Historically, forests dominated the Ohio landscape, covering more than 95 percent of the land area in the middle 1700s. During the subsequent 200 years, however, most of that forest land was converted to other land uses, particularly agriculture. By the early 1940s forests occupied only slightly more than 10 percent of the state. Since then, forest acreage has steadily increased. Today, 30 percent of Ohio, or 7.9 million acres, is forested. The majority of this forestland is located in the eastern and southern unglaciated region of Ohio. As a result, much of Ohio’s forest products industry and forest-related uses are found there.
Because of its geography and geological history, including four glaciations, Ohio’s forests contain a rich diversity of tree species and associated plants and animals. More than 300 different tree and shrub species have been found in Ohio, and several endangered species of plants and animals inhabit the forest. More than 20 commercially important tree species are abundant in Ohio, including many economically valuable hardwoods species such as black cherry, sugar maple, black walnut, white ash, and red oak. The oaks, as a group, are the most common forest tree species, and are the predominant species in more than 70 percent of Ohio forests.
7.6 million of Ohio’s 7.9 million acres of forest land are classified as timberland (forests capable of producing a crop of wood). The remaining 300,000 acres includes urban, reserved, and unproductive forests and Christmas tree plantations. More than 93 percent of Ohio’s timberland is privately owned, with timber industry owning 2.3 percent, other corporations 11.3 percent, and non-industrial private landowners 79.6 percent. The remaining 7 percent is publicly owned (national, state, regional, and local government).
The forests of Ohio, like those of most eastern states, are owned primarily by private landowners. More than 329,000 private landowners own 7.2 million acres, or 93 percent, of Ohio’s forest land. Most of these ownerships are small, averaging twenty-two acres. More than half of the owners own less than 10 acres, and collectively they control less than ten percent of the forest land. By contrast, 38,000 forest landowners, less than 12 percent of the total, collectively control more than 55 percent of Ohio’s forest land (4 million acres). Only 200 Ohio forest landowners own more than a thousand acres. Mirroring the distribution of all forest land in Ohio, 62 percent of the privately owned forest land is in the southeastern 28 counties.
Ohio’s industries are a relatively small but important part of this private forest ownership, with forest industries owning slightly more than 2 percent (>175,000 acres) and non-forest industries slightly more than 11 percent (>850,000 acres) of Ohio’s forest land. The intensity and objectives of management on these industry-owned forests varies widely, reflecting the corporate interest of the individual industries. The production of forest products is unquestionably a primary management objective on forest land owned by forest industries along with some of the non-forest industries. Modern forest management and corporate social responsibility, however, have resulted in most managed industry forest land producing a wide variety of benefits to Ohio citizens and guests including scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and the protection of solid and water resources.
Non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners are the largest group of private forest landowners in Ohio, collectively controlling seventy-nine percent of the total forest land (more than 6 million acres). Slightly less than one-third of this group are farmers; a substantial proportion of the remaining two-thirds are absentee landowners. Only a relatively small proportion of NIPF landowners view their forests as a valuable resource. Most have poorly defined forest ownership objectives, and few have a formal management plan. Studies throughout the Northeastern United States indicate that less than ten percent of the NIPF landowners have a written management plan and less than 20 percent ever engage the services of a professional forester, even when selling timber.
NIPF landowners who view their forest land as a valuable resources and actively manage it do so for a wide variety of reasons – most frequently to enhance wildlife habitat, to preserve or enhance scenic value, to enhance recreation opportunities, and to produce forest products. The production of forest products is not commonly a primary management objective of NIPF landowners, though a substantial proportion have historically viewed timber harvesting as an acceptable practice to achieve their management objectives. There are also, however a substantial number for whom some or all forms of timber harvesting are unacceptable.
Ohio’s private forest lands are not only a valuable resource for their owners, but are an extremely important resource for the forest industry and citizenry of Ohio. Ohio’s forest industry is an extremely important segment of Ohio’s economy, particularly in the eastern and southern portions of the state, producing close to $9 billion in forest products, employing more than 60,000 people, and generating $1.2 billion in annual employee wages. Between 3000 and 500 million board feet of wood are cut from Ohio’s forests each year to produce an endless list of paper and wood products. As future demand for forest products increase and to the extent the availability of public forest land for timber harvesting is reduced, private forest land will increasingly be depended upon to meet the demand.
