State of Maine's Environment 2005
Header image  
An Environmental Assessment  
     
   

Conserving the North Woods: The Sustainability of Maine’s Forests and Timber Industry

Kristin R. Blodgett

 

Introduction

            The forests of Maine have special significance for residents of this state. With 90% of its land base covered in forests, Maine has the highest percentage of forest lands of any state in the country.1  With such extensive forest resources, it is clear why the state’s economy and a cultural heritage have been so greatly influenced by forest resources, and how Maine and its residents have come to place such a high value on the presence of the timber industry in this region. The State itself recognizes the importance of the industry to the future of Maine and is taking an active role in promoting the sustainability of the resource and the persistence of the industry.2  However, the pressures of globalization have catalyzed an evolution in the structure of the timber industry in recent years and the familiar face of timber in Maine is changing as a result of mechanization and modernization.3  The demands of global competition to improve efficiency and increase output, the expansion of development in the region due to the sale of large tracts of timberland to private owners, and changes in land use patterns are all factors that have contributed to the transformation of Maine’s traditional timber industry.

            In the face of all of these pressures, residents of Maine are concerned for the future of the forests in their state and what this could mean for the economy and their valuable natural resources. Fragmentation of timberlands due to development has been shown to have negative effects on the productivity and profitability of the timber industry, as will be seen in the example from New Hampshire. Given the current trends in Maine towards land sales, it appears that fragmentation and parcelization of the state’s timberlands are becoming increasingly present threats. In this chapter I explore the benefits and disadvantages of acquiring these timberlands, specifically the Maine North Woods region, for a national forest as a means of combating fragmentation and securing the futures of Maine’s forests and its timber industry.

            I begin the paper with a brief section on the history of the timber industry in Maine, and then transition into a discussion of the status of the timber industry in the economy today. I go on to discuss the concerns related to the current trends and patterns in the timber industry, and finally conclude with an exploration of national forests as an ownership model that could potentially provide a balance between the state’s conservation needs and its economic needs.

 

Context: Maine’s Traditional Model of Private Industrial Ownership

Historical Background

            The timber industry has had a profound and lasting influence on the intrinsic character of the state of Maine. The arrival of the first settlers to New England as early as the 1620’s introduced what would soon become the state’s most profitable industry.4  Lumbering, along with fishing, trapping, and shipbuilding, was such a successful industry at the time that agriculture was rarely practiced in the region.5  By the turn of the 18th century, people were already raising concerns about the sustainability of the forests under such harvesting pressures, but the industry continued to grow throughout the 1700’s.

In the years following the Revolutionary War, populations of settlers began to increase dramatically, and land conversion due to agriculture and unsustainable harvesting began to take its toll on timber supply in the early 1800’s.5  By mid-century over 30% of Maine’s forests had been logged, and with increased mechanization and the introduction of more efficient logging practices over the next half century, the early 1900’s saw the near elimination of all the original forests.4 

Another significant contributor to the massive wood supply shortage at this time was the poorly-timed and overwhelming onslaught of the spruce bud-worm which, between the years 1909 and 1918, killed 70% of all the spruce and fir stands in the state of Maine.5  In addition, any timber that was not already disease-ridden or previously logged was virtually decimated by a string of wildfires that swept through the region between 1904 and 1908.6  Thus, by the 1920’s the timber industry was severely suffering, and with timber such a scarce commodity, loggers were harvesting almost two times as much wood as was allowed to grow.

            The 1970’s found the timber industry somewhat recovered. The migration of the industry to the western states after the spruce bud-worm epidemic alleviated pressure on the devastated forests in the East and allowed timberlands to regenerate.6  Panic seized loggers again in this decade, however, with the return of the spruce bud-worm. This marked the beginning of the era of the clearcut, as loggers rushed to harvest the crop before it became infected. With timber supply and costs of harvesting increasing while consumer demand and market prices decreased, and the industry found itself in a slump once again.

The 1980’s brought a revival of the industry with the end of the bud-worm threat and new technology and modernization to forest products manufacturing.3  In 1989 the Maine Forest Practices Act was implemented as the initial attempt to promote sustainability within the industry by setting strict limits on clearcutting and imposing new requirements for reporting logging practices.6  The timber and pulp and products industries once again thrived in Maine, resuming their place as the foremost contributors to the state economy.

