig. 9). This is a con­sequence of the high organic productivity of periodically flooded forests, increased leaching of dissolved organic compounds from organic- rich soils, and the concentrating effect of high transpiration rates. Figure 9 shows that when swamp-draining streams are channelized they behave like upland-draining streams.

Many food chains in aquatic environments depend upon this input of allochthonous matter in the form of leaf litter or other organic debris (Nelson and Scott 1962, Darnell 1964, Minshall 1967, Hynes 1970, Kaushik and Hynes 1971, de la Cruz and Post 1977). The clearing or clearcutting of wetland forests, where trees are the source of much detritus, deprives organisms of an important habitat and food source. As an example, Livingston (1978) reported that clear-cutting and ditching in Tate’s Hell Swamp, Florida, have severely damaged marine productivity in the Apalachicola estuary. Indications were that these activities led to increased runoff and decreased water quality. While these effects may be short-term, depending upon revegetation time, permanently cleared areas could contribute to chronic reductions of bay productivity through periodic habitat destruction and impairment caused by influxes of low quality runoff water.

A final example of the influence of bottomland hardwood forests on downstream areas is their water storage capacity during severe floods.We calculated (Gosselink et al. 1981) that a typical Red River backwater area in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana held about 5.4 acre-feet of water per acre of forest to the ridges that are flooded only once every five years, and as much as 10.3 acre-feet/acre during severe floods compara­ble to those in 1973 and 1974. Assuming these storage capacities for a bottomland hardwood forest area of 5.18 million acres in the MRAF this amounts to 12 days discharge of the Mississippi River at flood stage. Because of uncertainties about forest area freely available to backwater flooding, and about land elevations throughout the bottomland hardwood forests this must be considered a crude estimate. Real storage capacity is almost certainly significantly greater than this because when high river stages are reached much nonforest land is also flooded. The backwater flooding area available before settlement of the Mississippi floodplain was five times its present storage capacity, or about 60 days. It is surprizing that the importance of this enormous overflow area is so poorly recognized. On many rivers it is vital for recharge of aquifers (Littlejohn 1977), and Belt (1974) has shown how channeliz­ing the Mississippi River, straightening and shortening it, and leveeing off the floodplain, have collectively resulted in river stages for a given discharge up to three meters higher than before active river man­agement began. As the buffering action of floodplain storage is lost flows become increasingly erratic, as documented by both Belt (i979) and Littlejohn (1977). Littlejohn showed that even though rainfall on the Gordon River, Florida, watershed is strongly seasonal (fig. 10a) stream discharge used to be nearly constant year around because large bowl­shaped storage areas and swamp vegetation retarded overland flow. The

ANNU

AL

RUNO

FF

(cm

)

Figure 9,

Organic

carbon export as

a function of

runoff from

various

upland and swamp-draining

watersheds

(from

Mulholland and Kuenzler 1979).

44

FEET OF WATER/MONTH

45

Figure 10,

Simulated

hydrographs

of the Gordon River

basin

near

Naples,

Florida,

A shows

the seasonal

nature of

rainfall and evapotranspiration in

the are

a while

B illustrates

the

.nange

s in

surface

discharge

with

changes

in land

use (after Littlejohn 1977).

------

------

--R

AIN

FALL

------

------

--EV

AP

OTR

AN

SPIR

ATI

ON

......

......

..PR

ESEN

T D

EVEL

OP

MEN

T

------

------

--FU

LL

DEV

ELO

PM

ENT

------

------

--SW

AMP

ALT

ERN

ATI

VE

------

------

--SW

AMP

WITH

R

ECYC

LIN

G

46

present discharge, and projected affects of different types of further development of the floodplain are depicted in figure 10b, These scenarios suggest increasing instability of river flow unless the riparian forests are maintained.

Discussion

Riparian forests are open systems. They owe their characteristic species and their high productivity to their periodic flooding by adjacent rivers. Conversely, these forests modify the downstream water quality and flow regime in ways that are important not only for aquatic organisms, but also for downstream human inhabitants of the floodplain. The bottomland hardwood forest is, in fact, part of a total watershed, including the uplands, the river floodplain, the river, and the down­stream areas (including cities) that receive the discharge. It should be managed as a part of the total drainage basin. In the context of the whole drainage system to clear a forest is analogous to amputating a marathon runner's arm. He can still run, but not nearly as well.

Our challenge is to manage bottomland hardwood forests for the common good of all who inhabit the watershed. The challenge works in two directions; management of the forest to maintain the integrity of the watershed, and management of the watershed for the maintenance of the bottomland hardwood forest. We have documented some of the natural linkages between the two parts of the system and have shown some of the consequences of forest loss on the downstream watershed. Consequences to bottomland hardwood forests of changing stream flows through channel­izing and leveeing are just as dramatic. The work of Conner et al. (1981), described earlier, shows the response, in species composition and productivity, of altered hydrologic regimes. In parts of the Louisiana coast, hydrologic changes accompanying human activity, coupled with natural subsidence, have increased flooding duration to the extent that it is doubtful if cypress and tupelo forests can reseed themselves. If that is true these forests will be lakes when the present stands die. Further upstream the elevated flood stages on the Mississippi River mean longer and deeper flooding of riparian forests. The long-term effects on forest composition and production could be significant. Thus there are good reasons, from both a selfish and from a broader societal point of view, to insist that bottomland hardwood forests as well as all other components of riverine watersheds be managed to preserve the ecological integrity of the whole.

Acknowledgments

Contribution No. LSU—CEL—81—07 of the Coastal Ecology Laboratory, LSU Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. This research was* supported in part by the LSU Sea Grant College Program, a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

LITERATURE CITED

BELT, C. B., JR. 1975. The 1973 flood and man's constriction of the Mississippi River. Science 189:681-684.

BOYCE, S. G., and N. D. COST. 1974. Timber potentials in the wetland hardwoods. Pages 130-151. In M. C. Blount, ed. Water resources, utilization, and conservation in the environment. Taylor frinting Co., Reynold, Ga.

BROWN, S. L., M. M. BRINSON, and A. E. LUGO. 1978. Structure and function of riparian wetlands. Pages 17-31. In R. R. Johnson and J. F. McCormick, tech. coords. Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12.

CONNER, W. H., and J. W. DAY, JR. In press. Ecology of forested wet­lands in the southeastern United States. Proc. International Wetlands Conference. Delhi, India.

CONNER, W. H., J. G. GOSSELINK, and R. T. PARRONDO. 1981. Comparison of the vegetation of three Louisiana swamp sites with different flooding regimes. Amer. J. Bot. 68:320-331.

COWARDIN, L. M., V. CARTER, R. C. GOLET, and E. T. LaROE. 1979.Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-79/31.

DARNELL, R. M. 1964. Organic detritus in relation to secondary produc­tion in aquatic communities. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol. 15: 462-470.

de la CRUZ, A. A., and H. A. POST. 1977. Production and transport of organic matter in a woodland stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 80:227-238.

EARLES, J. M. 1975. Forest statistics for Louisiana Parishes. USDA For. Serv. Resource Bull. SO-52.

FREY, T. H., and H. W. DILL, JR. 1971. Land use change in the southern Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1950-1969: an analysis based on remote sensing. USDA Economic Research Serv. AER-215.

GOSSELINK, J. G., S. E. BAYLEY, W. H. CONNER, and R. E. TURNER. 1981. Ecological factors in the determination of riparian wetland boundaries. Elsevier Scientific Publ. Co., New York.

HYNES, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running water. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.

KAUSHIK, N. K., and H. B. N. HYNES. 1971. The fate of dead leaves that fall into streams. Arch. Hydrobiol. 68:465—515.

48

KEMP, G. P. 1978. Agricultural runoff and nutrient dynamics of aswamp forest in Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. La, State Univ, Baton Rouge, La.

LITTLEJOHN, C. 1977. An analysis of the role of natural wetlands inregional water management. Pages 451-476. In C. A. S. Hall and J. W. Day, Jr., eds. Ecosystem modeling in theory and practice: an introduction with case histories. John Wiley and Sons. New York.

LIVINGSTON, R. J. 1978. Short- and long-term effects of forestry operations on water quality and the biota of the Apalachicola estuary (North Florida, U.S.A.) Florida Sea Grant Program, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FI. Tech. Pap. No. 5.

MINSHALL, G. W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure of a woodland spring brook community. Ecology 48:139- 149.

MITSCH, W. J., C. L. DORGE, and J. R. WIEMHOFF. 1979. Ecosystem dyna­mics and a phosphorus budget of an alluvial cypress swamp in southern Illinois. Ecology 60:1116-1124.

MULHOLLAND, P. J., and E. J. KUENZLER. 1979. Organic carbon export from upland and forested wetland watersheds. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24:960-966.

NELSON, D. J., and D. C. SCOTT. 1962. Role of detritus in the produc­tivity of a rock outcrop community of a Piedmont stream. Limnol. Oceanogr. 7:396-413.

PUTNAM, J. A., G. M. FURNIVAL, and J. S. McKNIGHT. I960. Management and inventory of southern hardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Agric.Handb. No. 181.

TURNER, R. E., S. W. FORSYTHE, and N. J. CRAIG. 1981. Bottomlandhardwood forest land resources of the southeastern United States. Elsevier Scientific Publ. Co., New York. .

LAND-USE COMPETITION IN WETLANDS

Frank W. Shropshire Bottomland Hardwoods Specialist USDA Forest Service, SE Area State and Private Forestry

Jackson, Mississippi

This paper will consider land-use competition on lands that are occasionally subject to seasonal flooding in the Midsouth. These lands are found, but not limited to, the Mississippi, Arkansas, White, Red, Tombigbee, Alabama Rivers and their tributaries and coastal swamps such as the Mobile and Atchafalaya Basins.

Historical Use of Wetlands

European explorers and early settlers thought of the entire continent as a vast wilderness filled with limitless forests, thickets, or swamps and these occupied by wild beasts and Indians (Brande 1980). Eventually, as the higher ground was settled and developed, the descen­dants of the Pilgrims and immigrants began to turn their attention to the numerous swamps and bogs, or what we refer to today as wetlands.The early settlers were reluctant to begin large scale conversion because they thought that the lowlands were infested with any number of maladies such as yellow fever and malaria. As recently as 1728,William Byrd II was one of the leaders of a team surveying the boundary between Virginia and North Carolina (Brande 1980). One of the major difficulties encountered was that of running the line through what came to be known as the Dismal Swamp. Byrd wrote in his public version of the project, "Since the surveyors had encountered the Dismal they had laid Eyes on no living creature: neither Bird nor Beast, Insect nor Reptile came in View...The Exhalations that continually rise from this vast Body of mire and Nastiness infect the Air for many Miles around, and render it very unwholesome for the Bordering Inhabitants. It makes them liable to Agues, Pleurisies, and many other Distempers, that kill abundance of People, and make the rest look no better than Ghosts. It wou'd require a great Sum of Money to drain it, but the Publick Trea­sure ccu'd not be better bestow'd than to preserve the Lives of his Majesty's Liege People, and at the same time render so great a Tract of Swamp very Proffitable..."

A more recent horror story concerning swamps appeared in an industry's monthly publication. In an article by Audrey Dunham in The Buckeye Fiberscope, he discusses a local swamp located between Carabelle and East Point, Florida. "Since prehistoric times, Tates Hell Swamp has been the domain of slithering creatures that have been the inspiration for many legends. Some are based on fact, and others grow with the retelling around campfires. Such a mystique has grown up about

50

51

the 70,000 acres comprising Tate's Hell that even today some will not venture alone into the swamp. The 700 miles of road built by Buckeye Corporation, present owner of 182,000 acres encompassing the swamp and outlying land, does not quell trepidation."

Snakes and aligators form the horror picture that deter many persons from the swamp. "They are in there, especially in the dense hammocks and marshes," is the first-hand observation of 80-year-old Leo Hance, local historian and former harbor master at Carrabelle. "My friend, Hub Cook, estimated there are a hundred million snakes in Tate's Hell," Hance recalls.

"Cook went into the swamp one fall day to shoot game. He decided to walk along an old logging tramroad. Soon, he begin to notice an increasing number of moccasins sliding away as he approached. Suddenly, he stopped in horror. About 10 feet ahead of him was a whirling dervish of snakes joined together in a huge ball. Snake heads stuck out of the ball darting sinuously like those adorning the head of the Gorgan Monster Medusa."

"I have no doubts that what Hub experienced actually happened because I have seen the same thing," Hance comments, after retelling the story. "The ball I saw was about the size of a washtub. The moccasins were all intertwined and rolling like a ball of yarn." The elderly historian has a simple explanation for the phenomena. "They bunch together like that during the mating season," he explains.

The fears and problems associated with the wetlands did not deter many enterprising individuals who took advantage of the economic poten­tials of much of this land. In 1937, there were 12,223,900 acres of forest land in the Mississippi alluvial flood plain of Arkansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. By 1977, 5,437,400 acres remained in forest (fig. 1) (MacDonald 1979).

Much of the conversion of wetland to other uses has occurred over the last 40 years. Data provided by Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, indicates that during the period from 1937 to 1977, the total forested area in the flood plain was reduced by 6,786,500 acres. This averages out to nearly 170,000 acres per year for the 40-year period. Except for Louisiana, the clearing of land peaked between 1957 and 1967, when as high as 300,000 acres of forested land were cleared. Louisiana's clearing apparently peaked during the last decade. By far, the largest beneficiary of land conversion in the Mississippi River flood plain was agriculture— in the form of row crops. In 1937, farmers grew slightly more than 500,000 acres in soybeans, but by 1977, they planted nearly 7,500,000 to soy­beans.

Competing Uses of Wetlands

The number of recognized uses of wetlands is growing and, as population continues to grow, major conflicts for their use are emerging.

Actual---Projected --

1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1985 1990 1995 years

Figure 1. Actual and projected decrease in bottomland hardwood acreages, 1937-1995 (from: Bottomland hardwoods along the Mississippi: a disappearing resource. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi).

52

Bottomland Hardwood Forests

(Millions

of Acres)

12

10

8

6

4

2

53

A long list of uses for wetlands can be compiled from one's personal observation and from various land use recommendations. The most common uses today are agriculture, forestry, wildlife, and municipal expansion. Table 1 lists uses of wetlands having either limiting or non-limiting effects on other potential uses.

A limiting effect results when one particular use of an area eliminates or severely limits other uses. Examples are municipal and industrial expansion, which would adversely impact flood water storage and forestry uses.

Non-limiting effects are uses that do not preempt other uses of the area. Examples are bee forage and bird watching.

An examination of Table 1 reveals four uses that appear on both the limiting and non-limiting lists. They are forestry, recreation, oil exploration and production, and wildlife habitat. A discussion of each use follows.

Forestry

Bottomland hardwood management, especially the regeneration and harvest phases, are considered restrictive by proponents of other uses. This is a short-sighted view when one considers how bottomland hardwoods grow. Hardwoods naturally occur in even-aged clumps or groups (Johnson 1980). These clumps or groups usually consist of 2 or more acres and originate as the result of natural disasters, logging, creation of "new land" or sandbars by rivers, or fire. Whether these openings in the forest are caused by acts of man or natural causes, they regenerate to pioneering species, such as cottonwood, willow, green ash, sweetgum, the oaks, and cypress, to name a few. These pioneering species are the most rapid growers, and therefore are the most valuable to man.When openings for regeneration are kept relatively small (20-40 acres), their impact on other uses should not be considered limiting.

Some harvest practices can be limiting. When the selection of trees for cutting is accomplished by the diameter limit method, the practice leads to high-grading the stand (Shropshire 1972), When a stand is high-graded each time a cut is made, then each successive cut yields lower quality timber, and therefore is of less value. The dia­meter limit method does not allow adequate, desirable regeneration, and severely limits the landowners* options when considering other land use alternatives to agriculture or municipal expansion. Unmanaged or poorly managed forest should be considered a limiting use.

Recreation

Recreational use can be limiting when it is regulated as a single use and when people are over-concentrated on any one given area. Modi­fied forest management practices designed to salvage natural mortality and create small openings will allow natural regeneration and prevent

Table 1. Conceivable uses of wetlands and their effects on other uses.

Limiting Uses

Forestry

Agriculture

Water structures

Municipality and industry expansion

Home sites

Recreation

Surface mining

Oil exploration and production

Utility right-of-way

Wildlife habitat

Cattle grazing

Non-Limiting Uses

Forestry

Wildlife habitat

Recreation

Flood water storage

Wind breaks

Air filters

Natural filters

Fish habitat

Bird watching

Protect shorelines from erosion

Recharge underground water supplies

Research areas

Sound barriers

Genetic reservoirs

Provide margins of environmental safety

Water transportation

Oil exploration and production

Esthetics

Bee forage

54

55

natural succession that could result in less desirable species. This practice will enhance recreational use of the area involved by keeping the forest in a viable and healthy condition.

Oil Exploration and Production

Oil spills and surface salt water discharge are very destructive. Access roads and oil well sites are limiting uses. However, modern technology can provide adequate safeguards to avoid oil spills, and salt water is now routinely injected back into the wells. Oil explora­tion and production should not be considered a limiting use when adequate environmental safeguards are enforced.

Wildlife Habitat

Limiting use of wetlands may occur when management guidelines provide only for cutting selected trees for the immediate benefit of wildlife. Such guidelines are sometimes accompanied by a provision that no cypress will be cut under any circumstances. Management guide­lines that effectively prevent forest management are likely to result in the long term deterioration of tree vigor and wildlife values on the site. Prolonged single tree selection without additional follow-up cutting to provide adequate sunlight on the forest floor, will result in a transition to slower growing, less valuable tree species. This practice will place an additional burden on the landowner when alter­native uses of the land are considered.

There are other views on the value of forest products and alternative uses for bottomland hardwoods. For example, a recent U.S. Government report concluded, "Consensus of expert opinion is that prime bottomland hardwood acreage in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain declined substantially because of widespread clearing for soybeans. These authorities also state that there is little merchantable timber left, and that currently the major use of the remaining bottomland hardwood types may be for wildlife habitats" (MacDonald 1979). I would like to think a multiple-use management system would produce more benefits to society.

Pressures for Wetlands Conversion

There is considerable discussion at various levels of government and within special interest groups on why such a vast amount of forest has been cleared in favor of agriculture and other uses. No one reason or factor could in itself account for land use conversion in the lower Mississippi flood plain, but I think four factors have significantly affected land conversion. They are: the 1928 Flood Control Act, which authorized federal participation in massive efforts to control main stream flooding on the Mississippi, expanding world population, demand for soybeans, and the relatively low stumpage value of bottomland hard­woods.

56

The Flood Control Act of 1928 has had a major Impact on the land in the lower Mississippi flood plain, with both destructive and non­destructive effects on the wetlands. The Act is responsible for one of the world's most comprehensive flood control systems. The Act has authorized the construction of (1) devices for containing flood flows,(2) flood ways for passage of excess flows past critical reaches of the Mississippi River, (3) channel modification and stabilization, and (4) tributary basin modification such as dams and reservoirs, pumping plants, auxiliary channels, and levees.

Increasing demands for food for a growing population will continue to affect the rate of conversion of forested land to cropland. The world's population is estimated at 6.35 billion and is growing at the rate of 1.9 percent per year. The world's population grew by an esti­mated 2.53 billion or more between 1937 and 1977. As one result of population pressures, Dan Rather of CBS News reported on March 16, 1981, that 20 million people will starve in 1981 in Africa alone.

Economics, in terms of soybean prices, will give further incentives to land conversion. Soybeans have a high protein content, and are in heavy demand worldwide. They grow well on heavy clay soils, and have a short (90-day) growing season. In general, the market price for agricultural crops grown on converted bottomland hardwoods sites has exceeded the government-guaranteed support price and, as such, federal farm commodity programs have had only a minimal effect on the conversion of wetlands.

Land Use Values for Wetlands

Economic analyses show that timber production alone does not favorably compare with some alternative uses of wetlands. Agriculture is one example. However, wetlands, managed on a multiple-use basis, produce products, in addition to those of the forest, that are valuable to society. The value of benefits other than timber is difficult to determine, and society has not arrived at a method of rewarding land­owners for all of the useful products derived from their wetlands.

Prices received for hardwood stumpage have increased considerably in current dollars from 1937. However, the increase in real dollars is very modest. At the same time, the cost involved in removing forest products from wetlands has increased dramatically both from the stand­point of 1937 dollars and current dollars. This rise in costs has effectively prevented a rise in stumpage values that could encourage landowners to intensively manage their wetlands for forest products.

Many factors should be considered when placing a value on a stand of bottomland hardwood. Species or species mix, quantity, quality, average tree size, markets, and the cost of harvest all must be consi­dered when appraising a potential sale (Johnson 1980).

Very little published information is available for predicting yields for bottomland hardwood stands. Available published information

57

indicated growth rates exceeding 1,000 board feet per acre per year (Johnson 1980) Doyle scale, for managed, even-aged, natural stands of cottonwood, willow, and cypress (Williston et al. 1980). Best growth rates for cottonwood and willow are usually found on river front, well- drained, deep sandy loam soils, that could be considered a good risk for agriculture. Cypress, on the other hand, is found on the wetter, poorly—drained soils, and would be considered a poor risk for agricul­ture (Broadfoot 1976).

Mixed stands of bottomland hardwood, usually found on the older soils, are slower growers, but a well managed stand can exceed 600 board feet, Doyle scale, per acre per year (table 2).

Irland (1976) estimates gross annual per acre stumpage income from bottomland hardwoods to be $15 to $25 for 40-to-60-year-old stands.

Another value that should be considered is the income available to the landowner through hunting leases. Hunting leases are now going for $5 to $10 per acre per year throughout the Mississippi Valley. The hunting rights on one state-owned 16th section in Coahoma County, Mississippi were recently eased, by the sealed bid procedure, for $26.89 per acre per year.

Wetlands Land Use Trends

We can expect wetlands to continue to be converted to other uses, especially agriculture, for the foreseeable future. There are some notable exceptions, but the general consensus is that the rate of wet­lands conversion will be less than in the past.

Two factors seem to justify a declining wetlands conversion rate:(1) the majority of the prime agricultural land has already been cleared. Any additional clearing will be at a tremendous cost for drainage and levee construction, (2) the general tightening of laws limiting drainage of wetlands will decelerate land conversion.

1/— Personal Communication - Mr. R. D. Logan, District Forester, Mississippi Forestry Commission, Rolling Fork, Mississippi, March 20, 1981.

Table 2. Hypothetical yields and values from a well managed bottomland hardwood stand of even-aged, mixed species (Putnam et al. 1960).

2 /Value (dollars/acre)—Age

Aversedbh— Cumulative Yields/Acre Cumulative

Total/AcreAverage Annual

Return

years inches cords board feet (Doyle)

20 6 16.1 — 64.40 3.22

40 14 25.6 5,196 518.08 12.95

60 22 37.0 16,404 1,460.32 24.34

80 31 47.1 28,272 2,450.16 30.63

100 39 55.8 41,677 3,557.36 35.57

1 dbh is diameter at breast height.2 Based on existing stumpage values of $4.00/cord and $80/M board feet. From: Johnson, R. L. 1978. Timber harvest from wetlands.

58

LITERATURE CITED

BRANDE, J. 1980. Worthless, valuable, or what? An appraisal of wetlands. J. Soil and Water Conserv. p. 12-16.

BR0ADF00T, W. M. 1976. Hardwood suitability for and properties ofImportant Midsouth soils. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-127. 84 p

CARTER, J. 1973. Fresh-water wetlands classification based on ERTS emagery. U.S. Geolog. Surv. Tech. proposal. 2 p.

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 1980.The Globel 2000 report to the President. Tech. Tep. Vol. II 766 p.

DUNHAM, A. 1980. Tales of Tate's Hell. Buckeye Fiberscope, p. 4-5.

HORTWITZ, E.L. 1978. Our Nation’s wetlands, an interagency task force report. Council on Environmental Quality. 71 p.

JOHNSON, R. L. 1978. Timber harvest from wetlands. In Wetlandfunctions and values: the state of our understanding. Am. Water Resources Assoc, p. 598-605.