At the same time, the recognition of and demand for non-timber uses and benefits from Ohio’s forest land has and will no doubt continue to increase well into the next century. As populations have increased and citizens become more affluent, educated and mobile, environmental and non-commodity forest benefits have become more important. Citizens are increasingly more interested in the forest producing such benefits as protecting soil and water quality, providing wildlife habitat, enhancing recreational opportunities, providing scenic beauty, renewing and maintaining species diversity, and sequestering carbon. While many of these benefits could be termed “quality of life” benefits, several unquestionably have direct economic impact. Though hard to quantify, there can be little doubt that the scenic beauty of Ohio’s forests provides an important element supporting Ohio’s multi-million dollar outdoor recreation industry. Similarly, the role of Ohio’s forest in maintaining water quality by reducing soil erosion also has direct economic impact - less cost for stream maintenance and water processing for domestic and industrial use. Ohio’s privately owned forest, constituting over ninety percent of the total forest land, provide a major portion of these non-commodity forest benefits to Ohio’s citizens and guests.
The character of Ohio’s forest ownership pattern, with more than ninety percent under the control of and subject to the interest, motivation, and land-use objectives of more than 329,000 private landowners, creates tremendous challenges and opportunities to everyone interested in promoting and developing good stewardship of Ohio’s forest.
Providing the information and assistance needed by private forest landowners to effectively manage their land. A recent study of Ohio Certified Tree Farmers identified “lack of information” as the second most important factor limiting their forest management decisions. Certainly effective educational and assistance programs already exist through Ohio State University Extension, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry, Ohio Forestry Association, the Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation, along with other agencies and organizations. The challenge is to strengthen and expand the successful existing programs, and develop new and innovative programs that will meet the needs of a wider variety of forest landowner interests. Implicit in such an effort is the commitment of additional financial and human resources.
Strengthening existing programs and developing new and innovative programs that will motivate better stewardship of Ohio’s forest lands currently receiving little or no management. Certainly the expansion of education and assistance programs, as discussed above, can play a major role in developing interest in good forest land management. Undoubtedly, many indifferent private forest landowners are also limited in their forest management activities by a lack of information or assistance. Beyond that, however, there is often a need for tangible incentives. Past policy to motivate forest landowner stewardship on private land has depended heavily on governmental subsidies, including such programs as property tax reduction for managed forest land (Ohio’s Forest Tax Law, CAUV Program), tree seedlings at subsidized prices to encourage reforestation, technical forest land management assistance at no direct cost to private woodland owners (Service Forestry Program, Forest Stewardship Program), and federal cost sharing programs on a variety of beneficial forest practices (e.g. ACP, FIP, SIP, CRP, CREP). Unfortunately current programs, while seemingly well conceived and executed, reach only a small proportion of Ohio’s private forest landowners.
Providing a strong, dependable economic environment that will motivate forest landowners interested in economic return from their forests to actively manage their land. Consumer demand for furniture, cabinets, and other products manufactured from high quality hardwoods has, in recent years, created a tremendous demand for Ohio’s quality hardwood trees. Current markets are excellent; current prices are high. Such conditions often result in landowners liquidating their high value trees “while the market is good”, while retaining the poorer quality, economically less valuable ones. For the individual forest, such “high-grading” results in a future forest composed of large, poor quality economically low value trees. For Ohio’s forest resource as a whole, the long-term result of such “high-grading” has been the gradual decrease in the quality and economic value of much of Ohio’s timber resource. The challenge of reversing this trend must be met if Ohio’s forests are to continue to be an important economic resource for their owners and provide a resource base to important segments of the state’s vital forest products industry. In addition, when forest management as a financial investment is viewed from as long-term investment, private forest landowners are often discouraged by the often confiscatory nature of estate taxes.