The decades following this recovery have been characterized by massive land sales as large parcels of timberlands have traded hands, first among large industrial owners and, more recently, to private non-commercial interests.3  While the timber industry continues to play a very significant role in the state’s economy and culture, there have been profound changes in manufacturing in recent years as globalization and world markets introduce worldwide competition.

 

The Economics of the Timber Industry

            Today there is a great deal of concern, both among the public and within the timber industry itself, that forestry in the state of Maine is failing. While the timber industry has undergone some significant changes in recent years, the Maine Forest Service maintains that it continues to make a significant contribution to the economy.7 Forest products manufacturing provides more than a third of total manufacturing gross state product for Maine, with paper manufacturing accounting for three quarters of all forest products revenue. (Table 1) 

 

Table 1. Revenue generated from manufacturing in forest products industry in Maine8

Manufacturing Sector

Revenue

(Millions of Dollars)

Percent

Wood products

$312

6.7%

Furniture and related products

$94

2.0%

Paper

$1,192

25.5%

Total forest products manufacturing

$1,598

34.2%

Total manufacturing in Maine

$4,671

100%

 

Interestingly, while Maine is the most heavily forested state in the nation, only a very small percentage of its vast forest lands are under federal ownership as national forests.9  While Maine has more forest cover than either Vermont or New Hampshire, Maine’s national forest lands account for less than one percent of its total land area compared to Vermont’s 8.5% and New Hampshire’s 15%.

 

 

Table 2. Extent of forest and national forest lands in Maine relative to Vermont and New Hampshire8, 10-14

State

Total Forest Land

National Forest Land

Acres

Percent

Acres

Percent

Maine

17.8 million

90%

53,006

.30%

Vermont

4.6 million

78%

392,577

8.53%

New Hampshire

4.8 million

84%

731,555

15.24%

 

VT%20map%20final

Figure 1. National forest lands in Vermont14

NH%20map%20final

Figure 2. National forest lands in New Hampshire13

 

ME%20map%20final

Figure 3. National forest lands in Maine12

 

The availability of Maine’s extensive forest resources has allowed the state’s timber industry to remain very competitive with other states in the region. However, in recent years the industry has had to expand its focus beyond a regional or even national scope; with global demand for forest products on the rise, Maine is now forced to compete with manufacturers from all over the world.3 

The evolution of the timber industry in the state over the last decade reflects this shift from local competition to global competition, as firms increase efficiency in an attempt to keep pace with global markets. Modernization in manufacturing in Maine has brought about a decline in employment in the forest products industry, although the volume of paper and lumber production is near record levels.7  Since 1992 employment in the forest products industry has been steadily declining. Between 1992 and 2003, the number of jobs fell from 26,785 to 19,333. Over 5,000 of those jobs were eliminated between 1997 and 2002, representing a 23% decline in the industry’s labor force. This trend is likely to continue as competition in the global market increases; the Maine Department of Labor predicts an overall decrease in manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010.7

            Despite a decline in employment in recent years, the industry has seen a substantial increase in the average wage. As firms downsize to increase production efficiency, the jobs that are retained require more skill and, thus, offer higher pay. Between the years 2000 and 2003, wages in the industry rose from $42,000 per year to more than $47,000 per year. Experts predict this pattern will persist as employment continues to decline.7

            While wages and employment have seen drastic fluctuations, the volume of production by paper mills and sawmills has maintained some stability. In fact, in conjunction with an increase in growth of the state’s timberlands, output of lumber has been steadily rising in Maine in recent years (Figure 4). Softwood production in the state has increased by 250% since 1975, while hardwood production has seen a 400% increase. Although there has been a slight decline in this upward trend since the year 2000, output levels are still hovering near record highs.7

 

Figure 4. The growth of forest and timber lands in Maine within the last decade15-18

 

The Future of Maine’s Forests: The State Takes Action

Because the Maine Woods represent a truly distinctive feature of the state’s historical and cultural identity and an important fixture in its economy, the State is taking significant steps to guarantee their longevity. However, it is a challenge to simultaneously protect and conserve these resources while continuing to utilize them for their economic value. Although conservation and resource extraction are two concepts that initially appear to be in conflict, the State is responding with the implementation of new forestry certification standards designed to both promote resource sustainability and advance the timber economy.