MacDONALD, P. 0., W. E. FRAYER, and J. K. CLAUSER. 1979. Documentation chronology, and future projections of bottomland hardwood habitat loss in the lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, Vol. I: basic report Fish Wildl. Serv. U.S. Div. Ecol. Serv. 133 p.

McKNIGHT, J. S., and R. L. JOHNSON. 1980. Hardwood management insouthern bottomlands. For. Farmer (23rd Manual Ed.) 39(5):31-39.

PUTNAM, J. A., G. M. FURNIVAL, and J. S. McKNIGHT. 1960. Management and inventory of southern hardwoods. USDA Agric. Handb. 181.102 p.

SHROPSHIRE, F. W. 1972. Tips on hardwood forest management. USDA For. Serv. For. Mgt. Bull. 5 p.

WILLIST0N, H. L., F. W. SHROPSHIRE, and W. E. BALMER. 1980. Cypress management: a forgotten opportunity. USDA For. Serv. For. Rep. SA-FR 8. 8 p.

59 *

PART II MANAGING AND HARVESTING WETLAND TIMBER RESOURCES

WETLAND SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS

Robert L. Johnson Principal Silviculturist

U.S. Forest Service, Stoneville, Mississippi

Many forests of the lowlands and swamps of the Midsouth are occasionally to frequently inundated. Such forests are common along the Mississippi, White, Red, Mobile, Tombigbee, and Alabama Rivers, and in coastal swamps such as the Atchafalaya Basin.

Slte-Species Relationships

Lowland forests are comprised of many different species growing in a variety of soils. Species groupings (not conventional SAF types) were described by Putnan et al. (1960) and later by Hodges and Switzer (1979). Both essentially recognize eight species groups and associated physiographic positions in major stream valleys as listed:

Species group

1. Cottonwood

Physiographic site

New land

2. Elm— sycamore— pecan— sugarberry

3. Sweetgum— water oaks

4. Red oaks— white oaks— mixed species

5. Black willow

High front or ridge

First bottom ridge

Second bottom ridge

New land

6. Overcup oak— waterhickory Slough or low flat

7. Elm— ash— sugarberry Flat

8. Cypress— water tupelo Swamp

Frequently, but not always, species groupings 1 through 4 are found on relatively well-drained, medium-textured soils, whereas groupings 5 through 8 are often indicative of poorly-drained, fine-textured soils.

Soil series is one of the most important variables related to species occurrence and development. Broadfoot (1976) describes 40 Mid­south soils that support hardwoods and lists the species found on each. He also offers a site index range for each species. I have used the

63

64

upper end of his site index range in computing the values in table 1, which are based on 21 soils common to lowland areas• Species listed are only the ones of commercial importance or that frequently occur in natural stands; many other commercial species occasionally occur.

Two of the more common soils found in lowlands of the Midsouth are Commerce silt loam and Sharkey clay. Commerce averages 20 percent sand, 43 percent silt, and 37 percent clay; Sharkey is 11 percent sand, 24 percent silt, and 65 percent clay (Broadfoot 1976). Average pH is 6.9 for Commerce and 5.9 for Sharkey. Permanent wilting point is 19 percent moisture by volume for Commerce and 30 percent for Sharkey.

Commerce occurs on high, well-drained fronts adjacent to water courses. It will flood periodically but is usually one of the last low­land soils to be inundated and one of the first to dry. Conversely, Sharkey is found on low, poorly-drained, slackwater areas subject to almost annual flooding for 4 or 5 months in the winter and spring.

Many of the same commercial species are found on these very different soils (table 2), but only four occur frequently and should be favored in management on both sites (Broadfoot 1976).

As a general rule, once established, trees grow better on Commerce (table 2). Based on plantations of the same age on both sites, cottonwood, sweetgum, and sycamore may produce nearly twice the volume during the first 10 to 15 years on Commerce. High pH limits some, but not all oaks. Cherrybark and Nuttall oaks usually cannot adjust to the high pH in Commerce and will not develop there even if other trees and herbaceous plants are controlled, whereas plantings of Shumard oak have survived and grown well.

Depth to the permanent water table and timing, frequency, and duration of flooding are other important variables to the establishment, survival, and development of hardwoods. Some species, such as cypress and tupelo, can tolerate extended flooding, whereas others, such as cherrybark oak, cannot. Well- and poorly-drained sites are usually reflected by the species represented.

Man's attempts at drainage and his harvesting practices complicate species occurrence and site evaluation. He tends to harvest certain species and sizes of trees. Sometimes his efforts improve the forest, but all too often he reduces productivity by cutting trees that would enhance stand development. The end result has often been a lowland forest cleared for agriculture.

Stand Development

Even-aged Species Groups

Some of the species associations already mentioned— cottonwood, black willow, overcup oak— water hickory, and cypress— tupelo— naturally grow in even-aged stands. These stands develop as follows:

Table 1. Species occurrence and 21 common lowland soils

associated site indices (Broadfoot 1976).

based on

Frequent Maximum site :index— /Species occurrence Average RangeNumber of soils=-19

■ FeetSweetgum 108 95-120Elms 16 84 70- 90Green ash 13 91 80-100Water oak 13 102 95-110Willow oak 13 104 90-110Cherrybark oak 10 110 90-120

Sugarberry 10 92 85-100

Hickories 8 91 75- 95

Nuttall oak 7 103 95-110

Water hickory 5 83 75- 90

Cottonwood 5 118 105-125Overcup oak 4 88 85- 95

Honeylocust 3 83 75- 90

Pecan 3 107 90-115

Sycamore 3 125 120-130

Black tupelo 2 90 90

Swamp tupelo 1 90 90

Red maple 1 90 90

River birch tjL' 90 90

i' Cottonwood values are based on 30 years; other species on 50 years.

—/ Out of 21 described by Broadfoot.

65

Table 2. Species to favor or not favor in management on Sharkey clay and Commerce silt loam with associated site indices (Broadfoot 1976).

Species Commerce Sharkey

Favor on both sites

Favor on Sharkey

Cottonwood Green ash Sweetgum

Nuttall oak Water oak Willow oak

Feet-1/

125*4952/12CF-'

110105105

1052/952/100^'

l°of/

Favor on Commerce Baldcypress Black willow PecanRed & silver maples Sugarberry

110902/115 -902/100=-'

959090852/85 -

Do not favor on either site American elm

Black locust Black tupelo Black walnut Boxelder Cherrybark Hickories Honeylocust Laurel oak Overcup oak Persimmon Sassafras Shumard oak Swamp chestnut oak Water hickory Water tupelo Y ellow-poplar

95^/5/‘ 3/95

1108095

2/,4/

4/3/859011095

80100

3/

854/80_3/ .2 # 95 80 80852/85^'85!°s/902/85 -803/

— In 30 years for cottonwood; 50 years for other species, 2/— Occurs frequently; others occur occasionally,3/ Normally does not occur naturally, 4/— Site index unknown.

66

67

Cottonwood.— From a recent survey of natural, unthinned cottonwood stands (Johnson and Burkhardt 1976), stocking in the 22-inch diameter stand as estimated by Putnam et al. (1960) (table 3) is fairly accurate. In the 1976 survey, one 32-year-old stand had 45 free-to-grow trees that averaged 22.9 inches dbh. There were another 15 trees/acre in a sub­ordinate position. Total sawtimber volume was 22,995 board feet/acre (Doyle) for this stand of about 30 percent more volume than Putnam observed in his study, even when he included volumes from thinnings.It may be that Putnam estimated about two logs/tree, while large trees in the sampled stand averaged 138 feet tall and 128 square feet of basal area.

From the seedling stage, natural cottonwood stands grow rapidly and natural thinning begins almost immediately. At each stage of devel­opment, the better trees are above their neighbors. On a good site, crop trees should average about 5 to 6 feet of height growth and 0.6 to 0.8 inch of diameter growth may continue at nearly the same rate. Cottonwood will continue growing well for at least 75 years, but most stands are harvested by age 50. Mean annual increment (MAI) peaks at about 250 cubic feet/acre between ages 15 and 20 in unthinned cottonwood stands (Williamson 1913).

Black willow.— Black willow normally occurs on fine-textured soil. Its early growth is second only to cottonwood. After 20 years, total height of dominant black willows is nearly that of cottonwood. Even­tually, cottonwood will grow to be 30 or more feet taller than black willow.

MAI probably peaks in about 20 years in an unthinned stand at 200 cubic feet/acre. Natural mortality is high in black willow and trees seldom remain vigorous beyond age 35. Yield figures presented in table 3 would probably be low for black willow if thinnings are as frequent as recommended.

Overcup oak— water hickory.— Information presented in table 3 is probably applicable to this type. It is one of the slowest growing lowland types as indicated by Broadfoot's (1976) site index figures in table 1.

Cypress— water tupelo.— Putnam et al. (1960) presents a separate set of figures for this type (not shown) because of the extremely high stocking levels. Basal areas of 250 to 350 square feet/acre are not uncommon. Correspondingly, volumes of 6,000+ cubic feet/acre exist (McGarity 1977). Growth in unmanaged stands may average 75 to 100 cubic feet annually to 70 years.

Williston et al. (1980) in a recent publication reported that after 100 years cypress crop trees were 21.1 inches dbh and 119 feet tall with 81 feet of limb-free bole. Basal area in unthinned stands was 303 square feet/acre; number of trees was 190. There were 70,068 board feet/acre (Int. ½).

Table 3. Hypothetical stocking and estimated yields for even-aged hardwood stand (Putnam et al. 1960)1/.

Average trees Cumulative yieldsAverage dbh Total Leave Cut Sawtimber Poletimber Topwood

Inches — No.-- Bd. ft. (Doyle)

Cords Cords

2 2,120 475 1,645 — — —

6 475 202 273 — 16.1 —

10 202 112 90 — 28.8 —

14 112 71 41 5,196 18.8 6.8

18 71 49 22 10,623 18.8 12.7

22 49 36 13 16,404 18.8 18.2

— Condensed from table 7, P. 80-81.

68

69

Uneven-aged Species Groups

The other four species groups mentioned here— elm— sycamore— pecan -sugarberry, sweetgum— water oaks, red oaks— white oaks-^nixed species, and elm— ash— sugarberry-occur later in the succession on sites subject to less severe flooding. They tend to be more diverse in species, and due largely to past cutting practices are either uneven- aged or even-aged in small groups.

Putnam et al. (I960) offers guidelines for stocking and yields of uneven-aged stands (table 4). Note, however, that at the beginning of a cutting cycle, base volume is 5,287 board feet/acre (Doyle). Few uneven-aged lowland hardwood forests have that much volume. Thus, the first task is building the stand. Early treatments might best be directed toward removing cull and low vigor trees and for providing growing spaces for reproduction and residuals. One guide for diameter distribution in a many-aged stand is the "q" factor. This is simply the quotient between numbers of trees in successive diameter classes. Quotients ranging between 1.3 and 2.0 (for 2-inch dbh classes) have all been recommended (Marquis 1975).

Understocked, uneven-aged stands are common in the lowlands and provide a difficult challenge to the forest manager. Such stands usu­ally are a hodge-podge of species and sizes in almost an infinite number of combinations. In the following simplified example, variables to consider in handling these conditions are discussed.

Assuming a stand has 49 trees averaging 10 inches dbh, according to Putnam s guide for even-aged stands (table 3), full stocking will not be reached until trees average 22 inches dbh. Should the stand be har­vested and begun again or should it be carried to full stocking? If we decide to continue, it will take about 35 years to reach our diameter goal— if the trees average about 0.35 inch annual diameter growth.This is an average growth rate for free-to-grow trees of the species we are likely to encounter. At 22 inches dbh, Putnam estimates a total volume of 14,699 board feet/acre (Doyle) and 6½ cords in the tops.There would have been no thinnings in this stand. Conversely, if we decide to start over, our immediate harvest from the 49 trees would be about 8 cords, and we should produce another 29 cords (thinnings plus residual) in 35 years assuming a fully stocked new stand where crop trees are back to 10 inches dbh. What would we rather produce— saw- timber or pulpwood?

This kind of reasoning could be carried beyond 35 years, but it would only complicate an already hazy picture. For example, our growth projections for the 49 trees may be considerably less than normal for the species and site. Trees that have only partial crowns or that have been stagnated may never recover and reach the diameter growth of trees that have always been in a dominant or codominant position. Sawlog merchantability may also be well below normal. Flat-topped or forked trees

with only one merchantable log will likely not increase merchant— able sawtimber height. There are grade and species considerations.

Table 4. Hypothetical stocking and diameter distribution for well-managed uneven-aged southern hardwoods average or better sites (Putnam et al. I960)— .

After cutting; beginning of new cycle

End of cycle; ready for cutting

Dbh TreesBasalarea Volume Trees

Basalarea Volume

Inches No. Sq. ft. Cords No. Sq. ft. Cords

2 26.0 0.58 __ 48.0 1.06 —4 17.2 1.50 0.2 30.0 2.61 0.46 10.5 2.07 .4 15.8 3.10 .68 8.2 2.86 .6 12.2 4.27 .910 7.0 3.82 .8 9.0 4.92 1.212 6.5 5.10 1.3 6.6 5.18 1.3

Total 75.4 15.93 3.3 121.6 21.14 4.4

Bd. ft. Bd. ft.

14 6.0 6.41 312 6.0 6.41 31216 5.3 7.40 503 5.7 7.96 54118 4.3 7.60 632 5.6 9.90 82320 3.2 6.98 688 5.3 11.56 1,13922 2.3 6.07 678 4.3 11.35 1,26824 1.6 5.03 524 3.2 10.06 1,24826 1.1 4.06 561 2.3 8.48 1,17028 .8 3.42 524 1.6 6.84 1,04830 .45 2.21 369 1.1 5.40 90232 .27 1.51 272 .8 4.47 80434 .11 .69 139 .45 2.83 54736 .04 .28 57 .27 1.91 39238 .02 .16 28 .11 .95 19140 .04 .35 7642 .02 .19 37

Cotal 25.49 51.82 5,287 36.80^ 88.66 10,498

Alltrees 100.89 67.75 — 158.40 109.80

—■ Condensed from table 6, p, 78,

— Total taken from table 6, p. 78.2 /

70

71

Potential grade 3 and grade 2 logs are 50 percent and 75 percent as valuable as grade 1 logs (Forest Products Laboratory 1953). Weak widely spaced trees will branch along the bole and there will be degrade. If the 49 trees are sugarberry instead of green ash, they are presently only about 60 percent to 70 percent as valuable per cubic foot.Thinning

Although the trend is changing, there have been few commercial thinnings in pulpwood-size stands and practically no precanmercial thinnings. Historically, thinnings have started when trees reach saw- timber size, about 14 inches dbh.

Putnam et al. (1960) provides hypothetical stocking and yield guidelines for even-aged stands beginning when trees average only 2 inches dbh (table 3). Volumes removed during thinnings are not shown separately but are included in the cumulative yields. They also give diameter growth rates by species for trees free-to-grow in unmanaged stands. With this information, we can estimate stand age at each thin­ning within the various species groups and total age to 22 inches dbh (table 3). Note that our estimates show a cottonwood stand reaching 22 inches dbh in one—third the time required for a stand of overcup oak water hickory. Ages and yields are likely conservative for well- managed stands.

Findings thus far in both natural and planted stands provide some guidelines to thinning. Larger trees with the best crowns should be favored and thinning should begin early. For good diameter growth, most species require a minimum live crown to total height ratio of 40 percent. Trees with less crown are usually in a subordinate position, so thinning is from below. Advantages to frequent, light thinnings as compared to infrequent, heavy thinnings are fuller site utilization and less chance of epicormic branching on the boles of crop trees. Epicormic branches are particularly prone to develop on sweetgum of all sizes. An obvious disadvantage to frequent thinnings is greater chance for logging damage to crop trees.

Proper thinning will allow for utilization of trees that would otherwise die and will distribute nearly the same total growth among fewer, selected crop trees. One guide for thinning cottonwood is to create space in feet between crowns no greater than half the diameter in inches (Obye 1958). A rule suggested for black willow is to provide a tree spacing in feet that is 1.75 times the average tree diameter in inches (Johnson and McKnight 1969). After thinning, basal areas/acre of 70 for sweetgum (Johnson 1968) and 100 for cypress (Williston et al.1980) have been recommended.

Regeneration Systems

Types

Five systems are recognized for lowland hardwood forests, A brief discussion of each follows:

Table 5. Estimated stand age by dbh class, basal area, and species group for leave trees.

SpeciesAveragedbh

Basalarea

Cotton­wood

Blackwillow

Overcup oak— water hickory

Cypress— water tupelo

InchesSq.ft./acre --------------- — Years ------

2 14 3 4 14 10

6 47 9 12 30 23

10 71 15 20 48 3914 85 21 27 66 5318 95 25 34 84 6622 102 32 41 98 79

72

73

Single-tree selection.— Over the years, there have been many who have expressed problems related to this system. Stubbs (1964) summa­rized most complaints after his trials in coastal plain bottomland hardwoods around Charleston, S.C. He recognized five weaknesses:(1) Damage to reserve sawtimber trees during logging is high, (2) epi- comic branches on the boles of reserve trees are numerous and degrading,(3) only 2.3 percent increment was measured on residual 75-year-old growing stock trees, (4) damage to sapling size reproduction was high and there was an increasing number of more tolerant, less valuable tree species, and (5) management costs are high. Conversely, McKnight (1967) considers the system to have the following advantages: (1) Allows maximum flexibility for natural site-species variation, (2) permits more control over reproduction from natural sources, (3) favors growing stock wherever it may occur, (4) allows adjustment to changing markets by permitting frequent harvests of high-value trees, and (5) allows for harvest of the forest while also providing maximum range of stand con­ditions for recreation, game, and site protection.

Group selection.— This is a system of small or patch clearcuts.It has some of the advantages of clearcutting and disadvantages of single-tree selection.

Seed tree.— This system is applicable only to regeneration of light-seeded species. Although it has worked well with yellow-poplar on some sites, the seed tree system is generally not recommended for species and sites of the lowlands. Clearcutting will usually give the same results, but not always.

Shelterwood.— This should normally be used in dense old-growth stands where there is no advanced reproduction. In time it will favor establishment of new trees but not necessarily of the same species that are in the overstory. Until the overstory has been completely removed, a shelterwood has several of the disadvantages of single-tree selection.

Clearcut.— The main advantage here is ample sumlight that favors growth and development of moderate to intolerant species which are usually more desirable commercially. The system can fail if there is not advanced reproduction, stump and/or root sprouting frctn cut trees, and/or a crop of new seedlings. It may also require the removal of good growing stock trees and is not aesthetically pleasing to some.

Even-aged Stands

Groups that occur naturally in even-aged stands are either pioneers or are particularly suited for the environment in which they grow. In general, regardless of the regeneration system used, stands of pioneer species are followed by other species whereas stands of sub-climax species reproduce to the same. These trends are generally indicated in table 6 with further explanations as follows:

Cottonwood and black willow.— Neither species will reproduce naturally. Site preparation combined with clearcutting has sometimes

Table 6. Expected regeneration following harvest cutting systems^ in different species groups (McKnight and Johnson 1980)— .

Species groups Silviculturalsystems Species usually favored

CottonwoodSeed tree with site preparation Cottonwood

Clearcut Sycamore, pecan, ash, boxelder

Black willow

Seed tree with site preparation Black willow

ClearcutSugarberry, green ash, cypress, American elm, overcup oak, water hickory, Nuttall oak, privet

Cypress— water tupelo

Group selectionCypress, tupelo, and sometimes green ash, overcup oak, water hickory, sweetbay

ClearcutCypress, tupelo, and sometimes

green ash, overcup oak, water hickory, or elm, maple, buttonbush, sweetbay

Elm— sycamore— pecan— sugarberry

Group selectionMixed hardwoods— sweetgum,

water oaks, sycamore, pecan, sugarberry, green ash

Clearcut Same as above

Sweetgum— water oaks

Group selection Sweetgum, water oaks, green ash

Clearcut Heavy to sweetgum, but water oaks and green ash also

Shelterwood Water oaks, sweetgum, green ash

Overcup oak— watei hickory

Group selection Overcup oak, water hickoryShelterwood Overcup oak, water hickory,

Nuttall oak, green ash

Elm— ash— sugar­berry

ClearcutElm, ash, sugarberry, Nuttall

and willow oak, swamp dog­wood, deciduous holly

Group selection Elm, ash, sugarberry, Nuttall and willow oaks

Red oaks— white oaks— mixed species

ShelterwoodRed oaks, white oaks, water

oaks, hickory, ash, American hornbeam, eastern hophorn- beam, sweetgum

Group selection Same as above

— Condensed from table 3, p. 37,74

75

proven successful for regenerating cottonwood (Johnson 1965) and would likely work for willow, but surface soil moisture of the prepared seed­bed is a critical factor.

Stands of both species allow filtered sunlight to reach the forest floor and thus permit invasion by other species. Green ash, pecan, sycamore, sugarberry, and sweetgum establish under cottonwood and will develop under any harvest system that provides ample sunlight. Single­tree selection will favor the more tolerant sugarberry and boxelder. When boxelder dominates the midstory, it should be brought back to ground level after harvest so that better species can compete. Ground disturbance will favor boxelder as well as more desirable light—seeded species such as sycamore.

Black willow stands are usually followed by sugarberry or green ash that become established in the understory; periodic overflow and sedimentation favor the establishment of both species. However, harvest without advanced reproduction is risky.

Overcup oak— water hickory.— Water is usually a critical factor in regenerating this group. Whatever regeneration system is selected, reproduction is likely to favor overcup oak and water hickory unless drainage is improved. Good seedling stands of overcup oak regularly establish in the understory— unless there is very dense shade. A light shelterwood will keep established seedlings alive, but full release is necessary to keep them growing well. Seedlings of most other species cannot tolerate the water associated with the sites where this species group commonly occurs. During dry cycles, green ash, Nuttall oak, and sugarberry are common invaders but are not likely to persist. Water hickory will reproduce by seed but is not common in the understory.Most water hickory reproduction will be as sprouts from the stumps of cut trees. Although the system employed is usually not critical to the species regenerated, openings of 2 acres or larger result in better reproduction growth than smaller openings.

Cypress— water tupelo.— Some cypress— tupelo reproduction usually follows any regeneration system since other species cannot tolerate the water. A danger with this group, however, is the possibility of no reproduction of commercial species after harvest. Advanced reproduction is usually sparse and new seedlings will not establish in standing water. A dry cycle which may occur only once in 30 to 50 years appears necessary for widespread regeneration and usually for harvest. Seed­lings can start in July or August from seeds up to 30 months old. New seedlings are killed when covered with water during the growing season. The larger seedlings become, the longer they can tolerate complete submergence during the growing season. Once trees are tall enough to have a portion of their tops above the water, they will survive and develop. Stumps from cypress 40 to 60 years old and 10 to 14 inches dbh may sprout if cut in fall or winter (Williston et al. 1980), but such sprouting may be undependable.

76

Sprouts of water tupelo are of questionable value in regeneration. Work in the Southeast has reported good development from sprouts (Hook et al. 1967), but results from a study in the Atchafalaya Basin have not been encouraging.— Stumps in the latter test produced sprouts, but they died within 6 years. Flooding depth and duration at harvest time may be the key difference.

Uneven-aged Stands

Uneven—aged species groups occur later in the succession and are characterized by a wider diversity of species. Therefore, the opportu­nities to change species composition by stand manipulation is greater provided substantial overstory still exists. There are still fairly narrow bounds, however. The new stand will almost always be a combi­nation of species that are in the overstory and those already established in the understory, unless seeds are brought in from an overflow of a nearby water source. Advanced reproduction (understory trees 2.0+ feet tall) is usually more important than seeds or sprouts from overstory species because the understory reflects a successional adjustment.

The forester's opportunities for regeneration are to harvest so as to favor less rather than more tolerant species. This means openings of 2 or more acres within 150 feet of light-seeded seed trees and a seedbed relatively clear of grass and herbaceous plants. Although intolerant species can begin in openings as small as l/20th acre, they cannot long persist without additional sunlight. Neither will species long survive on unsuitable sites. They will eventually be overtopped by more site-suitable species.