Protecting the “private rights” of private forest landowners while, at the same time, enhancing the “public good” their forests provide. Traditionally, private forest land ownership objectives have been the sole prerogative of the individual forest landowner, as a “private right” of ownership, provided they did not interfere with the rights of another or the “public good.” It has been necessary, on occasion, to regulate or restrict certain activities on private forest lands, as in the Agricultural Pollution Abatement Law (Am.Sub.H.B. 88-1991), which includes the voluntary regulation of certain logging practices in order to protect soil and water resources. However, excessive restriction of their “private rights” to develop and implement effective forest management practices on their land is of paramount concern to private forest landowners in Ohio and nationally. Critical to the development of future effective regulations or restriction will be continued recognition of the importance of those “private rights”, and the ability to delineate the “public good” from the desires of narrow but vocal special interest groups. And, central to that issue is the recognition that everyone will not agree on the definition of good forest stewardship. The citizens of Ohio hold widely divergent views concerning how forests should be managed, ranging from those that would value the forest primarily for its value in providing raw materials for the forest products industry to those who would ban timber harvesting completely and value the forest only for non-consumptive uses and benefits. Most Ohio citizens would fall somewhere in between these two extreme views, recognizing (a) the importance of managing forests to provide the needed mix of products and benefits required by society, and (b) the fact that all forests need not be managed by different strategies to produce distinctly different mixes of products and benefits.
Ohio’s State Forests, managed by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, are an important public resource, though the majority of Ohioans are unaware of their existence. As in many northeast states, Ohio’s state forest lands represent a small percentage of the total forest resource. Since 1916 when the legislature responded to the loss and abuse of Ohio’s forests by authorizing the first purchases of state forest land at Waterloo (Athens County) and Dean (Lawrence County) forests, the state forest system has grown to 183,250 acres on 20 separate forest areas. With most located in southeastern and southern Ohio, they range in size from 63,253 acres (Shawnee Forest) to 320 acres (Gifford Forest). This is approximately 2.3 percent of Ohio’s 7.6 million acres of timberland.
The legislature first intended that state forests be managed for “…the profitable growth of timber” (Ohio Revised Code 1503.04), but over time that requirement has been expanded to include management for “multiple-use” including recreation, soil protection, wildlife habitat, as well as timber production. To that end, policies and management guidelines were developed to improve the health and vigor of the forests for quality wood production as well as improvement in the other resources and values. A wide variety of silvicultural practices have been used in meeting these management objectives.
The former use of state forest lands closely mirrors that of Wayne National Forest lands. Virtually all of the state forest system is comprised of abused lands that were cleared, farmed and abandoned, or heavily cut over prior to public ownership. However, following decades of public stewardship and management, approaching 85 years in some cases, the land is now virtually all forested and covered with large trees and vigorous forests. A 1991 inventory of the state forests shows: (1) 85 percent of the forests are comprised of oak/hickory stands, and almost 90 percent of all forests exceed 100 percent full stocking; (2) there is more than 1.35 billion board feet of standing wood inventory with annual net growth exceeding 30 million board feet per year; (3) during the period that the wood volume inventory has been increasing, more than 500 million board feet of wood has been removed through forest improvement activities and other harvesting practices; (4) state forests average over 7,600 board feet per acre, almost double the volume per acre (4,002 BF) on private woodlands in Ohio
Management of the original state forest purchases involved improving the existing forest and establishing new forest areas. Gradually, new uses of the forests, including recreation, were added. With the formation of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in 1949 and subsequent changes in later decades, responsibilities including recreation, management of natural areas, and reclamation of mined lands have been assigned to other divisions. These substantive mission changes by the Ohio legislature directed the Division of Forestry to manage state forests for timber production, watershed protection, backcountry recreation, and other related benefits as part of the overall multiple-use management of ODNR lands..
Within the Department of Natural Resources, several other divisions manage forest lands for a diversity of objectives. The Division of Parks and Recreation manages primarily for recreation opportunities, the Division of Natural Areas and Preserves manages nature preserves to maintain or restore various ecosystems, while the Division of Wildlife manages land primarily for habitat development and wildlife-oriented recreation. Only the Division of Forestry includes timber production as part of its management scheme, within a multiple-use philosophy. Inherent within all land management is the demonstration of sound forest practices to the citizens of Ohio.
Collectively, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources manages 484,104 acres: 24 percent is dedicated to recreation (Division of Parks and Recreation), 35 percent is dedicated to providing wildlife habitat (Division of Wildlife), 3 percent is dedicated to providing preservation of natural areas and certain ecosystems (Division of Natural Areas and Preserves), and 28 percent is dedicated to multiple-use that may include producing forest products (Division of Forestry).
Of the Division of Forestry’s holdings, 61 percent are available for timber management. The remaining 39 percent have restrictions that vary from a complete restriction on silvicultural management to lesser restrictions that maintain aesthetic character. Therefore, of the Department of Natural Resource’s holdings, 23 percent (approximately 111,000 acres) is available for intensive timber production and other multiple-use benefits.