As a tool to ensure sustainable use, forest certification programs employ third party auditors to assess and evaluate the management of forest lands under standards of sustainability that are specific to each different program. While there are currently few economic incentives that come directly from the certification process, the State and commercial landowners recognize the public’s interest in protecting the future of Maine’s forests through ecologically conscious harvesting practices .19  Theoretically, then, the timber industry will benefit from higher revenues from certification as a result of consumer demand for sustainable forest products. In practice, however, this has not yet proven to be the case, and accounts for the voluntary nature of most certification programs.

In an effort to promote the practice of these sustainable management techniques in the timber industry, the State launched the Maine Forest Certification Initiative in 1993.2  The goals of this proposal were two-fold: to “increase the amount of certified forestland in Maine to at least 10 million acres by the end of 2007” and to “increase the volume of wood from certified sources to 60 percent of the statewide total by 2009”.20  As of 2003, Maine could boast a total of 7 million acres of certified forest land under both public and private ownership.20  Secondary goals of the Initiative included plans to increase the demand for certified forest products in Maine and the global market, and revise certification standards to more effectively promote sustainable forestry. By simultaneously addressing issues of sustainability and economy, these forest certification goals represent a critical link between resource conservation and resource use. They will certainly have implications for the future of the Maine woods.

The governor’s direct involvement in this issue demonstrates the degree to which forests are a priority for the state, and sustainability initiatives will no doubt improve future prospects for the Maine woods. However, with global competition exerting increasing pressure on the timber industry, the traditional Maine model of forest ownership and management is evolving. As it changes, there is doubt as to whether certification and sustainable use will be enough to adequately protect the resource.

 

Discussion

A Changing Industry

            While private industrial ownership of timberlands has been the model in Maine since the 1600’s, the changing nature of the timber industry both locally and globally begs this question: is this traditional model of ownership adequate to sustain the character of Maine’s forests and its timber industry into the future?  International competitors are transforming the tradition of lumbering in Maine such that lands once owned and managed by timber companies are being sold to non-industrial owners as the timber corporations abandon the industry.21  This incredible surge in the sale of timberlands to the “investor” class has come to characterize the last two decades of the life of the timber industry in Maine, causing concern in the state about the future of the land base and the valuable natural resources found on it.9  In just the last seven years, 3.5 million acres of industrial timberlands have changed hands.7  In fact, between the years 1995 and 2003, land ownership by members of the forest industry decreased by 1.6 million acres, while non-industrial private ownership increased by 1.9 million acres.22 (Figure 5) 

 

Figure 5. Changes in ownership of timberlands within the last decade15-18

 

As more land falls into the hands of non-industrial investment owners under whose management intact timberlands are not necessarily the priority, the public can no longer safely guarantee the persistence of its productive forests nor, subsequently, the survival of a healthy forest products industry. A study done in New Hampshire, conducted in 2001 by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire’s Forests (SPNHF), examines the various effects of fragmentation of timberlands on working forests and the timber industry.23  The results of their research have some interesting, and very relevant, implications for Maine’s current situation. The SPNHF found that New Hampshire is losing 13,000 acres of forest land every year due to population growth and land consumption per person. Fragmentation of timberlands is increasing, with a decline in average industrial parcel size from 114 acres in 1960 to only 37 acres in 1997. This decrease translates to higher costs of production in the timber and related products industries. First, it is not economical to manage small parcels of forest land for the long term because of the discrepancy between the cost of hiring a professional forester and the returns from the timberland. Second, stumpage prices were shown to be positively correlated to increasing parcel size, resulting in higher returns to the landowner for larger parcel sizes. Profitability is also compromised with a small parcel because transportation costs, equipment costs, operating costs, and communications costs are dramatically higher relative to revenue. Increasing rates of forest fragmentation also discourage timber companies from investing in smaller lots because of concerns about encroaching development in surrounding areas. This, known as the “abutter edge effect”, effectively reduces the amount of productive forest land available for timber harvesting.