Selection of a regeneration system in the unevett-aged stands referred to in this paper depends on how discriminating the manager is in terms of species. It also depends on whether he favors storage of large trees or fast development of reproduction. If more tolerant species and slower reproduction growth are acceptable, the single-tree selection system Is workable, but it requires considerable expertise by the forest manager.

Group selection, seed tree, and-clearcut will usually give similar results. In deteriorated stands, all may have to be combined with site preparation. A method in current use by some is to mechanically shear all uncut trees at or near ground level. Sprouts are adequate to make the system generally successful even when new seedlings are sparse.

Kennedy, Harvey E., Jr. Coppice regeneration in water tupelo— does it work? (Manuscript in preparation by U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.)

77

Since most uneven-aged stands are really several stands of varying size and species, guidelines given in table 6 can be used for general predictions. However, simple guidelines that accurately predict regen­eration over a broad range of sites, stand conditions, and treatments have yet to be developed.

Refinements

Silviculture in lowland hardwood forests will become more intensive; economics will provide the incentive. There will be several degrees of intensity depending on site productivity and treatment opportunities. In sane stands we will do nothing, but the decision should be based on knowledge and not "pot luck."

Research has a long way to go in providing knowledge needed by the practicing forester to make decisions in the field. Conversely, many practicing foresters are not using research information already available.

LITERATURE CITED

BROADFOOT, W. M. 1976. Hardwood suitability for and properties of important Midsouth soils. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. S0-127.84 p.

FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY. 1953. Hardwood log grades for standardlumber— proposals and results. USDA For. Serv. Rep. D1737. 15 p.

HODGES, J. D., and G. L. SWITZER. 1979. Some aspects of the ecology of southern bottomland hardwoods. Pages 360-365. In North America's forests: gatt^ay to opportunity. 1978 Joint Conv. of Soc. Am. For. and Can. Inst. For. Soc. Am. For., Washington, D.C.

HOOK, D. D., W. P. LeGRANDE, and 0. G. LANGDON. 1967. Stump sprouts on water tupelo. South. Lumberman. 215(2680):111-112.

JOHNSON, R. L. 1965. Regenerating cottonwood from natural seedfall.J. For. 63:33-36.

JOHNSON, R. L. 1968. Thinning improves growth in stagnated sweetgum stands. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SO-82. 5 p.

JOHNSON, R. L., and E. C. BURKHARDT. 1976. Natural cottonwood stands- past management and implications for plantations. Pages 20-30.In Proc., Symp. East. Cottonwood and Related Species.

McGARITY, R. W. 1977. Ten-year results of thinning and clearcuttingin a muck swamp timber type. Natchez For. Res. Center, Natchez,MS. Int. Paper Co. Tech. Note 38. 5p.

78

McKNIGHT,J. S. 1967. Application of uneven-aged silviculture tosouthern hardwood forests. Pages 61-64. in Proc., Symp. on Hard­woods of Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Ga. For. Res. Counc., Macon Ga.

McKNIGHT, J. S., and R. L. JOHNSON. 1980. Hardwood management in south­ern bottomlands. For. Farmer (23rd Manual Ed.) 39(5):31-39.

MARQUIS, D. A. 1975. Application of umeven-aged silviculture andmanagement of public and private lands. Pages 26-62. In Uneven- aged silviculture and management in the United States. Comb. Proc. of two In-Service Workshops.

OBYE, K. D. 1958. Thinning cottonwood and willow. Pages 35-41. In Management of bottomland forests. Proc. 7th Annu. For. Symp.La. State Univ. Div. Contin. Educ., Baton Rouge, La.

PUTNAM, J. A., G. M. FURNIVAL, and J. S. McKNIGHT. 1960. Managementand inventory of southern hardwoods. USDA Agric. Handb. 181. 102 p.

STUBBS, J. 1964. Many-aged management compared with even-aged manage­ment in coastal plain bottomland hardwoods. Pages 7-9. In Proc.43rd Annu. Meeting, Appalachian Section. Soc. Am. For.

WILLIAMSON, A. W. 1913. Cottonwood in the Mississippi valley. USDA Bull. 24. 62 p.

WILLISTON, H. L., F. W. SHROPSHIRE, and W. E. BALMER. 1980. Cypress management: a forgotten opportunity. USDA For. Serv. For. Rep. SA-FR 8. 8 p.

DISCUSSION

Question:Steve Faulkner

Dr. Johnson:

Question: Jack Moran

Dr. Johnson:

Question:Anonymous

Dr. Johnson:

In regard to the baldcypress coppice regeneration that dies after six to eight years, what causes this death?

The only thing we can attribute it to is the duration of flooding and the depth of the water. Apparently in the Atchafalaya Basin, coppice has not been a very successful method of reproduction. On the other side of it, in the southeast apparently this does not happen with the same species where water levels may not be as high and the duration of flooding may not be as long. So that may be'one of the keys.

What kind of competition control was used in the green ash plantation you discussed, if any?

In all plantations we establish in Stoneville to date, we do intensive site preparation, then we plant the trees and disc. The treatment is very expensive for the plantation I showed, perhaps $250 per acre.

We are involved a lot with small landowners. Could you give us any information on crop returns? In other words, what could a small landowner afford to do at this point in time in regards to the extent of his silvicultural practices?

I don't see how a landowner could afford to go into this intensive site preparation where we actually site prepare, plant and cultivate. Direct seeding is a very inexpensive treatment, and there is definite promise in that. I can't give you any exact dollar figures on what a man can invest.

79

ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS RELATIVE

TO HARVESTING WETLANDS IN THE EXTREME

EASTERN SECTION OF GEORGIA'S COASTAL PLAIN

Richard G. Koger Wood Production Superintendent

andTommy Patrick

Area Forester, Altamaha Forest ITT Rayonier Inc.Jesup, Georgia

Introduction

The intent and purpose of this paper is to define and analyze some of the physical and economic constraints relative to harvesting wetlands in the extreme eastern section of the lower coastal plain of Georgia. Before addressing the problem and for general information purposes, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the physiographic composition of Georgia's forests, the forest inventory of the state, and the major forest types.

Georgia's Timber Resource

In 1972, Georgia had 24.8 million acres of commercial forestland, not including approximately 400 thousand acres excluded from harvest by regulations. This commercial acreage is down almost 10 percent from the 1963 figure (Butts and Wells 1978).

Growing on this land were 14.8 billion cubic feet of softwoods and 10.6 billion cubic feet of hardwoods. The softwood was almost exclusively southern pine - 94.5 percent. Oaks and gum represented about 70 percent of the hardwoods, with poplar and hickory having some importance.

Physiographic Areas and Major Forest Types

Georgia's northern 21 counties make up the mountain region and are characterized by oak-hickory and oak-pine forest types. The Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain are located in the middle counties and generally support loblolly and shortleaf forests, while the Lower Coastal Plain covers 57 counties and has primarily longleaf-slash pine stands and most of the state's oak-gum-cypress forests.

The wetlands occur in ten counties of the Lower Coastal Plain.Three distinct areas have been identified as being the Okefenokee Swamp, the Altamaha River swamp, and the pine-cypress flats. The Altamaha River swamp has bald and pondcypress as well as blackgum, sweetgum,

81

82

water oak, and green ash as commercial tree species. The flats area offers pondcypress and slash pine.

Economic Constraints Relative to Wetlands Harvesting

In this analysis of constraints to timber harvesting, no reference is made to the Okefenokee Swamp since it is a national wildlife refuge and off limits to harvesting. Consequently, the following discussion is limited to the Altamaha river area and the pine-cypress flats.

Stumpage ValueThe thinking here is, does the stumpage value justify the necessary

expenditures for road and bridge construction to provide the necessary access to allow for harvesting? Stumpage prices at present do not justify the necessary expenditures to provide adequate access for har­vesting operations. As has been stated, the Altamaha river swamp is stocked primarily with gum, oak, and ash. Recent stumpage values for standing hardwood saw timber in the coastal plain reflect an average price per cord for mixed hardwoods of $15.00. Recent stumpage values for standing hardwood pulpwood in the coastal plain area of Georgia average $5.25 per cord for soft hardwoods and $4.50 per cord for hard hardwood (Norris 1981).

To allow access for harvesting would require an extensive road building program as the present road system consists mainly of hunting trails that traverse the deep sand hills which parallel the river swamp. The majority of the needed road system would need to be of the Class I and II type. A Class I road calls for an overall right of way of 50 feet. The actual road surface calls for a width of 32 feet. Ditches are one foot in depth and have a six foot backslope. This type road provides for two-way, well maintained truck access that connects lower classes of roads to all-weather public roads. A Class II road is one having a total right of way of 40 feet. The actual road surface is 28 feet wide. Ditches are one foot deep and contain no backslopes. Average construction cost for road systems of this type range from $10,000 to $20,000 per mile. In addition, water damages to roads and bridges as a result of high river levels during the winter months will necessitate large expenditures for annual road and bridge maintenance (Belcher 1980).

The stumpage value factor is not as critical relative to harvesting the pine-cypress flat areas. These areas are primarily stocked with slash and loblolly pine. The average stumpage value for standing southern pine is considerably higher. For example, recent published stumpage values for pine in the coastal plain area of Georgia reflect average prices of $71.00 per cord for poles, $50.00 per cord for peeler logs, $34.50 per cord for chip-n-saw, and $20.25 per cord for pulpwood (Norris1981).

Also, the area in question has a fair network of county graded roads which exist on public lands and company graded roads that exist on the large industrial land holdings in the area. This allows for some access for harvesting at a minimum cost.

83

Specialization in Equipment Needs

What is used to harvest pine productively on good logging chances in the stated ten county area of the Georgia coastal plain, will not produce the same results when applied to the Altamaha river swamp or the pine-cypress flat areas of eastern Chathem, Bryan, Liberty, Long and Nclntosh counties.

Generally speaking, an average tree length logging operation harvesting pine on good logging sites in the eastern coastal plain of Georgia would consist of the following: felling function - one rubber- tired front-end loader equipped with an accumulating shear; limbing function - delimbing gate and/or chain saw; skidding function - rubber- tired grapple skidder; loading function- 20,000 pound capacity knuckle- boom loader mounted on a self-propelled trailer or depreciated truck; hauling function - performed by two diesel trucks pulling log trailers. The typical labor force would consist of one owner and/or foreman plus six employees to perform the above mentioned functions. Capital invest­ment in the above equipment would average $275,000. Average weekly production would be 300 cords.

The type logging system described above cannot be expected to produce the same results when applied to the Altamaha river swamp or the pine-cypress flat areas. Adverse ground conditions will have an impact on the efficiency of the rubber-tired feller-buncher and skidder resulting in a significant loss of production.

If a high level of production is to be expected, then the felling and skidding functions of the example logging operation will have to be converted to track equipment such as a track type excavator equipped with a feller-buncher shear and a high speed track type skidder equipped with a grapple. This type equipment creates high production in adverse logging chances but there are some cost penalties associated with their use. For example, most track type excavators equipped with feller- bunchers shears sell for an average of $140,000. Most grapple equipped high speed track skidders list for an average price of $120,000. This is over twice the initial investment required to purchase their rubber- tired counterparts. High repair cost is also characteristic of the track equipment. This is partly a result of operating in adverse log­ging chances. Generally speaking, it cost $8 to $15 per cord more to harvest wetlands with specialized equipment versus harvesting pine stands with conventional equipment.

Location of Mills and Markets

The location, quantity, and type of mills within the ten county area definitely place economic constraint on harvesting the Altamaha river area for the following reasons:

(1) Within the area there are only five installations that utilize hardwood. They are four pulpmills and one saw­mill. This compares to a total of 16 installations that utilize pine.

84

(2) Three of the pulpmills that utilize hardwood have a very limited capacity to receive and process tree length hardwood. Therefore, a major portion of the hardwood deliveries must be in the shortwood form. This places an additional cost burden on the producers. In addition to the above, the only hardwood sawmill within the area receives only cut-to-length logs.

t

(3) This lack of markets for hardwood results in an absence of stumpage competition which accounts for the low hard­wood stumpage prices in the area.

(4) The oneway distance from the wood source, Altamaha river swamp, to the hardwood markets is as follows:

(a) the four pulpwood sources - 12 miles,45 miles,60 miles, and 70 miles.

(b) Hardwood sawmill - 60 miles.

Mill location, quantity, and type have no effect on the pine har­vested from the pine-cypress flats. As mentioned above, there are 16 outlets for pine in the ten county area. The pine outlets are as follows: six pulpmills, one pole plant, one veneer log yard, and eight sawmills. With so many pine installations in the area competing for stumpage, the resulting prices that are generated are amoung the high­est for pine in the entire state.

Physical Constraints Relative to Wetland Harvesting

Relative to the Altamaha river swamp and the pine-cypress flats, the following are recognized as physical constraints on harvesting operations.

Water Level

This severely effects logging in the swamp. During average weather conditions, the river water level is at its normal level during the months of June thru August. During this period harvesting operations can be conducted on a limited scale. However, river level fluctuations during this period caused by hydroelectric facilities located up river releasing water volumes can result in the termination of harvesting activities. During a normal year, rains received during the period of September thru May result in the river level rising as much as ten feet. This causes the flooding of the river swamp which terminates harvesting activities.

Relative to the pine-cypress flat areas, average rainfall amounts during the months of September thru May restrict logging to high flota­tion equipment. During June thru August, harvesting can be conducted with conventional equipment on most areas within the pine-cypress flats.

85

Site Conditions

Site conditions in the swamp definitely have an adverse effect on harvesting operations. The soil type is a boggy peat over gumbo clay. Logging is permitted on a limited scale during periods of restricted rainfall in conjunction with a normal river level. During a normal year, this usually means logging can be conducted during the months of June thru August.

Site conditions prevalent in the pine-cypress flat areas effect the magnitude of harvesting. The soil type of this area is a gumbo clay type. There is a definite absence of a hard pan under the soil. The problem is further complicated by the existance of a high water table. During normal weather patterns, logging is permitted on a re­stricted basis with conventional equipment during the months of June thru August. During the remainder of the year, logging is restricted to high flotation type equipment.

Access Systems

As mentioned earlier, access to the swamp consists mainly of hunting trails which traverse the deep sand hills which parallel the river swamp. To open the area to harvest, Class I and II type roads will have to be constructed at a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 per mile.In addition concrete span bridges must be constructed to provide access across sloughs. One must anticipate having to allocate large sums of money on an annual basis to repair road and bridge damage caused by the normal high river levels during the months of September thru May.

An adequate road system currently exists in the pine-cypress flat areas. During the months of June thru August, adequate access is avail- albe to conduct harvesting operations. However, during months of heavy rainfall, extensive road maintenance must be performed to provide haul truck access to harvesting sites. Said maintenance usually takes the form of harrowing sand into the gumbo clay roads and topping off with crusher run rock. This type maintenance usually carries a $6,000+ per mile price tag.

Again no reference is made to the effects of physical constraints to harvesting operations in the Okefenokee Swamp as this is a National Wildlife Refuge. No harvesting of timber is permitted.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is definitely ascertained that harvesting operations in the Altamaha river swamp and pine-cypress flat areas are restricted by economic and physical constraints. Probably no attempts will be made to provide access to the swamp until reasonable stumpage prices can offset the extreme cost to provide access to log on a limited basis. Stumpage prices will only increase to acceptable levels when increased competition creates a demand for the wood. As economic

86

constraints are not that much of a factor, increased logging activity is expected to continue in the pine-cypress flat areas. Current drain­age programs in the area should result in increased cuts.

LITERATURE CITED

BELCHER, H. J. 1980. Forest and road manual. ITT Rayonier Inc., Southeast Timber Division. (Fernandina Beach, FI.).

BUTTS, P. M., and W. L. WELLS, JR. 1978. Wood-using industries in thestate of Georgia - 1978. Georgia Forestry Commission. (Macon, Ga.).

NORRIS, F. W. 1981. Timber mart south, February 1981. F. W. Norris. (Highlands, N.C.).

WETLAND HARVESTING SYSTEMS

Earl R. Priegel Forester, Logging Engineer

USDA Forest Service Atlanta, Georgia

Introduction

From a timber harvesting standpoint, there is not much difference in lowlands, flatwoods, wetlands, or hills when all of it is wet. A dry, dusty hillside can be a wetland after a week of rain. Technically, however, wetlands imply a specific classification. This paper will deal generally with harvesting below the fall-line in the winter months.

Logging Equipment

I am always taken by the massive strength of the pre-1950's har­vesting equipment used to log trees on wet sites. The cable yarders, the number of men, horses, and oxen has to be impressive to all of us. Relative to the times and production capabilities, harvesting equipment costs have not changed in the South in 75 years.

Rubber Tired Skidders

There is certainly a place for rubber tired skidders here in the southern wetlands; however, they are generally outfitted with larger, high flotation tires, grapples and probably average 25-30 H.P. greater than those used elsewhere. A major problem has to do with their use long after they cease to be productive because of excessive wet condi­tions. Such a skidder, working in a quagmire, producing fewer than 3000 board feet per day is a major cost item on any company's books, especially when the added maintenance is brought into focus.

Low P.S.I. Vehicles

Specific reference is made to the Bombardier, FMC (200 series), Foremost and Universal Go-Tract, all of which are independent suspen­sion tracked vehicles. These machines stand at the top of the list on my book concerning their performance on wet sites. I have seen few harvesting operations where production could not be improved with better supervision. These machines are a two-edged sword. On one hand, they can be easy on the landscape; on the other hand, they generally have the capability to literally destroy a highly productive forest site.

Far too many poorly trained operators are manning these machines. The larger machines go anywhere and generally tear up the world getting there or coming out. I do not know of anyone who would let less than

88

89

a good responsible driver man a $45,000 truck rig, yet, I have seen some poor examples driving an $80,000— $120,000 low psi vehicle.

These machines as a whole, are maintained the poorest of all the logging equipment I have seen. Ask any dealer! They work in the toughest, muddiest areas we have and it just is not convenient to main— tain them. As you know, maintenance is the life of any machine.

A rubber tired skidder landing is usually not adequate for a low psi vehicle. Their daily production potential is far greater than a skidder s and the landing must reflect this in proper surfacing, space for logs, loading trucks and heavy traffic.

Cable Yarders

We all know that cable yarders were used to get the biggest timber off the wettest sites up until the 1940's. And, for some reason we can­not or do not want to recognize these machines today. In my opinion, they are a must if you want to log year round on the wettest sites and create the least damage. Granted, you may not want to invest in a $400,000 machine to take 8 cords per acre. However, I have not seen the timber industry short on inventive power and I can see them rennovating draglines, shovels and skidders with towers. Regardless of cost of the cable yarder, the company must make a commiment to cable yarding.And when I say commitment, I mean - having the following: quality people, a good, well maintained machine with adequate rigging, and qualified supervision.

Helicopters

The use of helicopters is now firmly entrenched in the southern wetlands. Their production cost is such that a sharp pencil is needed to make an economical show. They should be used when we have catastro­phic conditions, such as hurricanes and jet winds meaning loss of millions of board feet if rapid removal is not undertaken. These machines can be used when timber values and volumes are high and high road costs pre­clude normal timber harvest. The biggest problem I see is in the landing and the associated facilities. Without good landings, production will often drop 50 percent.

Other Harvesting Systems

Such machines as the Hell Hole Yarder should trigger our imagination. Also, using the Memze Muck with a cable yarder feeding the line of a cable rig with a low psi vehicle taking pains to make timber mats or corduroy roads so skidders can be used extensively, or using fiber underlayment under our landings and specific road areas should be exa­mined in great depth.

Last, but not least, I would like to mention whole tree chipping and the various chip harvesters. I have not been to a meeting such as this in the last two years where energy was not mentioned, so let this

90

be no exception. Certainly, forest residue and wood chips will continue to play a larger role than they now do. Chip harvesters have got to be a part of this scheme. They will be operating on wetlands and they will have to be fed! Thus, everything we discussed on roads, landings and logging equipment will have to be focused on feeding these monsters over 25 tons per hour.

POTENTIAL SITE DISTURBANCE FROM

HARVESTING TIMBER IN WETLANDS

W. H. Hanna Land Manager

Container Corporation of America Fernandina Beach, Florida

Wetlands are a political enigma which changes from state to state and month to month. Recent court actions particulary in Louisiana have also made wetlands an emotional issue. There seems to be a lot of wish­ful thinking about what we would like them to be. Several definitions of wetlands have already been given by previous speakers in this sym­posium. Rather than talk about site disturbance in wetlands as defined broadly by the courts in recent months, I will restrict my comments to areas with relatively stagnant standing water or areas subject to peri­odic backwater flooding.

Over one-third of the flatwoods of the lower coastal plains of Florida and Georgia can be readily classified as wetlands since they are covered with relatively stagnant standing water. In addition, the Black and Red river bottoms also can be classified as wetlands. For over ten years, Container Corporation of America has been developing specialized logging crews and equipment for harvesting cypress and pine from these wetlands. Over the years we have used equipment that ranges from track type feller bunchers and large skidders which make ruts so deep the average land manager cannot crawl out of them, to site preparation and harvesting equipment with the best available low ground pressure systems. We have found the latter the only way to successfully regenerate some of the very delicate high quality clay soils without destroying them.

Container Corporation of America has been involved in the research work of the Intensive Management Practices Assessment Center (IMPAC) for several years. IMPAC is a cooperative venture among the University of Florida, the U.S. Forest Service and forest industry. IMPAC has been investigating the impact of intensive management practices on water quality of flatwoods slash pine ecosystems for several years. Much of my discussion will center on this research effort as well as personal experience.

Based on the IMPAC studies and several others I will discuss poten­tial site disturbance of wetland harvesting in four parts. First I will talk about the effect of site disturbance on species compositions and succession. Next I will discuss the effects of site disturbance on water quality. Then I will mention the effects on physical properties of the soil and finally, site disturbance's impact on the residual stand and future crops.

92

93

Effects of Site Disturbance on Species Composition and Succession

Certainly harvesting is a very noisy, expensive, disturbing, messy operation. Harvesting in wetlands is more expensive and more disturbing than conventional harvesting on dry sites. Because each wetland logging operation is going to produce different results it is hard to be specific about site effects, but we can examine some common biological effects. Harvesting causes several environmental changes immediately. It increases the amount of sunlight reaching the ground, allows soil surface temperature to increase, and reduces the evapo­transpiration balance of a site. Surface moisture in many wetland areas immediately becomes more plentiful. Microclimate is changed substan­tially. Is it any wonder that the ecosystem does not recover instantly to pre-logging status? Sudden changes in microclimate also bring about associated changes in the composition of flora and fauna. Disturbed ecosystems of any kind tend to revert to an earlier successional stage with different species (Whittaker 1953; Tramer 1975).

Conde, Smith and Hollis (1980) examined succession in slash pine plantations in Florida. The plantations studied represented a chrono­logical sequence of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 years of age. In general they found a great proliferation of herbaceous species and coppice shrub reproduction during the first year after disturbance. Species diversity was far greater than in uncut stands. Through the stand age sequence species composition and frequency began to approach that of uncut stands. Thus, if the basic character of wetland sites is not permanently altered by harvesting and site preparation activities, ecological succession will bring the species composition back toward its previous undisturbed state or at least a reasonable facsimile.

Water Quality

Land managers have become subjected to much ado about water quality and its impact on society and unborn generations. In Florida there is a rapidly increasing population base and the underwater septic tank has now made it possible to put a house trailer on every acre of land, wet or dry. Therefore, questions concerning the impact of forest practices on water quality should be put in proper perspective. Comparing water quality of septic tank drain fields to that of our hard working indus­trial forests usually ends any debate on the subject. In search of the answers to questions concerning the effects of forestry activities on water quality IMPAC has generated a considerable amount of useful infor­mation.

In one study by Riekerk et al. (1980), three operational-sized watersheds were artificially isolated in poorly-drained pine flatwoods on sandy soils of the Lower Coastal Plain. Recording wiers or H-flume gauging stations were used to measure water height in the flumes on all watersheds. Water quality samples were taken once each week. After one year of calibration monitoring, two of the watersheds were harvested, site prepared, and replanted to pine.

94

One watershed was treated to minimize site disturbance (Min D).The treatment consisted of a manual shortwood harvest, residue chopping, bedding, and planting. A second watershed (Max D), was tree-length logged, stumped, burned, windrowed, harrowed, bedded, and planted. The third watershed was retained in its natural state as a check (C).