Conflicting Demands and Opportunities. State forest management practices periodically draw the attention of various public interests. In general, there is little understanding among the general public of the role of silviculture in forest management. As a result, many are reluctant to accept the impacts of those practices, particularly those perceived as having some negative results. Today, public attention continues to grow. There is more awareness of the forest, particularly through media attention of such issues as tropical deforestation, biodiversity, endangered species, and old-growth forests. The public is demanding a more active role in the management of national forest lands, seeking a greater role in the decision-making process on forest plans. Similar interest in state land management is growing today. Throughout the 1990s, the public has been asking more questions about the management of state forests and pressing for a different mix of resource benefits and products.
Public forest land management is being challenged with conflicting demands and opportunities. On the one hand, the general public is developing a greater awareness of forests and forestry in general, which has long been a desire of forest resource managers. However, with this awareness comes a whole new set of public demands and desires for management of the forests, some of which conflict sharply with past values. For example, many people are surprised to learn that timber production has been such an active part of state forest management. A common perception is that timber harvesting is a destructive forest practice, leading to poorer forest health. Some in the environmental community believe that timber production should not be part of the mission of public forest land management, and that these forests should hereafter remain untouched and allowed simply to become big, old trees, developing some semblance of pre-settlement forests.
Conversely, those in the conservation community and forest industry who have had strong ties to the management of this land for many years believe that past actions have resulted in the high quality forests of today. They would like to see multiple-use continue.
Still others such as a number of professional resource managers are asking questions about entirely new concepts in forest resource management, such as ecosystem management and sustainable forestry, and how these might be applied to public forest lands. These concepts incorporate past management systems but go even further in considering the complete resource for protection of biodiversity and ecosystems.
The net effect is that state forest managers are faced with new challenges and new ways of doing business. The range of products and values demanded of state forests is greater. Timber products must and will be provided but not at the expense of aesthetic and other environmental conditions. Greater effort will be taken to protect other resource values such as endangered species and biodiversity. At the same time, the public wants greater assurance the forest and all its components are protected while managers produce goods and services. Managers will spend more time gathering public input and engaging the public through means they were not even aware of a decade ago. Managing is thus no longer a series of decisions based solely on a scientific or silvicultural basis. It will involve the integration of science, politics, and sociology.
The Wayne National Forest is Ohio’s only national forest. Established under the authority of the Weeks Act of 1911, it contains 230,000 acres in southeastern Ohio and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The first lands, destined to become a part of the Wayne, were purchased from private landowners in 1935. Many tracts were abandoned farms and tax delinquent holdings resulting from the economic crisis of the Great Depression. From 1951-1993 the Wayne was managed jointly with the Hoosier National Forest from the headquarters office in Bedford, Indiana. The Wayne National Forest became an autonomous unit in 1993 when a Forest Supervisor’s Office was established in Athens, Ohio.
The lands acquired for the Wayne had been heavily farmed, mined, cut over, and grazed. They have often been referred to as the “Lands Nobody Wanted”. It was the mission of the Forest Service to take these abused hills, and reforest them to provide healthy watersheds, natural resources, wildlife habitat, and a place for recreation. With time, careful management, and protection from wild fire, the Forest Service, partnering with other agencies and private individuals, has restored much of Ohio’s hill country. During the last two decades the Wayne National Forest has been committed to involving the public in decisions affecting the Forest. As a result, a closer partnership has been developed with our publics, generating several cooperative projects. One of the most ravaged areas of the Wayne National Forest was the Monday Creek watershed, where years of mining had taken a toll on the land. The Monday Creek Restoration Committee, a grass-roots organization interested in cleaning up their watershed, has since partnered with the Forest in many projects. A similar success story in a previously mined area north of Ironton brought five agencies together to partner in a project, which won the Riparian Award for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service.
A recent landmark in the Wayne National Forest’s history was the construction of a new headquarters office. Construction of this office, housing both the Forest Supervisor and the Athens Ranger District staff half way between Athens and Nelsonville, will be completed in 2001. The site is owned by the State of Ohio, but has been leased to the Forest Service for 99 years. The location, just off U.S. 33, provides an ideal location for the offices’ new welcome center that will serve as a gateway to southeastern Ohio.