            Thus, with New Hampshire as a case study, it becomes clear why forest fragmentation and parcelization can be very detrimental to the forest land base and the profitability of the timber industry. Under the current trend of land sales and fragmentation of timberlands in the North Woods, Maine could easily be moving in a similar direction. The concerns related above resonate loudly for Maine residents today as their forest lands, once protected under the ownership of industrial corporations, are now being parceled off and sold by private firms like Plum Creek, whose investment interests extend beyond timber production. Given the findings of the New Hampshire study, it is important for the people of Maine to carefully consider to whom they are entrusting the future of their forests. With the goal of preserving the state’s valuable forest resources and its long tradition of lumbering, employing an alternative to the traditional ownership model could be in Maine’s best interests.

            In the past, when timberlands were concentrated in the hands of industrial owners, there was no perceived need for forest conservation because timber companies both sustained the resource and offered free and unrestricted public access to the forests.24 Today, with dramatic changes in land ownership and growing threats of development, the need for a new model of forest conservation is increasingly evident.

National Forests

            Operating under a mandate that encompasses literally 100 years of Congressional legislation, the extensive responsibilities of the US Forest Service to protect and manage our national forests prove to be many and complex.25  Since 1905, when the Forest Service was established, goals for forest management have continued to evolve with our national priorities.26  Changes and amendments of management policies for national forests reflect this evolution, and are also indicative of the difficulties of keeping up with new management demands, economic strains, scientific research, and ecological concerns. Thus, maintaining national forest lands that are at once economically productive, environmentally sustainable, and ecologically balanced is a constant effort and, inevitably, a source of controversy. Although competing interests between the forest industry and environmental groups frequently conflict over issues of managing national forests, no one would disagree that some elements of the national forest system are very valuable. The following discussion explores the benefits and disadvantages of a national forest as a system that could more effectively balance resource protection and resource use than the traditional model, thereby securing the survival of both the forests and the timber industry in Maine.

Organization and Process

Any national forest established in the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the US Forest Service, a division of the Department of Agriculture.25  The Forest Service has the challenging responsibility of managing its lands under a multiple-use policy, striving to balance environmental quality and resource protection with human use and resource extraction. While its first priority is timber management, the Forest Service is also required to consider tourism, wildlife management, and research issues when formulating its management policies.27  Including all of these elements in management directives is important to maintaining a balanced ecosystem, but such a broad range of responsibilities makes it difficult to develop management strategies that will effectively protect each area of interest.

In the US today, national forest lands total about 191 million acres, which is approximately eight percent of the total land area of the US.28  There are currently 155 national forest units in the United States located in 44 different states and Puerto Rico, with additional lands proposed for acquisition all the time.29  The process for creating new national forests is a lengthy one and involves a number of onerous but necessary steps. First, the Forest Service enters into a purchase agreement with a landowner following the appraisal of the proposed property. Congress must approve this sale and allocate monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (refer to Land Acquisition chapter for more information) to finance the acquisition, which was established in 1965 using fees paid by oil companies for offshore drilling and was created expressly for the purpose of acquiring new federal lands.29  Then, once the proposal receives congressional approval, it must be formally accepted by the Forest Service. After this time deeds are prepared and payment is made. Because none of these phases of acquisition can be bypassed, the legal and administrative logistics of establishing new federal lands can restrict the timely realization of new acquisition plans. This translates to a long waiting period for valuable forest lands that are currently eligible for and in need of federal management and protection.

Land Management

            The first federal protection of forest lands dates back to 1891, at a time when concern about the rapid rate of deforestation prompted a congressional mandate to allow the creation of national forest reserves by the president.25  1897 brought the congressional implementation of management regulations for these reserves in an effort to more effectively manage these lands. Many of these regulations, created in the infancy of federal forestry policy, provided the basis for the guiding principles of today’s resource management under the Forest Service. One such piece of legislation was the Organic Administration Act of 1897. This law, along with the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, still comprises some of the most significant legislation guiding federal management of national forests (Table 3).30 

 

Table 2. Summary of important legislation governing national forest management25, 30

Year

Legislation

Mandate

1897

Organic Administration Act

Authorized the regulation and management of national forests by the Federal Government

1960

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

(1) Established guiding principles of forest management policy.