Results from this study indicated that runoff increased 66 percent on the Min D treatment and 165 percent on the Max D treatment, compared with the check treatment. Potassium levels in runoff water increased in proportion to treatment intensity. Also, cation nutrient outputs were significantly higher on the Max D watershed.

In the wet Savanna of the Lower Coastal Plain, Hollis et al. (1978) found some water quality degradation during the first year after har­vesting and site preparation. However, increased discharge of dissolved ammonium, nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended load production diminished sharply after the first year.

Harvesting Impact on the Physical Properties of Soils

Maki (1977) reported on the effects of harvesting on the physical properties of wetland soils. His report stated that soil structure could be altered drastically by a single logging and site preparation operation. It is well known that soil bulk density increases with com­paction and that high bulk density impedes root penetration, reduces aeration, and restricts the movement of air and water. Water content of wetland soils also interacts with soil texture during operations, leading to soil compaction. Above a certain optimum water content for maximum compaction additional water prevents close packing of particles by occupying pore spaces. Under high moisture conditions logging traffic causes deformation by plastic flow and results in a puddled state.

Similar results have also been shown under wet weather conditions on normal sites (Moehring and Rawls 1970). Moehring and Rawls found that wet weather traffic on 3 or 4 sides of a pine tree significantly reduced diameter growth below undisturbed control trees for a period of 5 years. Dry weather logging or traffic on only 1 or 2 sides of the tree did not significantly reduce diameter growth.

In the poorly drained flatwoods and other wetland forest types we face the same dilema. There is not much choice but to devise harvesting plans so that skidding, yarding and related traffic are kept to a mini­mum acreage.

Residual Stand Disturbance and the Future Crop

In terms of its relative importance from the economic standpoint, the preceding portions of this paper seem relatively insignificant com­pared to the effects of harvesting on future crops. It is an unfortunate

95

fact of economic life that wetland logging leaves little room for sub­tlety. Swamp logging is hard, dirty, expensive, and dangerous work, and a lot of good theory goes down the tubes when faced with reality.As a result of these conditions, many hundreds of thousands of acres of wetland forests have been reduced to "junk" biomass by continual high- grading. This activity and the related economic and environmental circumstances probably have done more damage to our potential wetland growing stock than all the compaction and nutrient loss problems com­bined. In many cases there may be no practical answer to this problem.

In many cases on marginal sites, we are faced with three alternatives On marginal wetland forest sites we can selectively log what is econo­mically feasible and further reduce future site potential or spend more in logging costs than we can recover to produce optimum regeneration opportunity or; decide to do nothing. Let it grow, maybe next time we can do a better job economically.

The overflow lands in the major river bottoms can be managed pro­perly because high quality material and rapid growth rates make it economically feasible. Marginal sites may someday economically qualify for better rehabilitation practices. This will undoubtedly be the result of increasing land use pressures and continued inflation. These economic conditions may help us retrieve marginal sites and turn them into produc­tive forests.

On many of our own sites we find clearcutting gives us good regeneration, and aerial seeding keeps the pine component on our sites.We have been fortunate to get as good if not better stocking after clear- cutting than before where we can afford to do a thorough job of harvesting

Conclusions

If it is possible to summarize this paper it would be to say yes harvesting really does create site disturbance and some temporary envir­onmental or site damage. If done properly, damage can be minimized and recovery speeded up. With any disturbance there is a price to pay; for­tunately, the price can be affordable within the proper framework of time and understanding.

It should be a burden on our conscience to strive to leave the forest in a better shape than we found it. I think we can do a better job if we listen to mother nature.

LITERATURE CITED

CONDE, LOUIS F., JOEL E. SMITH, and CHARLES A. HOLLIS, III. 1980.Effects of intensive reforestation activities on higher plant species diversity and frequency on a coastal pine-cypress-titi site: II successional changes. IMPAC Report 5(3):27 p.

96

HOLLIS, C. A., R. F. FISHER, and W. L. PRITCHETT. 1978. Effects of some silvicultural practices on soil site properties in the Lower Coastal Plains. Pages 585-607. In C. T. Youngberg, ed. Forest soils and land use. Dept. For. and Wood Sci. Col. St. Univ.,Fort Collins, Co.

MAKI, T. EWALD. 1977. A report for the woodland department of Container Corporation of America. Raleigh, North Carolina. Unpublished.

MOEHRING, D. M., and I. W. RAWLS. 1970. Detrimental effects of wet weather logging. J. For. 68(3):166-167.

RIEKERT, H., B. F. SWINDEL, and J. A. REPLOGLE. 1980. Effect offorestry practices in Florida watersheds. Pages 706-720. In C. W. Johnson, ed. Symp. on watershed management. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers. Boise, Idaho.

TRAMER, E. J. 1975. The regulation of plant species diversity on an early successional old-field. Ecology 56:905-914.

WHITTAKER, R. H. 1953. A consideration of the climax theory; the climax as a population and pattern. Ecol. Mon. 23:41-78.

PART III REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS ON TIMBER HARVESTING IN WETLANDS

FEDERAL REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS ON TIMBER HARVESTING IN WETLANDS

Mark Rey Manager

Nonpoint Water Quality National Forest Products Association

Washington, D.C.

Introduction

In looking across the spectrum of federal regulatory programs that affect forest management in wetland, or bottomland areas specifically, one federal statute comes most quickly to mind — the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I would like to begin by reviewing the develop­ment of the regulatory programs affecting wetlands forestry emanating from this statute. Later in my remarks, I will discuss the impact of these programs on forest management and private ownership rights.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972

On October 18, 1972, Congress overrode a Presidential veto to make the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) law. It is fashionable, I suppose, to label almost all of the major environmental statutes of the 1970's as, "...one of the most complicated measures ever passed by Congress" (Grefrath 1976). Nevertheless, the statutory scheme of the 1972 Act is quite complex.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) differentiated between two types of pollution — point source pollution and nonpoint source pollution. The Act clearly defined point source pollution in Section 502. The Act elaborated upon the responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments regarding its timely control. Nonpoint source pollution, however, was not defined. It warranted ooly rela­tively brief treatment in Sections 304 and 208 of the Act.—

Most of us now have a common understanding of the differences between the two types of pollution. However, it was not until June,1976 that the Environmental Protection Agency (charged with implementing

— Specifically, Section 304 (f) of the Act required the EPA Administrator to publish guidelines and information dealing with, among other things, agricultural and silvicultural activities, including run­off from fields and crop and forest lands. Section 208 (b) requires the development, by state or local agencies, of plans to indentify and control, to the extent feasible, silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution.

99

100

much of FWPCA) published regulations distinguishing between point and nonpoint sources of pollution.—' EPA indicated that three general char­acteristics identify nonpoint sources: (1) the pollutants discharged are induced, by natural processes, including precipitation, seepage, percolation and runoff; (2) the pollutants discharged are not traceable to any discreet or identifiable facility; and (3) the pollutants dis­charged are better controlled through the utilization of management practices, including processes and planning techniques. As examples of nonpoint sources from silviculture, EPA identified, nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting opera­tions, surface drainage, and road construction and maintenance from which runoff results from precipitation events.

Thus, most forestry activities, whether in wetlands or not, have been defined as potential nonpoint sources of pollution for the pur­poses of EPA's regulatory program controlling point source discharges of pollution (the Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System). However, EPA's June, 1976 regulations do not provide a defini­tion of nonpoint source pollution. Thus, the issue lies dormant, perhaps, to be resurrected in a future controversial enforcement situa­tion. Indeed, conflict over the point/nonpoint distinction is at least partially responsible for the controversy surrounding another FWPCA program, Section 404 discussed below.

Keep this historical background concerning the point/nonpoint distinction in mind, as we review the two FWPCA programs- with the greatest impact on wetlands forestry activities. These programs are:(1) the Section 208 water quality management planning program — designed, in part, to control nonpoint source pollution; and (2) the Section 404 dredged or fill permit program — a point source regulatory program administered by the Army Corps of Engineers, which has evolved into a wetlands protection program of sorts.

Section 208 Water Quality Management Planning

Section 208 is, perhaps the broadest and most far-reaching provi­sion of the 1972 Act. It calls for comprehensive planning carried out by various levels of a government through the use of federal planning grants, under the close supervision of the EPA administrator in order to control and coordinate all the various provisions of the 1972 Act. Section 208 thus serves as a crosswalk for the coordination of all the various programs embodied in the statute.

Section 208 also addresses the identification and control of various categories of nonpoint source pollution. Of greatest signifi­cance, Section 208 (b)(2)(F) requires the plans prepared under Section

2/— National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Federal Register, June 18, 1976, pp. 24709-24712.

101

208 to contain a process to: (1) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally and silviculturally-related nonpoint sources of pollution...and (2) set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to con­trol, to the extent feasible, such sources.

EPA initially interpreted Section 208 to: (1) emphasize the control of point rather than nonpoint sources; and (2) concentrate on the devel­opment of pollution control programs for primarily urban rather than rural areas. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environ­mental group, challenged EPA’s decision to require Section 208 planning only in areas designated as having significant water quality problems.

On June 5, 1975, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia concurred with NRDC, and ordered EPA to promulgate new Section 208 regulations requiring the preparation of plans for all areas within a state (NRDC v. Train No. 74-1485, D.D.C., 1975). Consequently, rural areas including forest lands both wet and dry, were brought under the aegis of the Section 208 planning effort which was just barely getting underway at the time.

This District Court decision was upheld in September, 1977 without substantial additional comment by the Circuit Court. Significantly,EPA changed its position during the appellate proceedings and agressively pursued a policy of statewide Section 208 planning with greater emphasis placed upon the development of plans to control nonpoint sources of pollution.

Regarding forestry activities specifically, about a year before the NRDC v. Train decision was rendered, EPA turned its attention to devising procedures under Section 304 and 208 to recommend to the states.

In November, 1974, EPA proposed a model forest practice act patterned after strict legislation already passed in some of the Pacific Coast states. The response of the forestry profession, particularly the elements of the forest industry operating in states without regulatory practices acts, was singularly vehement in its opposition to the EPA proposal. While EPA was clearly surprised by this reaction, the agency learned quickly that control of the silviculture nonpoint source cate­gory had to be based on better coordination with existing governmental units, private groups, and professionals knowledgeable in the forestry field (Train 1976).

The vituperative interchange surrounding the model state forest practice act was followed by a period of getting acquainted between EPA and the forestry community. This developing spirit of cooperation was manifested in several forms, perhaps the most significant of which was a series of workshops held across the country in the summer of 1975 by the American Forestry Association in cooperation with EPA and the Forest Service.

A further sign of EPA's growing recognition of its need for infor­mation and advice originating from the forestry community was the fact

102

that the Agency contracted with the Forest Service to help produce a number of nonpoint source control guidelines. This growing dialogue between EPA and land managers was important in shaping the character of the new Section 208 regulations.

On November 28, 1975, EPA issued revised Section 208 regulations required by the NRDC v. Train decision.— The salient feature of the new regulations was the creation of the concept of best management prac­tices (BMPs) as an appropriate tool for nonpoint source control. EPA defined BMPs as a practice, or combination of practices, that are deter­mined by a state, or designated areawide planning agency, after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation, to be the most effective, practicable (including techno­logical, economic and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.

While these new regulations were still being digested by the Section 208 planning agencies, EPA locked into place the final piece of the puzzle. According to guidelines issued by EPA in mid-1977, the agency determined that it would accept, for the purposes of compli­ance with Section 208, voluntary nonpoint source control programs if, in the view of the regional administrators, such programs were adequate to achieve desired water quality goals. Thus, EPA had developed a method of control, and provided institutional flexibility, designed to make the program workable and acceptable to the major participants.

Since the development of these EPA policies, the forest industry, and forest landowners, have attempted to maintain involvement in the Section 208 process nationally, regionally, and on a state-by-state basis. There are almost as many different varieties of Section 208 programs for silviculture nonpoint source pollution as there are states that worked with the silviculture category. The variation in these programs strongly reflects: (1) the nature, type, and extent of the problem identified in each state; (2) the nature of the ownership of the forest land base; (3) the differences in analyses as to the most effective way to reach those operators or landowners causing the pro­blems; and (4) the nature and effectiveness of existing institutional arrangements for implementation in each state. With at least this many variables to consider, the differences in the types of state programs adopted should come as no surprise.

In the southern states, the nonregulatory approach has been the most commonly developed type of program. The state forestry agencies in almost every southern state have, as part of the state’s Section 208 process: (1) carried out an assessment of the water quality problems, if any, caused by silviculture activities; (2) developed nonregulatory

3/— Policies and Procedures for Continuing Planning Process, Federal Register, November 28, 1975, pp. 55321-55349.

103

best management practices to address these problems; and (3) Initiated education, training, or extension programs to encourage implementation of the BMPs by forest landowners and/or operators. It is essential that these programs continue to receive high priority from forestry interests at the state level.

Recently, the future of the Section 208 effort has become clouded as a result of the new Administration’s effort to reduce federal spending. On March 11, 1981, the Reagan Administration released the fiscal year 1982 budget for EPA. The Administration sharply reduced water quality programs administered by EPA, elminating entirely federal funding for the Section 208 nonpoint source control program.

The elimination of the Section 208 program may not be timely in light of upcoming Congressional amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1981 and/or 1982. Opponents of the nonregulatory Section 208 programs administered at the state level may allege that the loss of federal support is evidence that: (1) the Section 208 approach has failed to adequately address nonpoint source pollution; and (2) a stronger regula­tory program is needed. However, neither assertion is well founded.

It is important to remember that EPA's five year strategy for the program established fiscal year 1982 as the last year of federal fund­ing for state planning efforts. The new Administration proposal merely advances this schedule by one year. In the forestry area, this should cause minimal disruptions since most of the silviculture nonpoint source control plans have already been completed. Implementation efforts are already underway using primarily state resources.

Moreover, the proposed EPA water program budget indicates that the Reagan Administration will still make available grants under Section 106 and Section 205 (g) of the FWPCA for priority nonpoint source imple­mentation of Section 208 plans was always to be a state responsibility, financial assistance will continue to be available through: (1) the above-mentioned EPA grant program; and (2) erosion control and water quality grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In summary, the flexibility and site-specificity of the Section 208 programs provides forest landowners with the opportunity to address the water quality impacts of their activities with a minimal amount of over­riding federal interference. However, if we are to maintain this unique approach to solving silviculture water quality problems, we must foster a credible record of state development of silviculture education and training programs where needed. These programs must go forward notwith­standing the availability of massive federal grants. The alternative to this course of action — if not during this Administration, then during the next — will be a call for greater federal control over both upland and wetland activities that affect water quality.

104

Section 404 Dredged or Fill Regulations and the 1977 Clean Water Act

Superimposed upon the Section 208 program, yet another Clean Water Act program came to be important to forest managers in the mid-1970's.The Section 404 dredged or fill permit program became the unlikely tar­get for the concerns of forestry interests due to the program's regulation of forestry activities deemed to involve discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States.

Section 404 of the 1972 Act was designed as a mechanism of review­ing the Corps of Engineers traditional activities in: (1) the maintenance of navigational channels; and (2) the disposal of dredged spoils during dredging operations for navigation maintenance. The authors of the 1972 Act designed Section 404 provide the Administrator of the Envi­ronmental Protection Agency with some review and veto authority over:(1) the selection of sites for dredged spoil disposal, and; (2) the disposal of any specific spoil at a selected site. Thus, under FWPCA, the Corps retained its traditional role in maintaining navigation channels, but with EPA oversight to assure that water quality degradation would be minimized.

However, in order to define the Corps navigation authority in Section 404, the Congress used the term navigable waters. This is a statutory term of art, defined in Section 502(7) of the statute to in­clude all waters of the United States, including non-navigable tributaties. The Corps continued to maintain jurisdiction over only those waters affecting navigation, even after the passage of the Act. However, the requirement for broader jurisdiction was written into the statute waiting for a court challenge.

The challenge was not long in coming. On March 27, 1975, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the Natural Resources Defense Council and ordered the Corps to bring its Section 404 regulations in line with the expanded definition of naviga­ble waters found in Section 502 of the Act._t/

In the Corps' rulemaking pursuant to the NRDC v. Calloway decision, several participants asserted that the Corps was required to implement its new program for the control of dredge or fill activities in the broadest possible sense to include all waters, as well as wetlands. Apparently, the goal being sought was a control program over commercial dredging, filling, and developing of critical wetland areas.

— For a detailed discussion of how Section 208 can affect forestry, see: Miskovsky, Milan C. and Matthew B. Vanbok, 1976, "Regulation of Forestry Related Nonpoint Source Pollution Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972," Natural Resources Lawyer 9(646), pp. 646-667. (NFDC v. Calloway, 392 F.Supp. 685, D.D.C., 1975).

105

In July, 1975,— and again in July, 1977,— the Corps issued revised regulations to reflect the Court’s mandate. The Corps' definition of navigable waters included non-navigable tributaries and many wetland areas. Apparently, the new definition was sufficiently broad to satisfy the plaintiffs in the original litigation. However, the newly-stated Corps jurisdiction was also broad enough to potentially include millions of acres of privately owned forest lands.

Perhaps even more problemmatic, the Corps reviewed EPA's point/ nonpoint decision and determined that its newly expanded regulatory program must assert jurisdiction over all point source discharges of dredged or fill material no matter how small. Moreover, the Corps, in making point/nonpoint distinction, decided that certain activities which EPA had defined as nonpoint under Section 208 were to the extent that they involved discharges of dredged or fill material to be considered point sources for the purposes of Section 404. Thus, the construction of forest roads across streams and in wetlands, and the construction of silviculture ditches for forest stand reestablishment in wetlands were deemed to be Section 404 point sources requiring permits. The Corps made this determination even though EPA had earlier declared these activities to be nonpoint sources of pollution for the purposes of other FWPCA point source regulatory programs.

The response of forestry interests, as well as other landowners, was predictable, rapid, and vehement. The industry maintained that private forest landowners alone constructed or reconstructed approxi­mately 45,000 miles of road a year with stream crossings averaging four per mile. Presumably, a large percentage of these 180,000 stream cross­ings per year would require a Section 404 permit. Permit requirements of this dimension would be extremely costly, would cause excessive delays in land management operations, and were in general considered to be unworkable under conditions required to maintain forestry and agri­cultural management efforts.—

The controversy over the Section 404 program, combined with other perceived deficiencies, as well as reauthorization needs, sparked a call for amendments in 1976; and, ultimately, passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217). The 1977 Clean Water Act contained important, if somewhat confusing, amendments to Section 404 of the 1972 FWPCA.

— Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States, Federal Register, July 25, 1975.

— Regulatory Program of the Corps of Engineers, Federal Register, July 19, 1977, pp. 37121-37164.

7/— Statement of Thomas Orth before the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, No. 95-5, March 2, 1977.

106

Basically, Congress agreed not to restrict the scope of the Corps geographic authority over all navigable waters. Implicitly, it would appear that Congress endorsed a federal regulatory program to'protect wetlands from certain types of desecration within the context of federal Clean Water legislation.

The 1977 Amendments, however, exempted normal farming, forestry and ranching activities, including minor drainage activities and forest road construction from Section 404 permit requirements. Exempted roads would have to be built in accordance with best management practices.In providing these exemptions by creating a new Section 404(f) Congress removed these activities from the permit program without indicating whether they constituted point or nonpoint sources of pollution.Congress merely exempted discharges (by definition, point sources) resulting from the above activities, taking it for granted that nonpoint sources were not regulated by the program in the first place.

In many respects, the issues Congress ignored have become as impor­tant as the issues Congress resolved in 1977. For example, while the 1977 Act implicitly established a wetlands protection program, Congress did not provide a discrete definition of what constitutes a wetland.This was left for the agencies to determine.

Similarly, Congress avoided the differences in the point/nonpoint distinction for Section 404 and Section 402. Congress left this dis­tinction inconsistent, and for the agencies and the Courts to elaborate.

Both of these ambiguities age at issue in the controversial Avoyelles Sportmen's League v. Alexander litigation which has been widely publicized in the southeastern states. NFPA participated in the case as a Friend of Court. However, others here today have been more directly involved, and are in a better position to review the case in detail.

NFPA has been more directly involved in the development of the agency regulations implementing the permit exemptions for normal sil­viculture actitities. The ambiguities described above, as well as a number of other factors, confounded the timely development of regula­tions to implement the changes to the Section 404 program made by the 1977 Act. These regulations are only now being issued. On May 19,1980, EPA issued an interpretation of the Section 404 exemptions for the pur­poses of developing Section 404 programs at the state level (another1977 amendment, Section 404(g), provided for delegation of the program to qualified state agencies.—'

8 /— Consolidated Permit Regulations, Federal Register, May 19, 1980, pp. 33289-33506.

107

On September 19, 1980, the Corps of Engineers proposed its regulations to implement the Section 404 exemptions.— The Corps is now hard at work finalizing the revised Section 404 regulations. The EPA and Corps regulations defining the exemptions contain identical language.

In the regulations, the agencies closely follow the Clean Water Act s language in several respects, providing an exemption for "any discharge of dredged or fill material that may result from any...normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage and harvesting of food, fiber and forest products." These activities are exempted if they occur in wetland areas in established use for forestry or agriculture.

Most controversy in definition involves minor drainage. The regulations offer an extensive definition of minor drainage. The regulations state that drainage ditch construction outside wetland areas does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Section 404 program, and does not require an exemption from permit requirements.

In addition, certain drainage ditch construction within wetland areas is exempt from permit requirements. Exempted construction in­cluded the following: (1) an extension, into a wetland, of an upland drainage system in order to remove excess water from the upland area, such as drainage of pine flatwoods areas into hardwood or cypress swamps;(2) ditching incidental to planting, cultivating, protecting or harvest­ing wetland areas used for agriculture and silviculture wetland crop production; (3) mainpulation of water levels in wetland areas where impoundments have been constructed for wetland crop production; and(4) removal of sandbars, beaver dams and other blockages of previously existing drains causing crop or timber losses.

The regulations do not allow a minor drainage exemption for drainage ditch construction where drainage is associated with conver­sion of wetland to nonwetland, such as wetland species to upland species not typically adapted to saturated soil conditions. Also not exempted are ditches which convert land from one wetland use to another, such as silviculture to farming, and major ditches which significantly modify or drain a wetland area.

The regulations seem to provide an exemption for most routine forestry drainage associated with management of lowland pine and hard­wood areas. Areas of ambiguity in the regulations, however, mean that reasonable implementation rests with E"A and Corps field-level enforce­ment decisions. The regulations do make it clear that a permit will be required for discharges of dredged or fill material associated with drainage of wetlands to convert bottomland hardwood forests to agricul- tural uses.___________

9/— Proposed Permit Regulations for Controlling Certain Activities in Waters of the United States, Federal Register, September 19, 1980.PP. 62732-62777.

108

With respect to exemption for "the discharge of dredged or fill material...resulting from forest and farm roads...constructed and main­tained best management practices." The regulations provide a list of standards that must be used in the construction of stream and wetland crossings. For the most part, these BMPs are precautions already taken by prudent landowners or operators. Thus, in most cases, Section 404 permits will no longer be required for the construction of forest roads across streams or in wetland areas.

Forest landowners should be familiar with exemptions contained in EPA and Corps regulations. Many major forestry concerns with the Section 404 program appear to have been favorably resolved by the regu­lations. The final regulations, however, contain areas of ambiguity which may need to be resolved at the field level.

Impact of the Clean Water Act on Forest Practices and Private Ownership Rights

The Impact on Forestry

EPA's earliest efforts to deal with water quality problems from forestry, were instrumental in convincing the forestry community that PL 92-500 applied to more than industrial outfall pipes and the con­struction of municipal sewerage treatment facilities. The proposed state forest practices act served as an important catalyst (or 2x4, if you prefer) to commence discussion on the Section 208 planning pro­cess to control nonpoint source pollution.