The design of the new office is unique and intriguing, with a tall tower and unusual shape, reminiscent of the coal mining tipples which once dotted southeastern Ohio’s landscape. The building’s design and the welcome center inside provide a link to the past history and culture of Southeast Ohio.
The Wayne National Forest has two other offices. The Athens District has two blocks of ownership, one in the Athens area, and one north of Marietta. The office for the Marietta Unit of the Athens Ranger District is located in Reno, Ohio. The Ironton Ranger District, which has a large block of land between Ironton and Jackson, has an office located in Pedro, Ohio. National forest lands are located in Athens, Gallia, Hocking, Jackson, Lawrence, Monroe, Morgan, Noble, Perry, Scioto, Vinton and Washington counties. In January 2001, the Wayne contained 230,285 acres of land.
The Wayne is managed under the Wayne National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan adopted in 1988. This plan, developed with extensive public involvement, provides overall direction for resource management on the forest and an analysis of the forest’s natural resources. As projects, developed under the Plan’s guidance are developed, meetings are held with private landowners, individuals, and representatives from organizations and other agencies to ensure any interested stakeholders are heard and their concerns and suggestions are considered and included whenever possible.
Land Acquisition. Land acquisition is a priority for Ohio’s only national forest. Ohio has a dearth of public forest land. Of the almost 7 percent of Ohio’s forest land that is publicly owned, almost 3 percent is within the Wayne National Forest. Any land acquired by the Wayne is purchased from willing sellers with monies specifically allocated by Congress for land acquisition. Many of the other issues facing the Wayne could potentially affect the Forest Service’s future ability to purchase land and add to Ohio’s natural resource land bank.
One of the challenges of the land acquisition program is that present acreage and ownership patterns of National Forest System land in Ohio limit opportunities for some resource management activities. The patchwork pattern of ownership contributes to the cost of management and essentially makes some parcels unavailable to the public. Small tracts of land are sometimes inaccessible, eliminating opportunities for semi-primitive recreation use such as hunting and hiking. While consolidation is a primary goal, it is not the intent of the Forest Service to purchase all of the land within the forest boundary.
Management of Mineral Resources. Mineral development, particularly oil and gas drilling and coal mining, are ongoing activities and issues on the Wayne National Forest. Mineral industry has a long legacy in southeastern Ohio. The mining of coal, iron, clay, oil, natural gas, and salt has been an integral part of the area’s economy at different points in time. The impacts from this mining are still obvious throughout the countryside.
A complicating factor is that much of the surface land administered by the Wayne National Forest has severed mineral rights for the subsurface. Managing this matrix of ownership has long been a challenge. Implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 has been an issue. There have been several lawsuits over whether coal companies have Valid Existing Rights to surface mine coal on national forest land. In 1992, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Oil and Gas was approved and has helped provide direction and answer questions posed by the public.
Vegetation Management. The Wayne National Forest manages vegetation to provide a diversity of plant and animal communities. This management utilizes ecosystem management principles to mimic natural conditions and disturbances, which are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. Fire, windstorms, tornadoes, ice storms, and timber harvesting all cause disturbances in the forest. Many species of plants and animals require disturbances to establish the type of habitat they need; other species of plants and animals are adversely affected by disturbances. The Forest Plan directs that the Forest Service provide a balance of ecosystems to achieve the desired future conditions identified for different parts of the Forest.
The level of timber harvesting allowed in the 1988 Forest Plan was 7.5 million board feet per year. This amount of harvesting would affect only 0.5 percent of the Forest per year. While timber harvesting is a legitimate use of national forest land, and is also desirable for forest and wildlife health, legal action has been brought to prevent trees from being harvesting. Because of the controversy, timber harvesting on the Wayne National Forest has essentially stopped. The challenge to Wayne National Forest managers is to provide a balance between the many and varied users groups and insure the long-term protection and sustainable use of the forest.
Wildlife Management. Forest openings are maintained to provide areas of grasses and other small plants, and fruiting shrubs to provide habitat for many bird and other animal species. Some interest groups disagree with this program, believing that all national forest land should be allowed to evolve into mature forests.