(2) Broadened management priorities for national forests to include natural resources other than timber (i.e. fish and wildlife, watershed areas, recreation lands, etc.).

1976

National Forest Management Act

(1)  Required Renewable Resource Assessments of national forest lands by the Forest Service. Assessments must be updated every 10 years.

(2) Forest management policies must be kept up-to-date based on the findings of the assessments.

(3) Each national forest unit must have its own individual  management plan

 

            The Organic Administration Act was the first law that mandated management of national forests by the federal government. The law stipulates that forests reserved and protected by the government must be controlled and regulated (Laws Handbook) because the simple act of acquiring those lands did not guarantee sound timber harvesting practices.25  While this Act established the need for the implementation of land management policies, more recent legislation explicitly outlines these specific current policies. The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 redefined both the purpose of national forests and the means by which they should be managed.30  The Act states that the administrators of these lands should consider outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and fish and wildlife as priorities for creating management policy. In addition, use of the resources within these protected areas should be guided by principles of multiple use, defined as “the management of all the renewable surface resources…to meet the needs of the American people”, and sustained yield, the “achievement and maintenance of a high-level regular output of the renewable resources…without impairment of the lands productivity”.30 

            The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), passed in 1976, is the most important legislation directing forest management policy for national forests (Law Handbook). The Act has three basic components, the first of which requires the Forest Service to compile a Renewable Resource Assessment of national forest lands every ten years. The second element of the Act mandates that the results of the assessment be used to revise the system’s management program, all while maintaining the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield. The third aspect of NFMA outlines directives for creating individual management plans for every unit within Forest Service jurisdiction. The law states that, in general, the management of national forests should take into account such contributing factors as timber, wildlife, and public recreation. Secondary regulations of the NFMA include specifications for timber harvesting and reforestation, which place a limit on the timber sales from each national forest unit at a quantity the forests can sustain every successive year. It also requires the government to provide the Forest Service with up to $30 million a year for purposes of reforestation of federal timberlands. In total, Congress provides $200 million annually to ensure that the regulations set forth in NMFA are being met.30

            The ultimate goal of the Forest Service is to allow human use of national forests while preserving the environment for the future. Thus, the underlying goal of all Forest Service management policy is the achievement of resource sustainability through multiple-use activities. Regulation of forest use according to this objective helps to guarantee the survival of the ecosystems and the resources for generations to come, and limits pressures on the land from development, land conversion, unsustainable harvests, and other concerns relevant to the private industrial ownership model.

            In addition, the extensive research and evaluation of national forest units required by Forest Service makes certain that management agencies are fully apprised of the health and condition of their lands and provides a strong scientific basis for designing management strategies for the future. As the “largest forestry research organization in the world,” the Forest Service sponsors and generates scientific research that is critical to furthering its goals of multiple-use and sustainability.31  Unfortunately, it can be difficult to guarantee that forest management strategies stay current with scientific data due to the legislative procedure involved in updating and amending management policy. The process of revising management plans can require as many as seven years to complete.28  Thus, while the Forest Service has access to abundant scientific feedback about the efficacy of its management practices, the availability of the information does not necessarily promise its immediate implementation.

Administration

            Legislation governing Forest Service policy has caused a great deal of controversy in the past as a result of the issue of “administrative discretion.”32  In a publication on administrative rulemaking, Martin Nie discusses how Congressional legislation provides only vague guidelines for forest management and creates confusion about the mission and goals of the Forest Service. Nie cites the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960) and the National Forest Management Act (1976) as examples of legislation that have placed responsibility for management decisions entirely in the hands of the Forest Service, which can cause serious conflict when any legal complaint is brought against the agency. Because the laws do not explicitly outline the Forest Service’s policies and practices as mandated by Congress, it is difficult for judges to make clear and decisive rulings due to the content of the legislation being altogether too flexible and vague. Nie argues that these litigation battles inhibit the ability of the Forest Service to act on policy changes in a timely manner but that they could be avoided if the legislation communicated clearer and more explicit directives from Congress.

