A Legacy in Limbo: Historic and Cultural Resources on Forest Services Lands
by Richard Moe | May 15, 2008 | Denver, Colorado
As summer vacation season approaches, millions of people are making plans to visit America's national parks and historic sites. Meanwhile, thousands of significant landscapes, structures and sites – places that record important chapters in America's story – are in danger of being lost forever.
Most people associate the U. S. Forest Service with one word: trees. The fact is, Forest Service lands encompass much more than tall timber. The Forest Service is responsible for more than 190 million acres of public land in 44 states and Puerto Rico. On that land are nearly 325,000 identified cultural resource sites, ranging from Native American sacred sites to battlefields of the Revolutionary and Civil wars to fire lookouts built in the 1930s.
These identified sites are just the tip of the iceberg. You see, only 20% of the land under Forest Service jurisdiction has been surveyed – which means that the agency doesn't even know what kinds of cultural resources, or how many of them, actually exist on the land for which it is responsible. It's estimated that more than 2 million sites of cultural and historical significance may be out there on Forest Service land – but again, that's only a guess.
An alarming number of the identified sites, to say nothing of those that haven't been identified, are threatened with deterioration or destruction. Let me describe a couple of examples:
- In Kentucky's Daniel Boone National Forest, the Red River Gorge is a designated National Register Historic District, with at least 460 sites of cultural significance already identified and several others currently being investigated. The problem is that the Gorge is also a hugely popular recreation area, drawing thousands of hikers, campers and other outdoor enthusiasts annually. According to the staff, visitation has reached saturation point, and cultural resources are suffering. Campers sleep and cook in prehistoric rock shelters, leaving behind trash and fire scars. Vandalism and theft of archeological artifacts are also serious problems. A study is underway to determine ways of dealing with the issue, but while the study progresses, the overcrowding continues – and so does the damage to historic sites.
- A different problem exists at the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri. The Forest's 1.5 million acres encompass scores of historic structures, ranging from 19th-century frontier homesteads to ranger stations built during the New Deal era. Even though many of the structures are eligible for the National Register, a small facilities budget and a multimillion-dollar maintenance backlog have left them deteriorated and vandalized. In 2005, many buildings were slated for "realignment" – which could mean removing them from federal ownership or even demolishing them. After including the structures on our list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places last year, the National Trust and others have been working with the staff to identify alternatives that would preserve some of the structures. Progress has been made – but the Forest's master plan still doesn't fully consider factors such as historic, archeological, architectural, and cultural value in planning for the future of properties in the Forest.
Why are things like this happening – not just at these two National Forests but at others all over the country?
Several factors are at work here:
First, heritage resource programs are seriously underfunded and understaffed. There simply isn't enough money or manpower to survey the forests, identify and evaluate historic resources, and provide the responsible stewardship America's heritage deserves.
Second, shifting political realities and conflicting priorities mean that cultural resources may not receive adequate protection during the planning and implementation of forest projects. Oil and gas exploration, mining, logging, fire risk reduction, grazing – the Forest Service is involved in all of them, and too often they take precedence over cultural resource protection. Supervisors and District Rangers have a great deal of discretion in allocating staff and budgetary resources. If they care about preserving cultural resources, they'll allocate resources to that effort. But if they need – or simply prefer – to assign staff and funding to other areas, cultural resources may suffer.
Third, and particularly alarming, the Forest Service does not have a clear statutory mandate to preserve and protect historic and cultural sites. That's such a startling fact that it's worth repeating: None of the statutes that govern the Forest Service's work even mentions the protection of historic resources as part of the agency's mission. As a result, it's hardly surprising that Forest Service managers don't always view cultural-resource protection as a key component of their work.
This situation is the subject of a report being issued today by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The report, entitled The National Forest System: Cultural Resources at Risk, was prepared for the National Trust by T. Destry Jarvis, whose long experience with federal land-management agencies includes serving as assistant director of the National Park Service and senior advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. We're issuing this report in the hope that it will open people's eyes to the seriousness of the current situation – and help ensure responsible stewardship of cultural resources in America's National Forests.
The report includes 11 specific recommendations. I'd like to summarize 4 of them:
- First, we recommend important changes in the statutes that define the Forest Service's mission and govern its work. These statutes should be amended to recognize and codify the agency's responsibility for protecting the historic and cultural resources on its lands.
- Next, we strongly recommend the provision of line-item funding for the management of historic and cultural resources in the National Forests. A minimum annual increase of $15 million should be provided for activities such as inventorying Forest Service lands, monitoring identified resources, and stepped-up law enforcement at heritage sites.
- Third, we recommend amending the Forest Service's Travel Management Rule. This regulation specifies approved routes for motorized vehicle use in the forests but does not set standards for protecting historic resources. The need is especially critical in light of the huge increase in off-road-vehicle use on public lands; we can't allow irresponsible ORV drivers to damage or destroy archaeological sites and other resources.
- Finally, we recommend an expansion of the Forest Service's authority to lease historic sites and form public-private partnerships to facilitate preservation. Two great examples of such partnerships are already in place here in Colorado: In the San Isabel National Forest, the historic Dexter Cabin at the 19th-century Interlaken Resort has been restored in a 4-year effort involving the Forest Service, the National Trust, the Rocky Mountain Nature Association, Colorado Preservation, Inc. and a large group of volunteers. A similar effort, this one involving the Forest Service, the National Trust and the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association, is underway in the San Juan National Forest to stabilize the ruins of the Chimney Rock Pueblo, which has been considered for designation as a World Heritage Site. These two examples show what can be achieved through partnerships – but it's important to note that both of them rely heavily on the participation of volunteers. The Forest Service shouldn't have to "depend on the kindness of strangers" to preserve historic sites. Other models of partnership need to be explored.
The National Trust has enormous respect for the dedication and professionalism of the men and women charged with managing our National Forests. We applaud the Forest Service's preservation work at places such as the Aldo Leopold House in New Mexico's Carson National Forest and Gifford Pinchot's home, Grey Towers, in Pennsylvania. Our aim is to call attention to – and eliminate – the barriers that hamper their efforts to be good stewards.
Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, convinced the nation that responsible management of our forests was essential to avoid the waste of an enormously valuable national asset. All of us are in his debt. Today, almost a century after Pinchot's death, the Forest Service should honor his principles of good stewardship by working to avoid the loss of the irreplaceable cultural resources that define us as Americans.