The status of threatened and endangered species is a major concern to the Forest Service and the public. Currently the Wayne National Forest is preparing a Biological Assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This report will review the effect on forest management on federal listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The Indiana bat is the most prominent of the species listed. When the Fish and Wildlife Service issue an opinion, their recommendations will be incorporated in a proposed amendment to the Forest plan. This will provide guidance for management activities. Some groups are likely to say that the guidelines are too restrictive and others will argue that they are not restrictive enough.
Management of Recreational Opportunities. The hill country of southeastern Ohio is a popular outdoor recreation destination with the Wayne National Forest as one of its principal attractors. The scenery and mix of trails, backcountry and developed sites are unique from those found on the flatland of the rest of Ohio.
Lake Vesuvius on the Ironton Ranger District is the Wayne’s largest recreation complex. The CCC built Vesuvius Lake in the 1930’s. Currently the lake is being drained to repair the dam and bring it up to current safety standards. In addition improvements will be made to the area’s camping and picnic areas.
Recreation areas on the Athens Ranger District are located at Leith Run and Burr Oak Cove. State Highway 26 in Washington and Monroe Counties has been designated as the Covered Bridge National Scenic Byway. Many scenic landmarks are located along this road. The byway parallels the Little Muskingum River, which is a popular with canoeists.
Off-Road Vehicle Use (ORV) use on the Wayne National Forest continues to grow in popularity. ORV use is confined to designated trail on the Forest. Currently there are over 110 miles of Forest Service designated ORV trails on the Forest, but the demand is much higher. Controversy over this use includes the belief by much of the public that ORV use should not be allowed on public land. Erosion and siltation of streams can occur if trails are not adequately constructed or maintained. To help alleviate this problem, a seasonal closure from December 15 to April 15 has been in place the last few years. Illegal use of undesignated routes continues to be another problem that results in environmental damage and is difficult to control.
Watershed Restoration. Past coal mining caused and continues to cause serious environmental damage to the lands and waters of Southeast Ohio. The Forest Service has participated in a variety of projects to correct the damage. Restoration is difficult and expensive; and a large backlog of projects remains to be completed. Scientists are still learning the best methods to restore the lands and waters.
Underground mining often produces acid mine drainage (AMD), which is so low in pH that fish and other aquatic life cannot survive. Unreclaimed strip mining leaves toxic material that makes it very difficult to revegetate or reforest. Currently areas that are strip-mined must be reclaimed to the original contour and revegetated. Although the toxic material is buried and erosion prevented, tree survival on the reclaimed land is often tenuous and must overcome compacted soil and competition from the heavy grass cover.
Appeals – There were several appeals to the 1988 Forest Plan and a lawsuit followed, filed by the Sierra Club and Citizen’s Council in 1992 concerning timber harvesting and other issues. A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998 concluded, “that the controversy is not ripe for judicial review” and therefore upheld the existing Forest Plan. The issues raised in the lawsuit are still controversial with some groups.
The Wayne National Forest tries to balance the diverse and competing interests of the publics it serves. Simply stated, this means maintaining support for the National Forest’s very existence, its continued land acquisition program, and funding for its program of work.
Many opinions have been, and will be, expressed about how the Wayne National Forest should be managed. Compromises must be found, but not at the cost of precious natural resources. Natural resource managers on the Wayne National Forest work diligently to address issues and concerns voiced by the public in order to fulfill the Forest Service mission of “Caring for the land and serving the people.”
There are several issues that are relevant to all forest land in Ohio, regardless of ownership. Six important opportunities/challenges/concerns associated with Ohio’s forests are presented in the accompanying papers. These six were specifically chosen for more detailed presentation because of their current importance and/or because of their potential impacts. The six, which follow, are Gypsy Moth in Ohio – 2001; Protecting Soil and Water Resources; The Role of Timber Harvesting in Forest Management; Tree Planting on Strip Mined Lands; Urban Forestry in Ohio; and Ohio’s Forest Industry
Randall Heiligmann
Associate Professor & State Extension Specialist, Forestry
School of Natural Resources
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
John Dorka
Deputy Chief for Resource Management
ODNR Division of Forestry
Columbus, OH
Philip Perry
Forest Silviculturist
Wayne National Forest
13700 U.S. Highway 33
Nelsonville, Ohio 45764
Wayne Lashbrook
Forest Stewardship Manager
Mead Corporation
Chillicothe, Ohio
Tom Berger
Staff Forester
ODNR Division of Forestry
Columbus, Ohio