Economy

            The ongoing discussion about the potential for economic growth through conservation raises questions about the economic implications of national forest lands for Maine. Given the role that the timber industry occupies in the state, it becomes important to address the ways in which the presence of a national forest might support local economies.

            One of the largest financial contributions that a national forest can make to a state economy after timber is tourism. While monies from recreational fees are retained by Forest Service to finance management programs and maintenance services, local restaurants and hotels in the areas around national forests benefit from the external source of revenue provided by tourists.33  The White Mountain National Forest, one of the most highly visited federal forests in the country, receives more than 6 million tourists ever year.34 

            National forests also support the local forest products industry through the sale and harvest of federally owned timber stands. Employing local foresters and lumber mills to conduct the harvest and the processing on national forest land generates revenues for the economy and promotes local industry and manufacturing.35  In addition to supporting these already existing local jobs, some say that the presence of a national forest will provide additional employment opportunities for local residents. However, one study by David Lewis disputes the notion that communities acquiring new conservation lands experience significant job growth as a result.36  On the other hand, based on research conducted throughout the 1990’s, Lewis’s study concluded that conservation lands have no negative effects on the availability of employment in surrounding communities.

            In addition to being concerned about job opportunities, many opponents of conservation are also wary of the effect of national forest lands on property taxes. Because federally owned land is not taxable by local governments, that land is removed from the tax rolls and is often seen as an additional cost to the community.35  To compensate for this burden on local residents and governments, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program was established in 1976 which mandates that federal funds be paid to local governments to help offset the costs of higher property taxes.37  Aside from these payments, there are cases in which the Forest Service will direct 25% of the revenues generated on national forest lands to local communities as additional compensation.29

 

Conclusion

            The forest products industry in Maine is undergoing a transformation. While it remains a prominent fixture of the state economy, the traditional structure is evolving. Globalization and competition have motivated modernization and new efficiencies that are permanently changing the industry, and with it, the landscape of the northern forests. Under current trends of rising land sales, increased parcelization, and greater development pressures, the future of the Maine North Woods is uncertain. Historically, Maine residents relied on timber companies to conserve and protect their vast tracts of forests and the public’s free access to that land, but this traditional model is changing with the gradual but persistent withdrawal of those timber companies from the North Woods region. As was demonstrated by the example from New Hampshire, the fragmentation of timberlands has detrimental effects on the profitability and productivity of the timber industry. Thus, with changing trends in land ownership away from the industrial class and towards the investor class, Maine must begin to look to a new model of forest ownership that will simultaneously protect the forest land base and promote the timber industry.

            This review discusses the national forest model as a potential alternative strategy for timberland ownership that could promote both Maine’s goals of securing the timber industry and its natural forest resources. It outlines some of the benefits and disadvantages that national forests bring to local communities. The national forest model is one that strives to reconcile resource conservation with resource extraction by maintaining ecologically balanced forest ecosystems while also supporting the timber industry, a notion that holds promising potential for the Maine North Woods. However, challenges of federal ownership, legislative and administrative process, and policy disputes are disincentives to support the application of this model in Maine. Perhaps the establishment of a state forest would be a more effective alternative, limiting some of the difficulties that arise as a result of federal land ownership. Perhaps conservation easements would be a more practical route, allowing landowners to maintain timber rights while protecting the land from development. However, the national forest model is one that has been effective at balancing conservation with industry in other states, and it is a model that Maine should consider for the future of the North Woods. By exploring methods that are both economically and environmentally sustainable, Maine can begin to pursue the strategies that will guarantee the survival of its timber industry and its forests far into the future.

 

 Literature Cited

 

1Andrew J. Plantinga, Thomas Mauldin and Ralph J. Alig, "Land use in Maine: determinants of past trends and projections of future changes", in US Department of Agriculture, ed.1999).

2Maine Forest Service, "Maine Forest Certification Initiative", in 2005).