Earlier, I described the salutory efforts of forestry and water quality professionals to seek some common ground following the forest practices act controversy. The result of identifying a set of common objectives was the successful evolution of the Section 208 nonpoint source control program. Section 208 has had a greater influence than any other Clean Water Act program in getting forestry, water quality, and other interests .to assess problems, identify needed research, and devise solutions.— As Section 208 plans are implemented in each of the states, we are seeing substantial on-the-ground training, and education activities, as well as a greater sensitivity to water quality protection from the average operator.

Finally, with respect to Section 404, it is admittedly difficult to separate the controversy and potential impacts from the actual on- the-ground impacts, to date. Moreover, the program has been in a state of constant flux over the past five years due to litigation, legisla­tion, and four separate rounds of rulemaking (with one yet unfinished).

— National Council of Air and Stream Improvement, 1979, "A Review of Current Knowledge and Research on the Impact of Alternative, Forest Management Practices on Receiving Water Quality," New York: NCASI.

109

As I mentioned, the May 19, 1980, EPA regulations and the upcoming Corps regulations at last set a framework to assess the implications of the program for forest management. The trend of enforcement decisions and District Court litigation over the next 18 months will determine whether the Section 404 program will have a direct, and undesirable impact on the management of forested areas that are deemed to be wet­lands.

Private Ownership Rights

The Section 208 program has, on the margin, had some impact on ownership rights by suggesting better means to use the land to as to minimize the off-site water quality impacts. However, federal restric­tion of the use of private land has not generally been a major issue in the development of the Section 208 program. For the most part, the cooperative approach to the implementation of the Section 208 program has muted these concerns.

With the Section 404 program, on the other hand, federal land use control has been a central and contentious issue. As permit decisions restrict or prohibit land use activities which would impair the wet­land nature of certain areas, three major areas of environmental concern and federal case law will run into head-on conflict. These include: (1) the extent of the federal government's legitimate Commerce Clause authority to regulate activities which impair water quality in non-navigable water; (2) the right of a private landowner to use his land according to his wishes, and not have the land, or rights in it, taken without just compensation; and (3) the widely held desire to pre­serve wetland areas for their unique biological attributes.

Reviewing the benefits of wetland preservation it appears to me that the landowner is forced to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of preserving wetlands (from direct taxes and from indirect loss of potential income from alternative uses) compared to the benefits to the owner and those to society, as a whole. These tradeoffs lead to a decision to drain on the part of the owner. A regulatory stricture, such as the Section 404 program, which voids this decision in order to achieve the public benefits of protecting the wetland creates a serious inequity.

Opposition to the perpetuation of this inequity continues to mount. In addition, the proposed Reagan budget suggests that less federal funds will be available for fee title purchases of wetland areas. Thus, wetlands preservation proponents may be well advised to base wetlands preservation programs on positive incentives such as income tax relief or expansion of existing drainage easement programs (such as the Water Bank Program administered by the Agriculture Stabilization and Conser­vation Service).

These programs allow a landowner an opportunity to reconcile his objectives with those of society. On the other hand, continued reliance on the FWPCA as a principal vehicle for wetlands preservation may

110

subject the federal government’s authority to regulate discharges of pollution into non-navigable streams to critical scrutiny. This could have significant negative impacts on the federal effort to enhance water quality through the FWPCA.

LITERATURE CITED

GREFRATH, B. C. 1974. The federal water pollution control act and forest. J. For. 72(12):757-760.

TRAIN, R. 1976. Forestry and pollution— an interview with Russell Train. Am. For. 82(20):22-24.

DISCUSSION

Question: Anonymous

Mr. Rey:

We have had an adversary situation with government over the past four years and EPA, Do you see a change in the government and the EPA with new admini­strators in the Corps of Engineers and so forth, with the new administration coming in? Do you feel we will get a better audience or reception when we bring our complaints to EPA and the Corps?

I would say that we will probably see individuals in the new administration who are more strict in their interpretation, who are certainly Interested in balancing both environmental and economic costs. This administration will lean more toward economic costs, but I don't see a wholescale rewriting of environmental statutes and regulations.

Ill

LEGAL CONSTRAINTS TO THE USE OF

WETLANDS IN LOUISIANA

Joseph E. LeBlanc, Jr. Milling, Benson, Woodward, Hillyer,

Pierson and Miller New Orleans, Louisiana

Previous speakers have touched upon many of the legal constraints to activities in wetland areas in Louisiana, and elsewhere. This pre­sentation will focus upon two of the most significant constraints in Louisiana: The 404 permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program, which was established under the Louisiana Coastal Resources Act of 1978 (LSA-R.S. 49:213.1 et. seg.) .

An exhaustive review of these regulatory programs is beyond the scope of this paper and the time available for its presentation. Atten­tion will be directed instead to certain salient features which should be of particular interest.

The Federal 404 Permit Program

The 404 permit program is based upon the Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act, which provides that the Corps of Engineers "...may issue permits after notice and opportunity for public hearing for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at spe­cified disposal sites...."

A practical understanding of the 404 program might best be under­stood through a series of inquiries applicable to work proposed in a potential wetland area.

The Initial Inquiry— Is it a Wetland?The Corps of Engineers currently defines a wetland as "... those

areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally includes swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.1/

- Wetland defined in 33 CFR Sec. 323.3(c), 42 Federal Register, 37122. July 19,1977.

113

114

The development of this definition arose as a result of Congress' definition of navigable waters in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) as waters of the United States, includ­ing the territorial seas. Originally, the Corps of Engineers did not interpret this statutory language to include wetland areas other than those already included in the definition of navigable waters because they were not subjected to the ebb and flow of the tide.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, relying upon statements in the Legislative History of the FWPCA that Congress intended to exercise the Commerce Power to the constitutional limit, brought suit against the Corps to compel it to exercise 404 jurisdiction to the full extent of the Commerce Power, and without regard to traditional concepts of navigability.— The Callaway court agreed that the Corps' jurisdiction was too restrictive the directed the Corps to promulgate new regulations extending jurisdiction over all water of the United States. Nothing was said, however, about wetlands.

Following the decision in Callaway, the Corps published four alter­native definitions of navigable waters. On July 25, 1975, the Corps promulgated a final definition, of wetlands as follows:

"'Fresh water wetlands' means those areas that are periodically inundated that are normally characterized by prevalence of vegetation that require saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction."—On July 19, 1977, the Corps changed the wording of the definition

to its present form. The reason for the change, the Corps explained, was to close a technical loophole which would have,excluded many truly aquatic areas containing truly aquatic vegetation.—

Following the 1977 change, the Avoyelles Sportmen's League, the Point Basse Hunting Club, Inc., the Avoyelles Bass Runners, the Environ­mental Defense Fund, Inc. and the National Wildlife Federation, Inc. sought to extend jurisdiction again. In 1979, these groups filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division, to enjoin certain land-clearing activities which were being conducted on a 20,000,-acre tract of land in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana - the Lake Long tract.— The action was brought against the Corps of Engineers and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for allegedly failing to exercise 404 jurisdiction over bottomland

2/- NRDC v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685 (D.C. D.C. 1975).

— 33 CFR Sec. 209.120(d)(2) (i)(h), 40 Federal Register, 31324- 31325, July 25, 1975.

4/- 42 Federal Register, 37128-37129. July 19, 1977.

— Avoyelles Sportmen's League et al v. Clifford L. Alexander, et al, Civil Action No. 78-1428.

115

hardwood forests that, the plaintiffs contended, were wetlands and, therefore, waters of the United States. The plaintiffs also sued the defendant landowners, who were clearing the forested areas for conversion to soybean production, for engaging in discharges of dredged and fill material without permit.

Two basic issues were raised. The first was whether the land clearing activities involved the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States so as to require a 404 permit. The second was whether the Lake Long tract, a bottomland hardwood forest, was in fact a wetland under the 1977 Corps' definition. The two issues were bifurcated. By stipulation of the parties, it was assumed that the Lake Long tract was a wetland (reserving the right of the parties to litigate that issue at a later stage of the proceeding) for the purpose of deciding whether the land-clearing activities required a permit. On June 12, 1979, the Court held that they did.

The parties then proceeded with the trial of the wetlands issue. Extensive evidence, both scientific and lay, was presented during a ten day trial commencing on February 5th and ending on February 15th, 1980.On March 12, 1981, the Court ruled. It agreed with the plaintiffs and held that the Lake Long tract was almost entirely a wetland.

A number of other speakers have already addressed the question of what is a wetland. It is not the purpose of this presentation to dwell on that issue. Nevertheless, a number of aspects of the decision should at least be noted. The Court held:

(1) that "...the wetlands definition does not answer a scientific need, it satisfies a practical, social, poli­tical need, the need to define the Section 404 jurisdiction. It should be interpreted with this purpose in mind. The definition may be scientifically incorrect, but that should not affect its validity as a jurisdictional definition..." (Opinion p. 18).

(2) that all of the species on the Lake Long tract were wetland species because "...they all had a common characteristic - they were all tolerant to a greater or lesser degree. None were intolerant. We hold that all species except the intolerant species are wetland species..." (Opinion p. 21).—

— The species found on the Lake Long tract which the Court held to be wetland plants included American elm, baldcypress, bitter pecan, black willow, boxelder, buttonbush, deciduous holly, Drummond's red maple, eastern cottonwood, green ash, hawthorn, honey locust, Nuttall oak, overcup oak, persimmon, sugarberry, swamp privet, swamp tupelo, sweetgum, sycamore, water elm, water locust, water oak, water tupelo, and willow oak.

116

(3) that the Lake Long tract was a wetland even though it "...can be cleared, disced, leveled, ditched and improved for soybean cultivation. A soybean crop can be made even though it's planted as late as June 15th. Indeed, much of the Lake Long tract has already been cleared and is in soybean cultivation. In fact, any lowland and even lakes can be converted to agriculture with the proper engineering improvements. This is the problem beingmet by the CWA. We do not consider it an appropriate criteria to determine what is and is not a wetland."(Opinion p. 10).

(4) that "...(d)esignation as a wetlands under the pro­visions of the CiWA does not amount to a taking for which compensation may be due....(T)he enforcement of the S404 regulation is not a taking for which compen­sation is due." (Opinion pp. 15-16).

The construction placed by the Court on the wetlands definition is an expansive one and can be expected to cover extensive areas of Louisiana not previously regulated by the Corps under Section 404.Whether such an extension of jurisdiction is authorized, whether the definition of wetlands needs to be scientifically correct, and whether the record of the proceeding in Avoyelles Sportmen's League supports the wetlands determination made by the Court, will undoubtedly be matters pressed not only by appeal of the decision, but also in Congress in addressing exactly what is intended to be covered by the cryptic phrase waters of the United States.

An expansion of 404 jurisdiction has also been proceeding as a matter of agency policy. It began with the Opinion issued by Attorney General Benjamin Civilette on September 5, 1979 that the EPA has the ultimate administrative authority to determine the jurisdictional scope of waters of the United States for purposes of Section 404. Thereafter, in order to administer the 404 program under the Civiletti Opinion, the EPA and the Corps entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on March 23, 1980, which reserves to the EPA the right to make jurisdictional determinations in special cases.—

On October 24, 1980, the EPA published a consolidated list of such special cases, which identified bottomland and hardwood areas, regard­less- of size, containing one or more designated forest cover types as special cases in which the EPA would make the 404 jurisdictional deter­mination.— The listing included a number of forest cover types not involved in Avoyelles Sportmen's League, such as beech-magnolia,(Type 90) pine-hardwood, (Type 85), loblolly pine-hardwood, (Type 82) and swamp

— 45 Federal Register, 45018 et seg. July 10, 1980.8 /— 45 Federal Register, 70564 et seg. October 24, 1980.

117

chestnut oak-cherrybark oak (Type 91). The listing also identified 42 Louisiana parishes containing bottomland hardwood areas with one or more of the designated forest cover types in which the EPA would make jurisdictional determinations.

All of the above sources: the 1977 regulation, the decision in Avoyelles Sportmen's League, the EPA-Corps Memorandum of Understanding, the EPA's initial designation of special cases, must be considered, at least for the time being, in determining whether a given area is or may be considered as a wetland and, therefore, a water of the United States.

The Second Inquiry— Does the Activity Require a Permit?

if a proposed activity is to be conducted in a wetland area, there must be a further inquiry as to whether the activity will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material. If it will, then a deter­mination must be made as to whether the activity is exempt from the 404 permit requirements.

In the 1977 amendments to the FWPCA, the Congress specified a number of exemptions from Section 404 (subject to certain clearly defined conditions), Section 404(f)(1) sets forth the following exemp­tions which may be of particular relevance to timber operations in wetland areas:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection,the discharge of dredged or fill material —

(a) from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices;

(b) for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches;

(c) for the purpose of construction or maintenanceof farm roads or forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment, where such roads are constructed and maintained, in accordance with best management practices, to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the navigable waters are not impaired, that the reach of the navigable waters is not reduced, and that any adverse impact on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized;

118

is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulations under this section or section 301(a) or 402 of this Act (except for effluent standards or prohibitions in section 307).

(2) Any discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters incidental to any activity having as its purpose bringing an area of the navigable waters into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of navigable waters may be impaired or the reach of such waters be reduced, shall be required to have a permit under this section.

The Corps of Engineers has not yet incorporated statutory exemp­tions into its 1977 regulations.— However, the exemptions are addressed in the Consolidated Permit Regulations promulgated by the EPA on May 19, 1980, in the requirements specified for State 404 pro­grams .- The approach to the exemptions taken by the EPA has also been followed in amendments which the Corps has proposed to its 1977 regulations.—

In the Consolidated Permit Regulations, the Section 404(f)(1) exemptions are addressed in 40 CFR Sec. 123.92, 45 Fed. Reg. 83472- 83473 (and in the Preamble at 45 Fed. Reg, 33937-33939). The 404(f)(2) qualification to the exemptions is heavily emphasized. The exemptions are specifically limited to established (i.e., ongoing) farming, sil­viculture, or ranching operations.— The intent is clearly expressed

9 /— Those regulations address farming and forestry activities in terms of an exclusion from the definition of "discharge of dredged material" and "discharge of fill material," 33 CFR Sec. 323.2(1) and (n), respectively. The regulation provides that those terms do "...not in­clude plowing, cultivating, seeding and harvesting for the production of food, fiber and forest products." 42 Fed. Reg. 37145.

— Under Sec. 404 (g)-(l), 33 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1344(g)-(l), a State may assume administration of the 404 program for waters of the United States (other than traditionally navigable waters) within its jurisdic­tion. To date, however, such administration has not been assumed by the State of Louisiana.

45 Federal Register, 62732 et seg., 33 CFR Sec. 323.4(a)(1). September 19,1980.

12/— Sec. 123.92, 45 Federal Register, 33472, provides that ",..(a)n operation ceases to be established when the area on which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain idle so long that modifi­cations to the hydrological regime are necessary to resume operations...*

119

that the exemptions not apply if the result is to convert the area from its established use to another use, or to bring the area into one of the uses covered by the exemptions.

An example of how narrow the EPA intends the exemptions to be may be seen in the definition of the term plowing, which is exempt so long as it is part of normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activity.Sec. 123.92(a)(l)(iii) (D), 45 Fed. Re£. 33473, provides that "...(t)he term does not include the redistribution of spoil, rock, sand, or other surficial materials in a manner which changes any area of the waters of the United States to dry land...." In the Preamble to the regula­tions the EPA explains, at 45 Fed. Reg. 33399:

"The EPA believes that redistribution of material should be subject to the scrutiny of the permit process when it results in the conversion of waters of the United States to dry land..."

In the first phase of the Avoyelles Sportmen's League case, which addressed whether the defendants' land clearing activities required a permit, the Court indicated that the 404(f)(1) exemptions were to be narrowly construed. The Court held that the defendants' land-clearing equipment (bulldozers fitted with V-blades, bulldozers fitted with raking blades, and tractor-pulled rakes, the ditch excavation equip­ment, the backhoe, and discing equipment) were point sources; that the operation of the equipment involved the discharge of dredged or fill material because it resulted in the scraping up of leaf litter and humus and its deposit in small sloughs and low areas on the tract; and that the landclearing activities did not constitute normal farming or silviculture because they were not part of an ongoing operation, i .e., an established and continuing activity.—

The holding in Avoyelles Sportmen's League, however, has recently been limited in a proceeding before Judge Collins in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.— There, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Louisiana Power and Light Company from proceeding with right-of-way preparation for the installation of a set of electrical transmission lines from the nuclear power facility under construction at Taft, Louisiana. The plaintiffs claimed that a 404 permit was required. The activities in question involved the chain-sawing of limbs and trees, and the wind- rowing of the trunks and logs, which would then be allowed to deteriorate under natural processes. No equipment such as bulldozers of draglines was to be used.

13/— Avoyelles Sportmen's League, Inc. v. Alexander, 473 F.Supp. 525 (W.D. La. 1979).

14/— Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. Sands, et al, Civil Action No. 80-961.

120

Judge Collins held that the chain sawing of limbs and trees did not constitute the dredging of material from a water of the United States, and the windrowing of logs and trees did not constitute the discharge of dredged material. Avoyelles Sportmen's League was dis­tinguished based upon the type of machinery employed and the extensive displacement and redepositing of the soil itself in that case.

The full scope of the 404(f)(1) exemptions still remains to be determined. The very narrow construction of the exemptions in Avoyelles Sportmen's League has been appealed and is still pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. How that issue will be decided remains an open question.

The Third Inquiry— What Standards Are Applicable to the 404 Permit Application?

If a proposed activity will occur in a wetland area and is not exempt from permitting,inquiry must be made as to the standards by which the permit application will be judged. A detailed analysis of the permit process is, again, beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, a number of major features should be mentioned.

First, preparation of an Environmental Assessment and, in many cases, a full Environmental Impact Statement, will be required. In the latter case, the permit applicant is generally advised that prepar­ation of an Environmental Impact Statement will involve considerable time and expense, with no assurance that the permit will ultimately be granted.

Secondly, permit applications must be evaluated under guidelines established by the EPA under Sec. 404(b)(1), 33 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1344(b)(1). Final 404(b)(1) Guidelines were recently promulgated by the EPA on December 24, 1980.— A review of these Guidelines is beyond the scope of this presentation. Note should be made, though, that the 404(b)(1) evaluation is based solely upon environmental concerns. There is no consideration of any other factors affecting the public interest in determining whether the environmental effects of the proposed discharge are acceptable or not. If the discharge does not satisfy the environ­mental concerns, the Guidelines prohibit it even before reaching the public interest review (PIR) conducted by the Corps under its 404 regulations.

Third, if the proposed discharge is found to be in compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, it will be evaluated by the Corps under a PIR. In the case of wetlands, this PIR includes a wetlands policy, which provides:

40 CFR Pant. 230, 45 Federal Register, 85335 et seg. March 30, 1981. ---- ----

121

"No permit will be granted to work in wetlands identified as important by subparagraph 2 above, unless the District Engineer concludes, on the basis of the ana­lysis required in paragraph (a) above, that the benefits of the proposed alteration outweigh the damage to the wetlands resource and the proposed alteration is neces­sary to realize the benefits. In evaluating whether a particular operation is necessary, the District Engineer shall consider whether the proposed activity is primarily dependent on being located in, or in close proximity to the aquatic environment .and whether feasible alternative sites are available..."—

Fourth, once a public notice is issued of the permit application, other federal agencies and the public will have the right to submit comments upon the proposed discharge. In most projects in wetland areas, substantive comments are submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Regulations have recently proposed to implement the coordination requirements ofthis Act.— However, these regulations have not been promulgated in final form.

The FWS and the NMFS have also entered into Memoranda of Under­standing with the Corps of Engineers for the processing of 404 permit applications. These MOU's authorize the FWS and the NMFS to insist upon referral of unresolved objections on permits to higher headquarters for decisions, with the ultimate determination to be made at the Washington level of the agencies, if earlier resolution is not possi­ble.—

In the event that a 404 permit is denied, the question is immedia­tely presented as to whether the denial constitutes a taking of private property for which just compensation is, constitutionally, due. In Avoyelles Sportmen's League, the Court held that enforcement of the 404 regulation did not involve a taking. However, in a landmark deci­sion issued on November 25, 1980, the United States Court of Claims has held that the denial of a 404 permit does constitute a taking of private property for which just compensation must be paid.— The taking issue

— "Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Proposed Rulemaking and Availability of Draft Environmental Statement," Thursday, December 18, 1980, 45 Federal Register, 83411 e t seg.

18 /— Section 404 permit applications are also generally required to be accompanied (or supported) by letters of no objection from appropriate State and local agencies or governmental bodies exercising jurisdiction in the area of the proposed work.

— The Deltona Corporation v. the United States, No. 370-176 (Trial Division) and James J. Jentgen, Trustee v. the United States, No. 415- 177 (Trial Division), in the United States Court of Claims.

122

is one which is likely to be resolved by the United States Supreme Court.

Louisiana's Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978

With the passage of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, the Louisiana legislature authorized the development of a new regulatory program to control activities within the coastal zone of Louisiana. The Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) became effec­tive on September 30, 1980.

Although a detailed examination of the LCRP is beyond the scope of this paper, certain general observations may be made concerning the scope of the LCRP, and its contrast with the 404 program.

The Area Covered

The area subject to permitting under the LCRP maybe broader in some areas than that covered by Sec. 404. The later program is limited to waters of the United States including wetlands. The LCRP, on the other hand, includes all coastal waters and adjacent shorelands within the boundary of the coastal zone which properly form part of the coastal zone as defined in LSA-R.S. 49:213.3(4):

'"Coastal zone' shall mean the coastal waters and adjacent shorelands within the boundaries of the coastal zone established in Section 213.4 which are strongly influenced by each other, and inclose proximity to shorelines, and uses of which have a direct significant impact on coastal waters."

The definition of the coastal zone focuses not on wetlands, per se, but upon shorelands which are (1) adjacent to and strongly influenced by coastal waters, (2)in proximity to the shorelines, and (3) uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters.Activities Subject to Permitting

Section 404 is directed toward discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The LCRP, on the other hand, is directed toward uses, i. e., activities, within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters. Uses subject to management, under the LCRP, are separated into "Uses of State Concern" and "Uses of Local Concern." These uses include, but are not limited to, discharges of dredged and fill material.

Also provided are exemptions for certain types of activities. One is for agricultural, forestry and silviculture activities on lands con— sistly used in the past for such activities. Appendix cl of the LCRP ( Rules and Procedures for Coastal Use Permits"), however, treats this exemption as a narrow one. In Part II(G) of Appendix cl (Page cl-6),

123

the exemption is limited to ongoing activities which will not change an established agricultural, forestry, or aquacultural use to another use, and which do not require a 404 permit from the Corps.

The Guidelines Applicable to Permit Application

If a proposed activity will occur within the coastal zone and is not exempt, application must be made for a coastal use permit in accor­dance with LSA-R.S. 49:213.11, and pursuant to the procedures set forth in Appendix cl.

The permit application is to be evaluated under guidelines developed pursuant to LSA-R.S. 49:213.8. The LCRP contains general "Guidelines Applicable to All Uses". A number of these may have particular relevance to activities such as timber harvesting operations within the coastal zone. These include the policy of avoiding destruction of adverse alteration of streams, wetlands, ...and other natural biologically valuable areas or protective coastal features, reductions or blockage of waterflow by natural circulation patterns within or into an estua- rine system or a wetland forest, adverse alteration or destruction of ...forest land, and reduction in the long term biological productivity of the coastal ecosystem."

The LCRP also contains a number of specific guidelines. These fall into two general categories. The first are guidelines which speci­fy certain standards that must be complied with. The second are guidelines which contain the modifier to the maximum extent practicable. In the latter case, if the modified standard is not complied with, the use will nevertheless be in compliance if it satisfies the balancing test provided for in Guideline 1.8.

A number of the specific Guidelines may be of relevance to timber harvesting activities. These include the "Guidelines for Levees",— the "Guidelines for Surface Alternatives",— and the "Guidelines for Dredged Spoil Deposition."—

20/— Guideline 2.1, for example, provides that the levying of un­modified or biologically productive wetlands, shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable." Guideline 2.3 provides that "levees con­structed for the purpose of developing or otherwise changing the use of the wetland area shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

21/— Guideline 6.4 provides that to the maximum extent practicable, wetland areas shall not be drained or filled...."

22/— Guideline 4.3 provides that "spoil shall not be disposed of in a manner which could result in the impounding or draining of wetlands or the creation of development sites unless the spoil deposition is part of an approved levee or land surface alteration project.

124

Conclusion

The above has been a very general summary of legal constraints upon activities in wetland areas in Louisiana imposed by the 404 permit pro­gram, and by the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. This description has necessarily been a general one. But it is hoped that it has at least served to highlight certain of the major aspects of these regula­tory programs.

WETLAND FORESTRY AND THE 1972 CLEAN WATER ACT

Michael Osborne Director

Southern Wetlands Project National Wildlife Federation

New Orleans, Louisiana

Introduction

Thank you for this opportunity to give a view of the conservation/ environmental position on wetland forestry. This paper covers the Clean Water Act as it relates to forestry in wetland areas. Hook demonstrated accurately that clean water interests are not always apparent. Con­servation and sportsman groups often speak up for clean water interests.I assure you, however, that the environmental and conservation groups are not alone in this concern. All across this state, mayors, police juries and water commissioners are also concerned - alarmed may be a better word - over what appears to be deteriorating water quality.

Lake Pontchartrain has dead spots and frequently is closed to swimming. The five parishes surrounding the lake are meeting regularly, trying to find a solution. St. Mary Parish is fearful that agricultural silt and pesticides may destroy their drinking water. Every year, the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Department closes oyster beds because of polluted water. And more people would be concerned if they under­stood the scope of the problem. I have a friend who is a human engineer. A human engineer is one who designs controls, warning lights, switches and that sort of thing. My friend reports that if a ten-second delay were inserted into our shower/bath controls, the average person would not learn to use a shower without special instructions. Similarly, more people would be concerned about clean water problems if they under­stood the relationship between upstream events and downstream impacts. Somehow the delays, the short delays, keep us from learning. It's an open system as Dr. Gosselink said; every upstream wetland activity has a downstream impact.

The purpose of the Clean Water Act is "...to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States." No American could disagree with that goal. The law states: "These waters are valuable for spawning areas for many species of fish and wildlife, and, of course, as a source of water and food for much of the Nation's population. Wetlands form a particularly sensitive and important segment of these ecosystems, and therefore merit special attention. The law and the conclusions of our most respected scien­tists coincide. Such a law has the potential for accomplishing good things.

126

127

During the first two years of the administration of the 1972 Act, little emphasis was placed on wetlands. The Corps of Engineers esta— blished regulations that excluded most wetlands from regulation and attempted to restrict their jurisdiction to navigable waters.

By 1974, the conservation and environmental community was taking action. It realized that forestry and good forestry practices in wet­land areas were a major key to the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our waters. We also realized that agriculture in wetland areas could make the problems worse. In Louisiana in particular, we recognized the vast economic significance of the forest industry. In1974, the LSU Cooperative Extension Service calculated the economic impact of all other plant and animal science products.Concurrently, the Southern Forest Experiment Station was telling us that 38 percent of Louisiana forest land was bottomland hardwoods. By that time, the environmental community was familiar with and often cited Yancey's 1970 report which indicated that by 1967 the state had lost almost half of its bottomland hardwoods. The report projected that, based on the then-existing clearing rate, more than half of the 1968 bottomlands would be lost by 1985.

The environmental and conservation community observed that the Corps of Engineers, which was charged with implementing the Clean Water Act, was not only denying their jurisdiction but also issuing press releases describing the problems of administering the wetland program.It appeared that the Corps was unhappy with the job Congress had given it and was going to work against administering the Clean Water Act with regard to wetlands. And the forest industry appeared to us to be join­ing hands with the Corps in opposing the regulatory scheme. As Dr.Hook explained yesterday, it was not the law but the fear of how it might be changed that motivated many to oppose the Clean Water Act.

Environmental and conservation groups then filed suit (NRDC v. Callaway, 392F. Supp. 685 (DC 1975)) questioning the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation that the 1972 Clean Water Act applied only to navigable waters of the United States. The suit was successful and the Court held that, as intended by Congress, jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act was that widest grant of jurisdiction that could possibly be bestowed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States. And thus, wetlands were subject to the permitting and public interest review requirement of the Clean Water Act.

In the mid-seventies, the environmental community made a special effort to become better acquainted with the forestry community. A number of us attended a 1975 American Forestry Association workshop in New Orleans and other clean water workshops. During these gatherings it appeared to us that the voice which claimed to speak for wetland forestry often said things which, from our viewpoint, seemed to be more consistent with the goals of agribusiness and land development. When attending a conference on forestry and water quality, we were confused to hear indus­try complaints about taxes, EEOC and workmen's compensation.

128

And the clean water problems continued. There was talk of agricultural chemicals polluting the fish in Lake Providence. Lake Providence has now been closed to fishing. There were reports of whole watersheds polluted by agricultural chemicals. We now know that 75 percent of the recent fish samples from the East Franklin-Bonnet Idee watershed are unsafe for human consumption due to agricultural chemicals.

Then, along came the huge conversion project in Avoyelles Parish.The Avoyelles Sportsmen's League and conservation interests joined together hoping to get then-divided governmental agencies to develop a consistent, workable, meaningful definition of wetlands and to require enforcement of the Clean Water Act in agricultural conversion projects.In a very real sense, the litigation dealt with the relative impacts of agriculture versus silviculture in wetlands.

The two major goals of the suit were to (1) get a consistent, workable, meaningful definition of wetlands; and (2) compare the water quality impacts of forested wetlands and agricultural lands.

We were disappointed but not surprised to find the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, which includes the Louisiana Forestry Commission, coming in on the side of those who would destroy the forestry resource and convert it to another use. When agricultural groups sought to intervene in this suit, it made sense; they clearly have an interest in conversion. But when forestry trade groups entered the litigation on the same side as agriculture in this silviculture versus agriculture dispute, it was what we had learned to expect; forestry groups often consider the maintenance of forested wetlands of secondary importance to agriculture.

In preparation for these remarks, I spoke to a number of foresters about what could be done to reverse the trend of hardwood bottomland area loss. Two responded, "Where were you twenty years ago?" I hope this doesn't reflect a forest interest attitude of willingness to accept without a fight the demise of the wetland forest resource. The environmental and conservation community has resolved to help keep forestry a significant force in wetlands. We are hopeful that we will receive affirmative, pragmatic suggestions and direction from forestry interests as we pursue our priority efforts to retain our forested wetlands.

Conversion of Forests to Agriculture

The conservation and environmental community rejects the belief that decisions to convert hardwood bottomlands for agriculture are economic decisions based primarily on free—market economic conditions.The conversion process would not occur at its present rate were it not for a series of subsidy, loan,public works and social welfare programs which encourage and accomodate conversion. If free market conditions prevailed and if agriculture was required to bear the cost of the public-financed programs that benefit it, then the conversion would surely slow and might reverse.

There are few wetland areas in Louisiana that have not been or are not scheduled to be the beneficiaries of Corps of Engineers, Soil Con­servation Service or public works projects to decrease the frequency or duration of inundation or saturation. In almost all of these projects there are claimed benefits in terms of agricultural production or effi­ciencies. The vast construction and engineering costs are borne primarily by the federal government. Agricultural interests benefit far beyond their tax contributions. Most industries must purchase technical and scientific advice, while agriculture receives much of theirs free.The Soil Conservation Service with its agronomists, soil scientists and surveyors is a prime example. In fairness to the Soil Conservation Service, they are now aware that it is contradictory to the public interest to facilitate some wetland conversion projects.

I recently spent one day at the research facilities in Stoneville, Mississippi and spoke with almost everyone who was a forester or invol­ved in forestry research. It would have taken many days to talk to all involved with agricultural concerns, such as those working on weed control, pest control, plant breeding, farm machinery design, irrigation, biological control, and agricultural economics. It certainly appeared to me that a lot more money was going into helping the farmer than was going into helping the forester. With government paying the tab for and the farmer receiving the benefits of technical and scientific studies and advice, huge public works projects and other programs, the free market equation is upset.

Last year, the Farmer's Home Administration paid out 14.5 billion dollars in construction grants and low interest loans to promote agri­cultural interests. There are price support and credit programs. There are direct assistance programs such as the ACP Program of the Agricul­tural Stabilization and Conservation Service which, as a part of their cost sharing programs, makes direct payments to farmers who drain wet agricultural soils. The Disaster Assistance Programs reduce the finan­cial risk of agriculture in wetlands by compensating producers for financial loss which results from the natural hazards of farming in a flood prone area.

With government paying the cost of the water projects which make conversion possible, supplying free technical assistance, and lowering the wetland farmer's risk, it seems that the conversion incentive is primarily a creation of government fiscal and public works policies rather than a free-market business decision.

From my meetings in Stoneville and from reviewing economic litera­ture, I see that there is growing evidence that the economics of forestry versus agriculture in wetland areas may be much closer than is generally believed. There seems to be mounting evidence that the real income of the farmer, considering his capital investment, is less than many suspect. And with the high prices that hunting leases are bringing in many areas ($26.87 per acre per year), can it be that hunting leases will keep up with the inflation rate of gasoline and real estate? The differences between the land uses may not involve big dollars, particularly if the

130

forestry industry projection for timber demand is correct for. the next century. One forester researching the conversion issue found that many small woodlot owners decided to convert to agriculture because of advice given by public-supported agricultural advisors. He concluded that if they had consulted a forester about the same decision, the trees would be standing still but receiving better management.

The majority of the environmental community would agree to forego all types of environmental and clean water regulation of agriculture and silviculture (if I can lump the two together) if those industries would be willing to forego the grants, relief and loan programs, if they would be willing to pay the fair value of the technical assistance they now receive free, and if they would pay their share of the public works and drainage projects now paid by state and federal funds.

When agricultural interests are evaluated by the social welfare programs they support and the economic incentives they demand in their efforts to gain control of wetlands, I believe you will discover that agricultural interests lean far to the left of the environmental commu­nity. If the conversion trend continues in this country, farmers will have to refigure to determine if they can compete in wetlands under a freer market.

Property Rights and the Clean Water Act

In the conservation/environmental community, one does not find opposition to traditional concepts of property ownership and landowner rights. But, we do find cause to examine the position often taken by land conversion interests that is stated thus: If I own land, no one can take it from me and I have a right to do with my property as I please.

That position, without a lot of qualifications, is not true in the United States. Government, state and federal, can expropriate property. It is done all the time, without the landowner’s consent and against his opposition, for levees, highways, channel improvements, and even for national cemetaries. Private industries have a right of expro­priation if they are in the utility business. You can find your land taken for the convenience of a telephone or power line, a pipeline or a railroad. One of my first clean water legal battles was on behalf of a landowner who realized he could not win the expropriation suit of a pipeline company on expropriation grounds. So, he turned to the Clean Water Act. He won the clean water battle and his property rights were protected. The Clean Water Act preserved his property as could no other law or constitutional argument.

The Louisiana Civil Code dates back to 1803 and has, of course, had many revisions and amendments since that time. But one thing that has prevailed is the obligation, or servitude as the law calls it, of a pro­perty owner to do nothing with regard to water flow or drain that will render the situation more burdensome for his downstream neighbors. Also,

131

if you own property on a river or lake, the public has the right to use your shore for certain purposes. The law of servitude might expose you to damage suits, either individual or class actions, if your activities damage water quality and thereby cause monitary losses to downstream interests such as fishermen. All of this is quite apart from the Clean Water Act. Every community has some sort of laws which prevent one from creating a nuisance and almost all urban and many rural areas are sub­ject to zoning regulations.

The concern of the conservation and environmental community arises not from what goes on and is kept on private property. We are concerned about what people do on their property that affects other people away from that piece of property. When one uses his property in a way that damages his neighbor, his neighbor has a right to object. I do not think anyone believes he is not accountable when his actions interfere with his neighbor's use of private or public property.

In the Avoyelles Sportsmen's League case, the Judge found as a fact that forested hardwood bottomlands lose silt on the average of three-quarters-of-a-ton per acre per year; whereas the silt loss from agricultural fields is a minimum of five tons per acre per year. A recent Soil Conservation Service study concluded that in one once-forested flood plain there was an average annual loss of 38.4 tons of topsoil per acre per year. We also hear reports that pest­icides cling to clay and organic particles at levels of 10 to 100 thousand times their concentration in water. The particles thus serve as a means of transportation of these pollutants. All over the state we hear cries that lakes and water reservoirs are silting in, that water is muddied.When waters which have produced abundant fish for centuries produce only a few species and those polluted, society has a right - most would say an obligation - to do something about it.

Floods, too, are a legitimate concern of everyone. Wetland forests impede the surge of flood water, store flood waters, and send some of this water up into the atmosphere. The downstream citizens and the government that protects them from floods have a right to address the upstream changes that take away existing natural features that control floods.

Forested wetlands not only store flood water, they reduce their velocity, filter out pollutants, provide fish spawning and nursery areas, provide important duck and wildlife habitat, and recharge ground water. Forested wetlands are valuable to society, particularly to those citizens who live downstream and nearby.

Agriculture in wetlands produces silt, agricultural chemicals, and provides almost no fish, duck or wildlife habitat. Agriculture does little for flood control. It generally aggravates flooding and induces upstream levees and channels which reduce flood water storage areas and raise the river crest and velocity that is then sent downstream.

132

Thus, conversion aggravates or causes additional downstream flooding and flood damages. Conversion requires more tax money downstream for levees and water purification. It causes commercial and recreational fishing losses. Lakes aren't closed to fishing until after the conta­mination is discovered and after many fish have been eaten.

In recent years, that part of the forestry community which has been most visible and vocal on clean water issues in the eyes and ears of the environmental/conservation community, has fought the Clean Water Act. There has been a negativist effort. It has been effort that has been remarkably unsuccessful in getting anything of value for forestry interests from that opposition.

The following are ways groups might meet the problem:

(1) Support wetland acquisition efforts of Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Department. This would take Louisiana tax money and put itin a secure investment that would pay economic, environmental and quality- of-life dividends for the benefit of almost everyone. The same, of course, is true of federal mitigation acquisition. Mitigation planning for fish and wildlife values in federal water resource projects is a requirement.

(2) A second way to handle the problem is to get rid of the govern­ment projects, programs and dollars that support conversion or to make those who convert pay the cost of the public works programs and subsides that encourage conversion. The basic philosophy of foresters should make this an attractive solution if most of you believe in paying your own way.

(3) Another solution is to take the tax money we are now spending on programs that encourage agriculture in wetlands and provide incen­tives to those who retain forests in wetlands. I am not recommending this, only suggesting it for your consideration.

You may think me inconsistent in suggesting you consider a subsidy for forested wetlands, but such is not the case. Forested wetlands provide values and economic benefits to society directly without those benefits ever going through the hands of the landowner.

In 1970, Wharton put a value on the forested wetlands he studied of $2,300 per acre for these natural functions. The figure today may be more or less. A different scientist of economist might give a diff­erent figure, but that figure would also have very real clean water and flood values. You should let people know.

133

You foresters have a great job. You work with one of the grandest of God s gifts. It s time for you to start telling the whole story of the values forests freely give to society.

LITERATURE CITED

YANCEY, R. K. 1970. Our vanishing delta hardwoods. Louisiana Conserv. 22(3-4):26-30.

TIMBER LANDOWNER’S VIEW

OF THE WETLANDS ISSUE

Marc Dupuy, Jr. Attorney at Law

Marksville, Louisiana

Wetlands Laws - A Conflict in Principles

I do not view the wetlands issue as a struggle of ecologists versus soybean farmers, as is so often portrayed in the news. I view the wet­lands issue as social wet,wild and free philosophy versus the rights and privileges of private ownership. Judge Nauman Scott stated in his recent opinion in the so-called Prevot case..1/

"The Clean Water Act was designed by Congress to effect a legitimate economic and social policy — 'Wetlands' is a jurisdictional term, the product of the legislative process, of political pressure groups.... Thus, the 'wetlands' defi­nition does not answer a scientific need, it satisfies a practical, a social, a political need, the need to define the scope of Section 404 jurisdiction. It should be inter­preted with this purpose in mind. The definition may be scientifically incorrect, but that should not affect its validity as a jurisdictional definition."

Economic and social policy, indeed! The product of political pressure groups, indeed! I view it as land use control, in disguise - not even well disguised.

If you have formed an impression from these introductory remarks that I am an anti-environmentalist, that is not a proper impression.All of my life I have been interested in the conservation of our natural renewable wildlife resources, as well as our natural renewable timber resources. I appreciate the value of woods and the peace of mind and soul that comes in just walking in the forest, far beyond any monetary value that might be placed upon it. I am a Life Member of the Louisiana Wildlife Federation, a member of The Audubon Society, The Sierra Club,The Wilderness Society, The Nature Conservancy. For six years I served as member, and as Chairman, of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, and during those six years, contributed every single penny I received from the State to a scholarship here in the LSU School of

— The Avoyelles Sportmen's League, Inc., et al. v. Clifford L. Alexander, et al., Civil Action #78-1428, United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Opinion dated March 12th, 1981.

135

136

Forestry, for students studying wildlife conservation, several thousands of dollars. I have made a lifelong commitment to help to improve this land, its timber, and its wildlife, non-game as well as game, and there is not a person than I more interested in wildlife conservation.

But I am also a member of The Louisiana Forestry Association, The Louisiana Landowners Association, and an owner of timbered lands and of agricultural lands.

Wetlands Laws - A Breakdown in Common Sense

I tell you these things because I sincerely believe the wetland laws are a breakdown in common sense; and there is an urgent need to return to common sense thinking. There is a sanctity to the privilege and right of private ownership. There is no clear line of conflict between environmentalists and landowners, for many are both. The pre­servation of wildlife habitat and the preservation of the principle of private ownership can and do exist together, quite compatibly. It is only when extremists enter the picture that the issues become polarized between the wetland proponents and the private landowners. I use that distinction with care. I know of no vocal ecologist with any degree of renown or reputation who owns one square foot of land. On the contrary, all of the landowners I know are wildlife conservationists, timber con­servationists, soil conservationists, and water conservationists — all genuinely interested in our renewable resources. Quite unlike, I might add, those ecologist extremists who decry the cutting of forests, while living in wooden houses; who decry the killing of animals, while eating their steaks; who decry hunting of game birds, but never contribute one penny toward the preservation of game and non-game habitat; who own not one square foot of land, but want to control the use and management of everyone else's land.

Thus, the confrontations in the news, in public hearings, in the courts, between the landowners and the ecologists, are often the actions and attitudes of the vocal few - the outspoken minority - distinguished from the silent majority — who tend through extremism to distort and cloud the real values of both positions. The current wetlands contro­versy is a classic example of emotionalism replacing logic.

You have heard from previous speakers voice fire versions of the "Prevot" case. I offer you another, but it will not be technical. It will be a commentary on the social legislation by the Court that results in the deprivation of the rights of private ownership.

On June 9th, 1979, Judge Scott rendered a decision in the first phase of the "Prevot" case, in which he held, and I quote:

"We have determined that the sheared trees and vegetation andscraped soil and leaf litter constitute dredged or fill material.Accordingly, we determine that clearing the land of trees andvegetation, which are parts of the waters of the United States...constitutes the discharge of dredged material."

137

One of the briefs filed in the esse "before the judge's decision, had this to say about shearing of trees as a discharge of dredged material;

Plaintiffs contend that the tree cutting and clearing activity falls under Section 404, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material. Plaintiff's contention is without basis. The activity described above does not involve either dredged material or fill material, and is therefore outside the scope of Section 404.... The only material involved in the present case, under the facts above, is the above ground por­tion of trees, and such material simply cannot reasonably be characterized as dredged material. Under their reasoning, harvesting nuts from a tree or picking wild flowers would be dredging if the activity took place in a wetland. Catching a crewfish would be dredging. Perhaps even duck hunting would be dredging. Plaintiff's view of dredging simply does not meet the test of common sense."

Does that sound like a private landowner defendant's brief? I would like to take credit for it, but unfortunately, I must give credit where credit is due. It comes from the brief of the government defen­dants, the Corps, the EPA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, filed by the government attorneys on January 23, 1979. Isn't that incredible that the three government defendants contended shearing of trees was not dredging and filling, but Judge Scott knew better, and ruled that they were?

Bad judgement makes bad law. Judge Scott also ruled that logging by chain saw was not prohibited. So, what happens if I take a power saw and cut every last stick of standing timber?

Let's say, for instance, that I own two thousand acres of woodland- which I do - growing delta hardwood that has been cutover. It will be a long time until the next harvest of sawlogs; it produces no revenue from which to pay the mortgage and the taxes. Suppose I decide to clear- cut the entire tract to plant cottonwood or sycamore - a true sincere reforestation project, exempted from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (404 (f)(1)(A)). Who would deny my right to do so? Not the forestry industry, for clearcutting is a legitimate forest practice within the context of a reproductive cutting system. I need a disturbed seed bed, bare soil, opportunity for natural and artifical regeneration - modern silviculture practices. My ownership rights go beyond the objective of keeping it all in hardwoods, but ecologists object to clearcutting.

What happens to the wildlife? Destroyed habitat means destroyed wildlife, temporarily, at least. It will be regenerated when the forest grows again, and it survives on the "edge effect" in the mean­while.

What is so different about the same basic principle of clearcutting this same forest for row crop agricultural products? Again, destroyed habitat means destroyed wildlife; rehabilitated when the food grain

138

crops grow. Suppose I owned two thousand acres of pasture land — which I did - and converted from cattle pasturage to corn. Who would deny my right to do so? I would destroy the habitat of birds and mammals by the plowing of grass that I must plow to change into roy cropland. Wildlife habitat destroyed means wildlife destroyed. Yet, can I not plant a crop on my open land? What about the muddy water that runs off from my land and muddies the nearby lakes after heavy rain or floods?A fact of life accepted. No legislation would ever pass that would prevent muddy rainwater runoff from flowing into streams and lakes adjoining cropland.

No one would ever dream of something like that, if he had any common sense, right? Wrong! That is the objective of a suit by ecology extremists in the suit presently pending in the Twelfth Judicial Dis­trict Court, Parish of Avoyelles, entitled "Avoyelles Sportmen's League, Inc. v. Fontenot and The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries" Docket #39960, filed September 13, 1979. Does the plaintiff sound familiar? It contends that riparian landowners on a stream have no right to use water from the stream for rice irrigation; but, even if the Courts find that the riparian owner has the right to take the water out of the stream, nevertheless, it contends that the landowner has no right to let the water return to the natural stream. That case is pending.

Can you imagine a court or a legislature ordering filter traps or a water purification system around every piece of farmland in this world? What a crazy mixed up world we live in — for someone to file such a suit and make such a contention before a court of law! Yet, the same plaintiff helped to convince Judge Scott that trees sheared by bulldozer blades were dredged or fill material.

That thought brings me back to the Scott ruling on the social legis lation, Section 404. Why is it alright to cut all timber by power saw, but not alright to do so by a more efficient method? Why is it alright to clearcut a wetland area if I plant trees again, but it is not alright if I plant corn? That may make sense to some people, but it doesn't to many landowners. At least, not to me. I like common sense reason­ing, not strained, distorted reasoning.

Wetland Laws - Social Legislation2/Congress declared the goals and the policy of the Clean Water Act—

to be the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In order to achieve that objective, discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters shall be eliminated and where attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propogation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recreation.

2/— Section 101 (a), 33 U.S.C. and 1251 (a).

139

Traditionally, the United States Corps of Engineers exercised its jurisdiction to the ordinary high water mark on navigable streams. The intent of the Corps was to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material in to the waters of the United States. That was clear and understand­able, but not enough. So, the Corps promulgated .1977 revisions of its regulations, after the Clean Water Act was amended, so as to extend the landward limit of federal jurisdiction, under Section 404 of that act, to any adjacent wetlands that form the border of or are in reasonable promixity to other waters of the United States .3/

The Federal Courts of this land concluded that Congress intended to extend the act's jurisdiction to the constitutional limit, whatever that means. Thus, powers to regulate navigation, and to control dredge and fill material in navigable waters, as hazards to navigation (the words of Section 404), gave way to much broader powers, and the Courts talked in terms of control of interstate commerce, including control of intra-state activities. The Courts talked about federal authority over water pollution resting upon the commerce clause, and not upon past interpretations of an act designed to protect navigation, and the com­merce clause gave ample authority to reach activities above the mean high water line.— Since Congress had used the commerce clause to extend power over local activities, such as deceptive practices in sales of products, public accommodation practices, professional football, why not control private landowners in their use of their land? Is that the constitutional limit?