3Lloyd C. Irland, "Maine's Forest Industry From One Era to Another." in, Changing Maine 1960-2010 (Gardiner, ME, 2004).

4Christopher McGregory Klyza and Stephen C. Trombulak, eds., The Future of the Northern Forest (Hanover, NH, 1994).

5Philip T. Coolidge, History of the Maine Woods. (Bangor, ME, 1963).

6David Dobbs and Richard Ober, The Northern Forest. (White River Junction, VT, 1995).

7Maine Forest Service, "Maine Forest Futures Economy Project", in 2005).

8North East State Foresters Association, "The Economic Importance of Maine's Forests", in 2004).

9USDA Forest Service and Maine Forest Service, "Northeastern Forest Initiative and Analysis", in 2003).

10North East State Foresters Association, "The Economic Importance of Vermont's Forests", in 2004).

11North East State Foresters Association, "The Economic Importance of New Hampshire's Forests", in 2004).

12Office of GIS, "Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems", in 2005).

13University of New Hampshire, "The New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System", in 2005).

14VCGI, "Vermont Center for Geographic Information", in 2005).

15Douglas M. Griffith and Kenneth M. Laustsen, "Second Annual Inventory Report on Maine's Forests", in US Department of Agriculture and Maine Department of Conservation, eds.2001).

16Douglas M. Griffith and Kenneth M. Laustsen, "Third Annual Report on Maine's Forests", in US Department of Agriculture and Maine Department of Conservation, eds.2002).

17Douglas M. Griffith, Kenneth M. Laustsen and James R. Steinman, "Fourth Annual Inventory Report on Maine's Forests", in US Department of Agriculture and Maine Department of Conservation, eds.2003).

18Maine Forest Service, "Report of the 1999 Annual Inventory of Maine's Forests", in Department of Conservation, ed.2000).

19Karen Arabas and Joe Bowersox, eds., Forest Futures: science, politics, and policy for the next century (Lanham, MD, 2004).

20Maine Department of Forestry, "Maine Forest Certification Initiative", in 2003).

21Emily Bateson and Nancy Smith, "Making It Happen: Protecting Wilderness on the Ground", in, Designing a Northeastern System of Wildlands.

22Maine Forest Service, "Fourth Annual Inventory Report on Maine's Forests", in 2003).

23Sarah Thorne and Dan Sundquist, "New Hampshire's Vanishing Forests: Conversion, Fragmentation, and Parcelization of Forests in the Granite State"  (2001).

24Page Stegner, "Fate of the Northeast Kingdom", National Parks 64 (1990).

25David Clary, Timber and the Forest Service (Lawrence, Kansas, 1986).

26Harold K. Steen, The US Forest Service: A History (Seattle and London, 1976).

27USDA Forest Service, "About Us-Meet the Forest Service", in 2004).

28US Congress: House of Representatives, "National Forest Management Planning Regulations", in Committee on Agriculture, ed.2005).

29USDA Forest Service, "Lands and Realty Management", in 2005).

30Ruth Shippen Musgrave, Judy Flynn-Obrien, Pam Lambert and Andrew Smith, "Federal Wildlife & Related Laws Handbook", in  (Albuquerque, NM.

31USDA Forest Service, "Research and Development", in 2005).

32Martin Nie, "Administrative Rulemaking and Public Lands Conflict: The Forest Service's Roadless Rule", Natural Resources Journal 44 (2004).

33US Department of the Interior, "Fee Demo Program Improves Visitor Facilities and Services at National Recreation Sites", in 2004).

34USDA Forest Service, "White Mountain National Forest", in 2005).

35Kimberly Royar, in  (Springfield, VT, December 19, 2005).

36David J. Lewis, Gary L. Hunt and Andrew J. Plantinga, "Public Conservation Land and Employment Growth in the Northern Forest Region", Land Economics 78 (2002): 245-259.

 

 

 

State of Maine's Environment, Colby College, Environmental Studies Program
Content by Students in ES493: Environmental Policy Practicum
Philip Nyhus, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies
5358 Mayflower Hill, Waterville, ME 04901 USA; Email Us