Wetland Laws - Impractical

Judge Scott had before him the definition of wetlands as it applied to the 20 thousand acre tract in litigation. Two weeks of testimony by more than 14 experts in plant physiology, hydrology, and soil science presented much conflicting testimony. The Judge ruled that in deter­mining wetlands, three areas of analysis must be considered: (1) the type of soil; (2) the frequency and degree of inundation and saturation; and (3) the type of vegetation.

His ruling raises many more questions than it settled. In that case, in Judge Scott's opinion, the tract had some wetland type soil, sufficient inundation and saturation, and the proper type vegetation - thus meeting the threefold test.

But suppose Judge Scott was sitting in the Western District of Colorado, and had before him a case of clearing by bulldozer of a perched wetland, in the top of the Rocky Mountains, elevation 12,045 feet instead of 45 feet, above sea level. Would he not have different soils, hydraulics and vegetation? No Sharkey and Tensas soils - maybe granite and basalt. No Mississippi, Atchafalaya and Red River flooding - maybe mountain stream rain or snow runoff. No pecan and oak - maybe spruce.

- Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 138, p. 37128, 1977. 4/— United States v. Holland 373 F 2d 655.

140

Must you have an expert on plant physiology to make a determination of type vegation; and a soil scientist to make a determination of soil, and a hydrologist to make a determination of the frequency and degree of saturation, in every case where a landowner wants to clear and improve his land? Who is an expert? What happens when experts disa- gree? Who decides which expert is more expert than the next expert?Must the Corps or the EPA make a scientific study of every tract?How long will that take? What if someone, who may live a thousand miles away, call for a public hearing? How long will your land be out of commerce?

If the woodland to be cleared is subject to flooding, how often must it flood, and of what duration? If not subject to flooding, what about areas where rainfall is much greater than other areas? How much rainfall is sufficient to establish the degree of saturation required to designate a wetlands? In every area adjoining permanent water, a transition zone exists between it and uplands. Where is the limit of the transition? The leading expert plant physiologists for the plain­tiff in the Prevot case testified that there is even a second transition zone between the first transition zone and upland areas.

A practical determination must ultimately be made, on the ground — this tree can be cut, but that tree cannot. Judge Scott's ruling was accompanied by a map, the scale of which was one inch equals one-half mile. I can show you permanent water bodies within the area he drew and designated as non-wetlands. The he disagreed with all experts and designated some areas as wetlands, which the soil experts testified were non-wetland types, because, in his opinion, they were too thin. Another test, perhaps?

Obviously, saturated soils to the timber community can be very different from saturated soils to the agriculture community. What happens when outside factors intervine, such as artifical works of man creating wetland areas for duck restoration and reservoirs for fishing and recreation uses? What about a simple thing like beavers creating unnatural wetlands by obstructing natural drainage? Your timber is flooded, as many of you have experienced, yet should not the landowner be able to improve his own drainage on his own property to solve the problem?

Wetland Laws - Condemnation and Confiscation of Private Property

Judge Scott concludes that the designation of wetlands "...is not a taking for which compensation may be due." That's his opinion.

I disagree in the strongest way I can possibly disagree. Here was a landowner, Elder Lumber Company, who acquired the tract in 1955. No one had ever heard the word wetlands at the time. Through all of the years, timber was cut, and the land used for hunting and fishing. Then the time came for making a decision - continue growing low value

141

hardwoods for long periods of time at extremely low rate of return, or clear the land, plant agricultural crops, and earn a decent return,Now the time had come when the highest and best use was for farming of crops rather than the farming of delta hardwood timber.

The land is situated in the Red River Backwater Area. Whenever floods occur on the Mississippi, Atchafalaya and Red Rivers, the United States Army Corps of Engineers uses the Red River Backwater Area to stockpile and store floodwaters, as there are no levees on the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers in this area. Thus, one agency of the United States is deliberately and intentionally flooding the tract from time to time. Ironically, the landowner pays 3.74 mills of his total 60 mills ad valorem taxes, or about six percent of his taxes, for, of all things, flood protection. Additionally, he pays five cents per acre as a forced contribution acreage tax, for levee maintenance, but there are no levees.

Now, along come two other agencies of the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, which contend that because the land floods from time to time, it is a wetlands. Is this fair play by the government?

And now, because it may be a wetland are, the owner cannot put it to its highest and best use as he would choose to do, and his rights of ownership are reduced virtually to the privilege of paying taxes. Instead of having land worth 12 hundred dollars per acre in cultivable condition, it has a value of two hundred dollars per acre, as it must remain in wooded condition forever. What if the next timber crop is years away? The owner has been deprived, without compensation, of one of his most valuable rights, the right to use his own property. What about a temporary taking of property out of commerce while a determi­nation of wetland designation is being made? What about a permanent taking of property out of commerce after a wetland designation is made? Who pays the difference? The property owner, of course, not the public.

I cannot say in any more simple and direct words, this is condemna­tion and confiscation of private property, without compensation. If this is not a taking, what is it?

I believe that we shall soon see other federal courts recognizing that the denial of a property owner's rights to use his property is an inverse condemnation requiring payment under the Fifth Amendment. There is such a case presently pending before the United States Court of Claims entitled Deltona Corporation Versus United States, No. 370-76, U.S.Court of Claims, November 25th, 1980.

In this case, the plaintiff has been for more than 20 years devel­oping a waterfront community in an area of wetland mangroves near the Florida coast. Earlier permit applications had been granted by the Corps and work was completed. Additional applications for further work were denied, due to changing regulations by the Corps. The corporation filed suit against the United States in the United States Court Claims,

142

seeking monetary compensation for its inability to develop its own property.

It argued that although the government had not actually condemned and taken its property for use as a conservation wetlands area, the Corps' denial of the dredge and fill permits precluded Deltona from making any other use of its land, thus entitling it to an award of damages under the theory of inverse condemnation. This argument is based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that "...private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." The court found that the permit denials have so diminished the property as to render it valueless for any pur­poses other than conservation, and that the permitting process is a land use regulation designed to protect mangroves, rather than a method for protecting navigation or maintaining water quality.

Most importantly, the Judge concluded that Deltona was due compen­sation for its loss because its dredge and fill operations would not harm navigation, and would not significantly impair the interstate commerce of fish, since significant construction had already been com­pleted at its sites. His decision was that the Corps' use of permit denials to protect mangroves was such a tenuous extension of navigation and clean water concerns that the Corps' action constituted an inverse condemnation requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment. "There­fore, the cost of preserving the ecology must be borne by the public at large, not by the property owner alone." 5/

The social consideration of the government's responsibility to protect the health, welfare and safety of its citizens through the Clean Water Act has exceeded its constitutional limit and has become the equivalent of congressional action authorizing the taking of con­servation areas through eminent domain, for which compensation is due the private landowner whose land has been taken. The price of wetland preservation might become cash settlements if effective non-development incentives or land exchange programs are not accepted.

The real significance of the case is that the court held the permitting process to be a land use regulation designed to preserve wetlands, rather than a method for protecting navigation or maintaining water quality; and the cost of preserving the ecology must be borne by the public at large, not be the property owner alone.

Doesn't that make more sense than Judge Scott's decision, that shearing of trees by bulldozers is a dredge and fill activity, and the denial of use of property is not a taking for which compensation is due?

National Wetlands Newsletter, Nov. - Dec. 1980.

143

Wetland Laws - The Atchafalaya Basin

Let’s look for a moment at the effect of the social legislation upon the Atchafalaya Basin. On November 5, 1980, Governor Treen wrote to Colonel Thomas A. Sands, Coordinator of the Agency Management Group, setting forth formally the suggestions and recommendations of the State of Louisiana. The Governor recognized that the value of the basin far exceeds its functions as a floodway, and he suggested that the areas be subject to governmental land management considerations that would not otherwise apply to privately owned land. There are some private rights that must be subjected to rights of the public, such as flood control. Traditionally, historically, and constitutionally, monies are paid for these rights. Thus, to prohibit clearing of additional forests, and to prohibit construction of permanent habitat or other structures, the Governor proposed the purchase of an easement to facilitate flood control by eliminating development incompatible with that purpose, without unduly infringing on the extremely important economic and property rights of private landowners. Presumably because of the uniqueness of the extra special value of the Basin as a whole, the Governor proposed purchase of certain more restrictive easements "...to satisfy the public's diverse cultural, commercial and recreational needs." Thus, the State has become involved in land use regulation and planning in the Basin. It is apparent that the Treen administration believes that preservation of the unique natural, scenic, and historic resources of the Basin for the enjoyment of present and future genera­tions is an obligation which must be embraced by the State, while attempting to balance the needs with the continuing protection of the fundamental rights of private property owners. The conclusion is that the rights of private ownership may be abridged so long as that abridg­ment is neither unnecessary, undue or unfair. In all aspects of the plan, where the balance of rights tilt in favor of the public and against private owners, inherent is the payment of fair compensation for the taking.

In comparison, a federal district judge has concluded that the right of private ownership is subservient to the social needs of the public, but the exercise for the public of those rights is not a taking for which compensation is due. I cannot emphasize too strongly my views in the simplest language in which I can state it the control of private land by designating it as wetlands, is comdemnation and confiscation of private property without compensation.

That principle transcends every sense of fairness and equity, and demonstrates once again that the age-old American principles of fair play and private ownership are no longer to be honored, and give way to the wet, wild and free philosphy.

The impact of designation of wetlands by social legislation is a taking which will have profound effect upon thousands of landowners, hundreds of thousands of acres of timbered forests, and hundreds of millions of dollars of property and property ownership rights.

144

Let's not forget that this is a problem for all of the United States, one of which most people in other states are just now becoming aware. Rights of private ownership suffer for social purpose, and Courts are again effecting social legislation; more dangerous and far-reaching than just regulatory legislation.

The intent of Congress is one thing, but the expansion and distor­tion of that intent by bureaucratic regulations is an entirely different matter. Take the recent Memorandum of Understanding in Wetland Areas, published on October 24th, 1980, in the Federal Register, by the EPA.The list of special cases to which their jurisdictional claims have been asserted, include areas in 40 parishes in Louisiana, where lands are found to contain certain species of trees. EPA says loblolly pine- hardwood type 82; slash pine-hardwood type 85; sycamore and cottonwood are wetland indicators. Since when are pine, sycamore and cottonwood wetland indicators? No Court has ever said so, nor has Congress. Bureaucrats rush in to regulate as though their regulations were con­stitutional rights in the process.

Wetland Laws - The Federal Government is not the Solution of the Problem; it is the Problem

What is happening in America? The law-abiding citizen lives in fear today, constantly under the threat of murder, rape, robbery, mugging- violent crimes. The crime situation is so bad, it has actually seized the attention of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

You fall back to the land which you worked and struggled and sweated to buy and pay for, seeking peace of mind and body, and a means of livelihood, but you are mugged and robbed here again. You pay for flood protection, which you do not get, and the government floods you deliberately. Then the government reclassifies your land by designating it wetland, and someone else decides what you can do with it, other than pay taxes on it. President Reagan was correct when he recently said, ...the Federal Government is not the solution to the problem troubling

America; it is the problem."

Those of you who are in the oil business can recite many horrorstories of months of delays in getting simple permits to drill wellsin search of energy minerals, at a time when this country is in greatneed of energy independence. Many leases are dropped instead of drilledwhen the timing of getting rigs is upset by the timing of getting permitsto drill - regulations made by people without the background to make these rules.

Those of you who are in the timber business can recite many horror stories of incomprehensible regulations such as the Endangered Species Act as it applies to timber management. Critical habitat regulations would have the forest owner maintaining a forest of dead trees for woodpeckers if the habitat of the Red Cockaded woodpecker is believed to exist in that forest.

145

Managing wetlands has become one of our greatest environmental challenges. Louisiana's extensive coastal wetlands hold vast natural resources, needed resources. But obtaining them requires care; and development must be balanced with conservation. Coastal zone manage­ment is difficult enough a matter of land use control, without the landowner battling matters over which he has no control: subsidence, compaction of sediment, wind and wave erosion. Land loss in the magni­tude of 46 square miles per year in the coastal zone of this state is staggering loss, for which no compensation is ever received. But then to have regulations requiring backfilling of marshland canals, contrary to every reason of sense and logic, and detrimental to wildlife, is enough to have caused many landowners to forego long term management plans for improvement of their marshes.

Land use regulation has traditionally been considered the prero­gative of the states, and especially their political subdivisions, the local government. Federal regulatory powers must be based upon powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution, because the Tenth Amendment provides that government powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, and because of that the federal government has no general power. The National Environmental Policy Act began the shift of control. Environmental policy changes in all executive agency programs created the requirement of environmental impact statement. Flood insurance regulations required land use regulation. Executive orders mandating non-development of floodplains and preservation of wetlands followed. It will be felt in all direct federal programs, as well as federal licenses, permits, grants, loans, insurance programs, sanitary landfills, strip mining, water pollution, control systems, and last but not least, real estate transactions. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM Act of 1972); Federal Water Pollution Act (FWPCA of 1972); Water Quality Management Act (WQMA of 1972); Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA of 1973); Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; Endangered Species Act (EDA of 1973); to name a few, all required the creation of new federal agencies, more bureauracy, to regulate and administer these new federal policies. Flood control project planning; Floodplain Management Assistance; Waterbank Program Assistance; and the Wetland regulations, Sections 208 and 402 and 404 followed in natural sequence.

In a recent article by Stone (1981) it was argued this country is becoming a nation of thieves, and the federal government is the biggest thief of all, as the pattern is established where:

"Our federal government has long practiced bribery on an enormous scale to accomplish its political purposes... such things as federal grants that require recipents to follow Washington directives if they want the money, and some welfare programs that take tax money from people who work and give it to people who won't work — but can vote.

Which reminds me of the words of Judge Scott which I quoted in the beginning - "Wetlands is the product of the legislative process...of political pressure groups...to satisfy a social political need.

146

It is strange how some people believe the social political needs of a nation change through the years. The Swamp Reclamation Acts of 1848 and 1850 resulted in the transfer from the United States to the State of Louisiana, hundreds of thousands of acres of woodland. The specific language of the acts show the intent of Congress to be that the State of Louisiana utilize these lands to build levees and to otherwise attempt to reclaim those lowlying acres for the beneficial purpose of converting the land to agricultural uses. Higher ground had previously been placed into private ownership by Spanish Land Grants.

The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Natural Resources, intervened in the Prevot case in defense of its interests, and those of all of its citizens, to insure that long settled land rights are not interferred with within its boundaries. Evidence of the Swamp Land Acts and old patent surveys of properties involved with the Prevot case were introduced into the record. Judge Scott made no reference whatso­ever to these Acts and this evidence. They were the basis of the rights of private ownership of the lands in litigation, but apparently did not fit the pattern of social legislation which the Court was striving for.

Wetland Laws - Balance Needed in Land Use

Conservation programs are nothing new to the American people. A balance of sensible conservation and productive technique is something we have learned can be successful in the long run, whether it be for a product or a spedies. During recent years, the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have made much progress in the U.S. Forest Service's Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) program. Some 15.4 million acres were designated for wilderness, 10.6 million acres for future planning, and 36 million acres were to be re­leased to uses other than exclusively wildlife. On November 14th, 1980, the BLM announced a decision for selecting BLM lands for continuing wilderness study pursuant to Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The decision was to continue wilder­ness study of 23,772,000 acres, and to release to other uses 149,262,000 acres. These lands will be managed in a manner so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. Court tests have held that Congress in enacting that Act clearly attempted to strike a balance between the development of mineral resources and environmental concerns. When the interpretation given by a court is contrary to congressional intent, the interpretation will not be upheld.

It is significant to note that the Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA) and other forest industry interests supported strongly a bill in Congress that called for release of RARE II lands designated non-wilder­ness. The LFA Third Forest Program was recognized as a model state association program by the National Forest Products Association. In­creased production on private lands must be aided by an incentive program, with as little red tape and few strings attached as possible.

I might mention here the participation of the LFA as "Anicus Curiae" by the filling of a brief in the Prevot case certainly was a proper step

147

for the forestry industry, and the LFA's continuous representation of the landowner's rights to use his land as he desires is gratifying to all private landowners, and it is advisable to assure good hardwood forest management. I am not sure just how literally the words "Amicus Curiae" should be taken, since they mean a friend of the Court. It is rather ridiculous that the three federal defendants, the Corps, the EPA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service should all take different positions in the interpretation of Section 404, and even the Vicksburg and New Orleans Districts of the Corps, within itself, are at odds with each other. These differing and conflicting positions do not say much for the social legislation that Judge Scott finds to be so clear.

The opposition to federal acquisition of private land in the Atchafalaya Basin is another proper step for the forestry industry. I hope it will be continued. Federal intervention is neither welcome nor necessary to the resolution of the problems of the Basin.

Wetland Laws - The Impact on Forest Ownership

It may come as a distinct shock to many ecologists, but soybeans are not Louisiana's number one crop — timber is. More Louisiana land is used to grow trees than is used for any other purpose - 47 percent of the entire land area of this State of Louisiana. Louisiana forests total over 14.5 million acres, of which 7.4 million acres are hardwood; over 5.6 million acres are bottomland and hardwood (Earles 1975). Commercial forests in Louisiana 46 years ago totaled approximately 16 million acres. Now, nearly a half century later, Louisiana forests have been reduced by only 10 percent. It was then, and still is, nearly one- half pine and one-half hardwood. Thus, the decision by a man appointed for life to a federal judgeship suspends the free commerce of over 5.6 million acres, pending individual determinations affecting specific tracts that may now bear the designation wetlands. Thousands of land­owners and hundreds of thousands of acres within the bottomland hardwood forests now face depressed value, restricted merchantability and clouded titles.

Yet growing of trees is the raising of a crop, measured in decades rather than in months. It requires a long-term investment and an abiding faith in the future. Its harvest begins an economic chain affecting everyone, from the houses we live in; the paper we read; the containers we use daily; the jobs; income and economic prosperity of the forestry industry; to the forest-related benefits of wildlife habitat; recreation; and watershed protection. Approximately 1.3 billion feet of timber were harvested in Louisiana in 1979, some 200 plus million dollar value - and the impact of forestry is twenty times each dollar value. Trees are renewable resources, and their annual harvest accounts for 65 percent of the total agricultural income of this State. The forest products industry is the largest single manufacturing employer in the State. Interestingly, private non-industrial landowners own more than two-thirds of the total of the commercial forest land. Thus, forestry is Louisiana' largest single land use. At the same time, public hunting and recrea­tion are freely allowed on almost three-fourths of Louisiana's private

148

forest lands. Trees are a crop which must be planted, seeded or regen­erated; cared for, managed; protected from disease, insects and fire; harvested and marketed; and then the cycle begins again. It differs from other crops mainly in the length of time between planting and har­vesting. Forest owners own for profit, not for free public recreation.

Timberlands in Louisiana will retain that importance as number one crop if governmental intervention into the decisions of the forestry community, and restrictions on forest management, timber production, manufacturing and tranportation of timber and forest products are held to a minimum. If there is a need for social legislation to protect the ecology, there is an equally urgent need for the protection of the rights of private forest ownership. Suppose Albert Prevot had clearcut for a genuine reforestation of cottonwood and sycamore? Would the suit have been filed? Would the results have been the same? Section 404 expressly exempts normal farming operations and silviculture practices, the latter including clearcutting. What happens to Judge Scott's theory of the social legislation? Is it intended to prevent clearcut­ting for soybeans but not for reforestation? If so, is the soybean farmer a sort of second-class landowner?

Wetland Laws - The Role of the Private Forest Owner

The timber landowner already has enough local control-of-the- property problems of his own, without compounding the problems by fed­eral control of his property. While there are approximately 900,000 acres of forest land in Louisiana that are not subject to taxes, of which 600,000 acres are National Forest Land, there are almost 14 million acres of forest land that are taxed. Though the landowner receives no relief from ad valorem taxes, many forest owners are willing to make their lands available for public outdoor recreation. More than 1.6 million acres are open to the public. Add to that 1580 public parks and recreational sites in Louisiana, with more than 21 million acres being used for recreational opportunities, and you quickly understand that opportunity does exist for public outdoor recreation in this State. Far greater, in fact, than many people know, for the news stories in recent years could have the public to believe that practically all of our woods have been converted into soybean fields.

Unfortunately, private owners making their forest lands available for public outdoor recreation receive little in the way of benefits and much in the way of problems. Recent surveys conducted by the Louisiana Forestry Association show that while the landowner may tolerate public use of his land for recreation, he certainly does not wish to encourage any increase in the number of people using his land.

The reasons are simple. The threat of fires is always with us. Hunters are generally considered careful people who aid in keeping watch for fires, but there is always the slob hunter, who neither appre­ciated the opportunity to hunt nor exercises care in his use. If the

149

sport of hunting ever comes to an end, it will more likely be from the abuses of the slob hunter than the protests of the anti-hunter.Arson is a constant threat, perhaps by those who cannot hunt and subse­quently start fires in reprisal or in jealousy.

Some forest landowners have been subjected to harrassment and other related control-of-land problems by hunters who formerly used the land, then later lost use priveleges because crop rental of $50 per acre.When you think of hunter-landowner relationships, keep in mind that the Prevot case was filed by a sportmen's league, a hunting club, a fishing club, the National Wildlife Federation and the Environmental Defense Fund, against private forest landowners.

Lack of uniformity of trespass law from parish to parish, and lack of uniformity of enforcement of such laws as do exist, both by District Attorneys and Courts, have caused many a nightmare for forest landowners. Act 165 of 1975 (R.S. 9:2795) was enacted to encourage landowners to keep their land open for recreation, the intent of the law being to limit landowner liability, for legal liability is a very real problem.

In summary, it is difficult enough for the timber landowner to overcome arson, harrassment, trespass, vandalism and littering, without also enduring edicts from federal agencies who want to control his ownership, and from ecology extremists who will not work to buy and to own forest lands, but want to tell you how you must preserve it for them, that is wet, wild, and free.

Wetlands Laws - The Competition for Land Use

I have talked about the problem of conversion of timberland to agricultural cropland, but there are other conversions of great signi­ficance to all of us. Land is needed for forest products, food production, and animal production, but it is also needed for residential, commercial and industrial expansion, for highways and waterways and airports. There have been approximately 1.5 million acres of Louisiana woodland converted to cropland in the past ten years. However, the rate of woodland being cleared for agriculture uses has decreased dramatically in recent years.It is estimated that 60 to 75 percent of the 1.5 million acres cleared in the last ten years were cleared before 1975. Several reasons exist:(1) the better land was cleared earlier; (2) the cost of clearing in­creased dramatically; (3) land now being cleared needs more costly drainage and improvement work; and (4) the environmental regulations becoming more restrictive. Thus, the rate of clearing woodland for agricultural purposes is expected to lessen.

On the other hand, prime timber and farmland is being lost to commercial usages in ever increasing amounts. On a national level, it is estimated that about 2.7 million crop acres are lost every year, or the equivalent of 320 acres per hour, four square miles per day. One- half million of these acres go to urbanization and development of public facilities; 2.2 million of these acres are converted to more extensive

150

uses as water reservoirs, grass, trees, and concrete. Moreover, some land is left idle because of unsuitable terrain for modern machinery, small uneconomic fields, or soil fertility or drainage problems.

Against these losses are balanced an estimated 1.3 million acres converted into cropland or added to this nation’s cropland base through expanded irrigation, better drainage, landclearlng, and development of dryland farming. We face, then a net loss of 1.4 trillion acres of crop­land each year in this country. Xt should not be difficult to comprehend that, though there may not be an immediate crisis in the national farm­land situation, the time will come in the future when continued conversion from productive agricultural to non-agricultural uses will become a matter of great importance to this country, and to the world. Production restraints and a volatile export market add greatly to the uncertainty, at a time when world population and the demand for food continues to grow larger.

Of concern, also, is the uncertainty created by these wetland regulations upon tree farms and agricultural crop development, and upon the future value of undeveloped land. Major farm money-lending institutions, such as the Federal Land Bank, have been very disturbed by the feeling of frustration in the development of forest and agri­cultural lands needed to increase production in this country. The requirement of various permits, which may or may not be issued, unne­cessarily infringes upon the rights of landowners to use their forests, or their already cleared cropland, in a more productive manner, and has a needlessly adverse effect on their property rights. The activities of regulatory agencies also has an adverse effect upon the extension of agricultural credit, since it is practically impossible to determine with certainty the value of undeveloped or under developed lands, since one cannot be sure whether the projected land development activities will be authorized. Thus, these problems directly affect the ability of the lending institutions to provide credit to tree farmers and crop farmers. Many farm loans are not being made now, and will not be in the future so long as the wetland laws continue to create uncertainty in land use.

Ironically, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Council on Environmental Quality, on January 16th, 1981, called for a national commitment to be carried out by local governments, to protect farmland from development pressures. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing! Maybe they should consult with the EPA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. I quote Bob Bergland, former Secretary of Agriculture:

"The irreversible conversion of agricultural land to other uses could become a significant national problem over the next twenty years — the suggestions presume that doctrine of local control."

151

An ongoing eight month, $2.2 million study by the National Agricultural Lands Committee, identified several dozen federal programs that contribute to loss of timber and farmland, but only two with poli­cies to protect it. For years, Americans took their abundance of land for granted, because of crop surpluses, but an estimated 23 million acres of forests and farmland were converted to other uses from 1967 to1975. Farmers may need to plant between 68 million and 142 million acres by the year 2000 to meet domestic and foreign food and wood re­quirements and demands for alcohol fuel and energy fuel ( ). If productive land losses continue at the present rate, the following projections can be made for the year 2000:

(1) All food produced in the United States will be consumed here;

(2) Consumer prices will increase - real price increases, not inflationary ones;

(3) Food exports will no longer be available to offset massive trade deficits, such as payment for foreign oil; and

(4) The people of other nations will be on their own for food supplies and chaos and lawlessness will accompany starvation.

The pressure will encourage tree farming and crop farming on less suitable land, wetlands. What then will happen to the wetland social legislation? Sooner or later people will realize that it is far worse to let land set idle than to make it productive. Does it not make more sense to consider prohibition against letting lands remain idle than it does to prohibit making it more productive? Why should the owner of bottomland hardwoods be forced to leave it forever in woods, without compensation, and have his neighbor with upland forests be free to do as he chooses with his land?

Equitable Solutions

There is a desperate need for balance between the competing demands for woodland, and a desperate need to return to common sense. Wetland laws are a breakdown in common sense. I wish to make several suggestions

(1) The decision concerning the use of private property should be left to the person who paid for it. Some woodlands should never be destroyed - nature intended it for wildlife habitat. The average land­owner can look at his land and tell which portions are too risky for dependable tree or crop production and are better intended for wildlife. Have you ever seen water hyacinth growing on dry ground? No expert ever mentioned that species as a wetlands indicator in the Prevot case. It should not take a three-element scientific study of each acre to tell whether a piece of ground is a wetland, when common sense tells you that if you have to drain it to use it, and protect it from flooding again, it probably should not be cleared in the first place. Conversion of true wetlands is neither good farming nor good sense. It should not require a team of scientists to tell you where the transition zone ends,

152

and they won't agree among themselves anyway. We need practical, non­technical interpretations and applications of the wetland laws.

The landowner should be able to decide whether there are other legitimate uses of his property than wildlife habitat. Most lardowners will cooperate, for their interests coincide with a sensible applica­tion of wetlands conservation. They will be the most staunch and dependable proponents of sensible regulations.

(2) A sense of fairness should prevail. If woodland is a true wetland, and vital to the national interests that allegedly Congress intended, then all of the people benefitting from it should share in paying fair market value for the acquisition of that land. It is uncon­scionable to me that my tax money goes to the federal government, is given to the EPA, and then used to fight me, and to restrict my land use. The role of the landowners in the wetlands litigation thus far has been to pay for defense of the principles of private ownership, to suffer and to bear the burden of a national problem. Deepest thanks should go to the Louisiana Forestry Association, the National Forest Products Association, the American Paper Institute, the Louisiana Landowners Association, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and the Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., all intervenors, for sharing of these burdens.

(3) There is a need for tax incentives if the private landowner is to be induced voluntarily to keep his property in wildlife habitat.An income tax deduction, as a gift from the American people, would be in order. Perhaps the approach should be to estimate the value of the net profit that would have been gained by draining and clearing, then determine the value per acre or per year to maintain it at wetlands and deduct the difference. Perhaps an approach would be to have the wetland separately assessed thus collecting fewer tax dollars fromthat land, and shift the tax burden to others who are the beneficiaries. Perhaps tax rebates, or tax credits, would be an equitable answer. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota enacted a wetland tax credit program in 1979, and the act eliminates all property tax on wetlands which have potential for agricultural development. Additionally, it grants a tax credit for each acre of wetland that is preserved by agree­ments are for one-year terms, and are renewable.

The waterbank programs presently in use in some states, in experimental form, are another approach. Landowners are induced to keep wildlife habitat intact by receiving payment for land which could be drained and farmed, but which they agree to keep in natural condition for ten-year periods. The financial inducements are nominal, but are at least better than an EPA designation as wetlands and a taking with­out compensation.

(4) There are today fewer incentives to practice good forestry management, when the forest owner has to not only combat arson, harrass­ment, trespass, vandalism, and littering, but also to combat his own government and citizens who want his land wild, wet, and free.

153

As much as I abhor and am inherently opposed to more regulations,I believe that state laws and local police jury ordinances (not federal regulations) should require that no woodland be cleared within a certain minimum distance of permanent waterbodies. I suggest a buffer zone adjoining all permanent waters, which would serve to provide the edge effect, upon which wildlife survives; filter areas of rain runoff, her­bicides and pesticides; and recharge and purify ground water; as well as preserve the soil itself. This is an old and recognized practice of soil conservation long recommended by soil scientists and the Soil Conservation Service, and so often ignored or forgotten in modern agricultural practices. I do not propose public use, and this is not an Atchafalaya Basin green belt recommendation, but rather a return to common sense that every landowner can practice on his own private pro­perty. I know of no landowner who would not be better off if he had wildlife in abundance on his property.

(5) I would like to see more articles in the news about landowners implementing Third Forest Programs as well as articles about the net gains of forest land. Have you seen articles on that subject? Certainly not front page news, I am sure. Yet, every day some non-landowner ecologist is condemning a landowner for soybean clearing - always front page news. We should educate others on the objective of a balance be­tween the needs of wildlife, clean water, outdoor recreation, and the needs of food and fiber for life of mankind. The environmental quality of life includes the survival of man.

Just as the pendulum has begun to swing back from the extremism of protecting the rights of the criminal while ignoring the victim of crime, so also will the pendulum swing back from the wet, wild, and free philosophy, to once again to preserving the principles of private owner­ship of property. I have confidence that if the decisions concerning preserving the ecology were to be left unregulated by federal agencies, private landowners would quickly balance those needs in the light of good judgment, and do very well for this country we live in, in spite of, and not because of, federal regulatory agencies.

I read an article recently about the Reagan administration rescinding the controversial bilingual education rules which would have cost local school districts staggering sums of money, and altered the purpose and nature of public education. Secretary of Education Terrel Bell said the bilingual rules were being junked because they "...are harsh, inflex­ible, burdensome, unworkable and incredibly costly." The same can be said for many other well-intentioned federal rules and regulations. I hope the administration uses the same standards of value in reconsidering the wetland laws.

I close with one final quote concerning the theme of all I have said to you today, that property has no rights, owners do. It is from an article by William Safire, well-known and widely read journalist, written only a few days ago:

154

"John Locke, the philosopher of political democracy, had a fairly good idea of why people formed governments:To protect 'life, liberty, and property.' A disciple of his,Thomas Jefferson, thought he would give that phrase an inspirational lift, and our Declaration of Independence hails 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' That euphemism started the problem.

Protecting a person's rights to his property - to use or to sell or bequeath as he alone sees fit, and thereby to pursue his happiness - is not the same as vesting anybody else with the rights to that same property and spreading the happiness around.

Property is not a dirty word. Property rights are not to be scorned as the rights of the rich.

One fault lies in the term property rights - property has no rights. People own property - a bank account, a house, a welfare check, a closet full of flapjacks - and have the right to do whatever they want with whatever they own. That is part of their personal freedom. For generations, these rights of equity have been eroded in the name of fairness. Soon, an owner's rights will be recognized as a chunk of freedom that government is formed to protect rather than attack. Not so much as life or liberty, perhaps, but as Locke would suggest — as much as 'the pursuit of happiness'."

LITERATURE CITED

EARLES, JACQUELINE M. 1975. Forest statistics for Louisiana parishes.USDA For. Serv. Res. Bull. S0-52. 85 p.

STONE, MARVIN. 1981. A nation of thieves. U.S. News and World Report.March 23. p. 84.

DISCUSSION

Question: Anonymous

Mr. Dupuy:

In reference to the method of land clearing that farmers use on their soybean fields, I'm wondering how they can effectively plant and cultivate a crop with all the stumps left in the field?

Since the stumps will rot, the use of a very heavy disc behind a dozer after a period of one year will remove them. This is a standard technique.

155

PART IV APPENDIX

Author Index to Papers Presented at

the Twenty-first through the Thirtieth

Annual LSU Forestry Symposia 1972-1981

ADAMS, STANFORD M. 1977. Pressures from environmental organizations. Symp. 26:129-139.

ALEXANDER, DONALD S. 1974. The computer as a forest management tool. Symp. 23:169-180.

ALLEN, R.H. 1972. Class action suits in the timber industry. Symp. 21 95-108.

ALTMAN, JAMES A., and DONALD M. TUFTS. 1972. Safety in the southern woods— the proper way is the safe way. Symp. 21:65-73.

AMIDON, ELLIOT L. 1974. Computer mapping in forest resource management. Symp. 23:41-57.

ANDERSON, WALTER C. 1973. The third forest— what's it worth? Symp. 22:13-19.

ANDERSON,WALTER C. 1976. Time study methods in forestry. Symp. 25: 125-129.

ARNEY, JAMES D. 1974. Stand simulators— the forester's tool. Symp. 23:59-72.

BAUMGARTNER, WALTER. 1979. Private campgrounds: social and technological change. Symp. 28:93-96.

BERGER, FRED. 1972. Training the southern forest worker. Symp. 21: 123-129.

BLAIR, ROGER L. 1975. Exploiting natural variation through genetic selection. Symp. 24:35-45.

BOND, F. LEROY. 1978. National forest for energy production. Symp. 27:22-28.

BOX, BENTON H. 1973. The role of the Southern Forest Resource Council Symp. 22:53-57.

BRUCKNER, ARTHUR,II. 1976. Break-even payoff life and time value. Symp. 25:113-123.

BRYANT, RALPH C., JR. 1977. State forestry practices acts. Symp. 26: 67-77.

159

160

BURHAM, HUGH M. 1974. Buying computer time for forest enterprises. Symp. 23:181-187.

BURNS, JOE D. 1973. Louisiana's Third Forest— a state forestry association approach. Symp. 22:59-64.

CARLSON, CURTIS E., JR. 1978. Renewable resources in the national energy program. Symp. 27:5-12.

CHRISTIANSEN, NEILS B. 1974. Linear programming as a decision tool. Symp. 23:151-168.

CLIPPERT, GEORGE H. 1972. Public liability of southern forest owners. Symp. 21:85-92.

COCHRAN, BILLY J., and ELVIN T. CHOONG. 1978. Energy content of plant material. Symp. 27:37-50.

CONDRELL, WILLIAM K. 1976. Timber and federal income taxes-status of capital gains law. Symp. 25:155-163.

CONNAUGHTON, CHARLES A. 1973. The general public and forest resource management. Symp. 22:41-49.

CORDELL, H. KEN. 1979. The status and future of outdoor recreation on the South's private forests. Symp. 28:5-31.

CORLEY, JOHN H. 1972. Motor vehicle liability insurance on pulpwood trucks in northern Louisiana. Symp. 21:145-146.

COTHREN, VIRGIL W. 1973. The role of individual companies. Symp. 22: 65-71.

COUNTRYMAN, DAVID W. 1974. Gaming-simulation: a technique in natural resource management. Symp. 23:135-150.

CROW, A. BIGLER. 1976. Welcoming remarks. Symp. 25:3-4.

DINUS, RONALD J. 1975. Consolidating genetic gains through research and development: a summary. Symp. 24:239-243.

DUERR, WILLIAM A. 1976. Seven pillars of wisdom in forestry economics. Symp. 25:5-16.

DUPUY, MARC, JR. 1981. Timber landowners view of the wetlands issue. Symp. 30: 135-155.

DUTROW, GEORGE F. 1976. Demand and supply— economic theory applied to forest resources. Symp. 25:39-51.

FINISON, B. F., and DINNIE F. LAMBERT. 1977. Forest management on national forests. Symp. 26:5-12.

161

FOIL, R. RODNEY. 1973. Action by the forestry schools in the Third Forest effort. Symp. 22:81-88.

FORTSON, JAMES C. 1974. An introduction to "Computerese." Symp. 23: 3-9.

FRANKLIN, E. CARLYLE. 1975. Strategies for genetic gains in advanced generations of forest tree breeding. Symp. 24:147-159.

FREDRICKSON, LEIGH H. 1980. Impact of water management on the resources of lowland hardwood forests. Symp. 29:51-64.

GLADSTONE, WILLIAM T. 1975. Tree improvement programs of forest industries. Symp. 24:65-73.

GODDARD, R. E. 1975. The impact of tree improvement on forest management in the South. Symp. 24:141-143.

GOSSELINK, JAMES G., W. H. CONNER, J. W. DAY, JR.,and R. E. TURNER.1981. Classification of wetland resources: land, timber and ecology. Symp. 30:28-48.

GUNN, CLARE A. 1979. Tourism-recreation: concepts for assessing potential in forested regions. Symp. 28:33-58.

HALLS, LOWELL K., and HERMAN L. HOLBROOK. 1980. Wildlife management on southern national forests. Symp. 29:33-40.

HANNA, W. H. 1981. Potential site disturbance from harvesting timber in wetlands. Symp. 30:92-96.

HARRIS, LARRY D., DAVID H. HIRTH, and WAYNE R. MARION. 1979. Thedevelopment of silvicultural systems for wildlife. Symp. 28:65 81.

HARRIS, LARRY D., and PAMELA J. SKOOG. 1980. Some wildlife habitat- forestry relations in the southeastern coastal plain. Symp. 29: 103-119.

HEVEY, RICHARD T. 1972. Scheduled preventive maintenance programs. Symp. 21:19-32.

HOOK, DONAL D. 1981. Definition of wetlands. Symp. 30:5-26.

HOWLETT, C. T., JR., and ADRIEN GAMACHE. 1978. Forest energy for use by wood industries. Symp. 27:85-107.

HUGHES, JEFF D., JR. 1977. Wetlands protection regulations. Symp. 26: 103-116.

HUGHES, JEFF D., JR. 1980. Sociopolitical factors that affect hunter- landowner relationships. Symp. 29:10-16.

162

HUGHES, McDAVID. 1978. Estimating the above-ground biomass and itscomponent timber products of the southern forest. Symp. 27:62-84.

HURST, GEORGE A., and RANDY C. WARREN. 1980. Intensive pine plantation management and white-tailed deer habitat. Symp. 29:90-102.

IRLAND, LLOYD C. 1976. Determining the value of forests to communities and the general public: the case of southern bottomland hardwoods. Symp. 25:17-37.

JAGELS, RICHARD. 1978. Forest biomass for the competitive consumer. Symp. 27:108-120.

JOHNSON, ROBERT L. 1981. Wetland silvicultural systems. Symp. 30:63-79.

KELLISON, ROBERT C. 1975. Increasing the production of genetically improved planting stock. Symp. 24:179-187.

KINARD, F. W., JR. 1979. Concepts of leasing arrangements in industrial forestry. Symp. 28:61-63.

KLUENDER, RICHARD A. 1976. Other costs in timber production. Svmp 25:165-170.

KOCH, PETER. 1978. Six new machines and nine products can triple commodity recovery from southern forests. Symp. 27:132-158.

KOGER, RICHARD G., and TOMMY PATRICK. 1981. Economics and physicalconstraints relative to harvesting wetlands in the extreme eastern section of Georgia's coastal plain. Symp. 30:81-86.

KRAMER,PAUL R. 1973. The state forestry organization. Symp. 22:

KRAMER, PAUL R. 1977. Forest management by state forestry agencies. Symp. 26:13-20.

KRAUS, JOHN F. 1975. Seed orchards and progeny testing. Symp. 24: 47-55.

LAND, SAMUEL B., JR. 1975. Research challenges in hardwood tree improvement. Symp. 24:161-178.

LANTZ, CLARK W. 1975. Natural variation— raw material for genetic gain. Symp. 24:15-18.

LeBLANC, JOSEPH E., JR., MILLING, BENNSON, WOODWARD, HILLYER, PIERSON, and MILLER. 1981. Legal constraints to the use of wetlands in Louisiana. Symp. 30:113-124.

LEDIG, F. ™CMAS. 1975. Increasing the productivity of forest trees. Symp. 24:189-208.

163

LEWIS, J. HARRY. 1979. Recreation on streams and waterways. Symp. ,28:89-92.

LOWRY, S. TODD. 1976. Some perspectives on raw material costs in the forest industry. Symp. 25:53-65.

McELFRESH, ROBERT W., JACK M. INGLIS, and BENNETT A. BROWN. 1980.Gray squirrel usage of hardwood ravines within pine plantations. Symp. 29:79-89,

McKNIGHT, J. S. 1973. The Forest Service role in attaining Third Forest goals. Symp. 22:95-108.

MAISEL, D. S. 1978. Alternate feedstocks for organic chemicals.Symp. 27:13-21.

MARKS, RICHARD T. 1973. The Extention Service. Symp. 22:89-94.

MOORE, HAL. 1980. Forestry and wildlife management programs on Corps of Engineers lands. Symp. 29:45-47.

MORELAND, JOE A., M.D. 1972. Health hazards in southern woods operations. Symp. 21:75-83.

MOSER, JOHN W., JR. 1974. Information systems for forest resource management. Symp. 23:23-40.

MYERS, J. WALTER, JR. 1973. Problems, opportunities and resposibilities of nonindustrial forest landowners. Symp. 22:21-32.

NELSON, THOMAS C. 1977. A legislative landmark— the National Forest Management Act. Symp. 26:45-54.

NEWNHAM, R. M. 1974. A model for planning logging operations. Symp. 23:73-91.

NOBLE, R. E., R. B. HAMILTON, and W. C. McCOMB. 1980. Some effects of forestry on nongame birds. Symp. 29:65-78.

OSBORNE, MICHAEL. 1981. Wetland forestry and the 1972 Clean Water Act. Symp. 30:126-133.

0TTERBACH, PAUL J. 1974. Wood procurement decision guides. Symp. 23: 93-109.

PALERMO, RAY. 1980. Wildlife habitat and forest management on state- owned wildlife management areas. Symp. 29:41-44.

PETERS, LEWIS C. 1977. Forest management by forestry consultants.Symp. 26:33-41.

PETERSON, HOWARD W. 1972. The changing nature of the work force in southern forestry. Symp. 21:109-121.

164

PORTERFIELD, RICHARD L. 1975. Economic aspects of tree improvement programs. Symp. 24:99-117.

PRATER,J. DEAN. 1977. Forest management by forest industries. Symp. 26:21-32.

PRIEGEL, EARL R. 1981. Wetland harvesting systems. Symp. 30:88-90.

REY, MARK E. 1981. Federal regulatory constraints on timber harvesting in wetlands. Symp. 30:99-111.

REYNOLDS, HUGH W. 1974. Optimum sawing patterns for low-grade hardwoods. Symp. 23:119-134.

ROBINSON, ANDREW F., JR. 1980. The impact of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 on private landowners. Symp. 29:5-9.

ROBINSON, VERNON E. 1977. The Endangered Species Act. Symp. 26:117- 128.

ROLSTON, KENNETH S. 1972. Application and effect of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on southern forestry. Symp. 21:59-63.

RONAN, W. W. 1972. The job performance of pulpwood producers. Symp. 21:131-143.

ROSENE, WALTER, JR. 1979. Managing wildlife on hunting plantations. Symp. 28:83-87.

SCHILLINGS, PAUL L. 1972. Engineering research in forest mechanization. Symp. 21:13-17.

SCHOENIKE, ROLAND E. 1975. Tree improvement and the conservation of gene resources. Symp. 24:119-139.

SCHULTZ, ROBERT P. 1975. Managing genetically improved southern pines. Symp. 24:209-237.

SHROPSHIRE, FRANK. 1981. Land-use competition in wetlands, Symp 30:50-59.

SI_EGEL, WILLIAM C. 1980. Landowner liability law— implications for public use of private forest land. Symp. 29:17-24.

SILVERSIDES, C. R. 1973. The mechanization of timber harvesting.Symp. 21:33-46.

SIZEMORE, MARY H. 1976. Use valuation concept and application in ad valorem taxation. Symp. 25:131-143.

SMITH, WALTER E. 1975. The U.S. Forest Service tree improvement program in the South. Symp. 24:75-85.

165

ST.CLERGYCLYDE. 1976. Louisiana property tax under the new constitution. Symp. 25:145-154.

STEINBECK, KLAUS. 19.78. Intensively managed short rotation coppice forests. Symp. 27:123-131.

STERNITZKE, HERBERT S. 1973. The south's timber resources: status and trends. Symp. 22:5-11.

STEWART, CLYDE A. 1980. Forest-wildlife management programs onnational wildlife refuge lands in the southeast. Symp. 29:27-32.

STRICKLAND, J. R. 1972. Simulation as a tool for forestry decisions. Symp. 21:47-55.

SULLIVAN, ALFRED D. 1974. Garbage in/garbage out or the limations of computers. Symp. 23:11-21.

TEATE, J. LAMAR. 1979. Forest recreation in the South: is a change in philosophy necessary? Symp. 28:101-106.

THOMPSON, EMMETT F. 1976. Analyzing forest investments. Symp. 25:67-83.

THOR, EYVIND. 1975. Recognizing and utilizing genetic variation: asummary. Symp. 24:57-61.

TOWELL, WILLIAM E. 1977. Federal land use planning legislation.Symp. 26:55-66.

UHR, SELMER C. 1972. Engineering systems for intensive forestmanagement in an environmentally-oriented society. Symp. 21:5-12.

Van BUIJTENEN, J. P. 1975. Cooperative tree improvement programs— what do they do? how do they do it? Symp. 24:87-98.

WAKELEY, PHILIP C. 1975. Southern forest genetics before 1951. Symp. 24:3-12.

WALBRIDGE, T. A., and W. B. STUART. 1978. Future trends and research in timber harvesting. Symp. 27:166-170.

WALLINGER, R. SCOTT. 1973. Problems, opportunities and responsibilities of the forest products industry. Symp. 22:33-39.

WARREN, B. JACK. 1978. Recent advances in harvesting fiber for fuel. Symp. 27:159-165.

WELLS, G. R. 1976. Pricing forest products. Symp. 25:85-112.

WELLS, OSBORN 0. 1975. Geographic variation in southern tree species, Symp. 24:19-33.

166

WHITE, ZEBULON W. 1973. The role of forestry consultants. Symp. 22: 73-78.

WHITFIELD, LARRY. 1979. Rare II and eastern wilderness. Symp. 28: 97-100.

WHITTINGTON, JAMES A. 1974. Computer control in chip-n-saw operation. Symp. 23:111-118.

WILKINS, BERT. 1978. The role of a university in energy research and development. Symp. 27:29-33.

WIMBLE, ARTHUR W. 1977. Logging safety is motivating hundreds of loggers... one at a time. Symp. 26:79-86.

WINGER, HAROLD S. 1977. Water pollution control regulations. Symp. 26:89-102.

ZERBE, JOHN I. 1978. Forest resources for producing energy. Symp. 27:51-61.