The Land We Cared For... A History of the Forest Service's Eastern Region

During the late 1950's and early 1960's recreational use of the Forests grew enormously. The population of the country had increased dramatically and so had the use of the automobile. Leisure time was more plentiful and highways were improved. Areas which had never before been accessible to the public became playgrounds. Family vacations became a common reality for the growing middle class for the first time in American history.

The total recreational use of National Forests of the United States in 1957 was 61,648,000 visits and 81,604,000 man-days of use. This was a 17% increase over 1956. In the same period, the National Park Service use figures were up only 7.5%. Since 1946, the use figures for the Forest Service and the National Park Service had run a remarkably parallel course. But after 1956, the Forest Service figures shot past those of the National Park Service. National Forest visits were 45.5 million in 1955, 52.5 million in 1956, and 61 million in 1957. The National Park figures for the same years were 50 million, 55 million, and 59 million. These figures were so surprising that John Sieker, the head of the Forest Service Recreation and Land Use Division in Washington, sent a letter to all Regional Foresters requesting that the figures be confirmed before they were made public. Specifically, Sieker wanted to know whether the increase was across the board or had come from certain Forests.

Regional Forester Charles L. Tebbe of Region 7 responded that the Region's figures were correct. The entire Region was receiving much greater recreational use in 1956 and 1957, and no particular National Forest had received relatively greater use than the others. The increase, according to Tebbe, was attributable to greater actual use and to more realistic methods of reporting. The reporting of recreational use by Forest Service personnel was essentially a matter of "judicious estimating." Region 7 believed that its figures for 1955 were too low. Even though the recent figures appeared inordinately high, they were more nearly accurate.

The Regional Forester further justified the rapid increase in recreation use by logical inference. It was "only reasonable" to expect accelerated use of the National Forests of the northeastern part of the United States since this was the most populous section of the country. A 10% increase in recreational use in the 10 years since World War II was not unreasonable, given the growth of population, increase in ownership of automobiles, and greater interest in outdoor recreation. "In many instances," said Tebbe, "the Eastern National Forests offer the only opportunities to people within the Region to enjoy fishing and hunting unrestricted by no-trespassing signs, and to participate in other types of recreation which are unique and are found only in the National Forests."

The figures for recreational visits to all the forests of Region 7 in 1957 were: campgrounds—325,000; winter sports—195,000; organized camps owned by Forest Service—10,960; organized camps not owned by the Forest Service—18,800; hotels or resorts owned by the Forest Service—400; hotels or resorts not owned by the Forest Service—101,000; recreation residences—14,610; other forest areas—3,984,900; highways, roads, and water routes—13,962,000. The grand total of visits was 18,612,670.

Some of the more striking specifics were that camping on the Monongahela National Forest had increased by 70%. Picnicking had increased dramatically on the White Mountain National Forest as confirmed by automobile traffic counters. Some 93% of the increase in winter sports was on the Green Mountain National Forest. [1]

The National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission

As was stated in the preceding Chapter, the dramatic increase in recreational use put heavy pressure on the aging recreational facilities. The need for more and improved campsites, trails, lakes, picnic areas, and access roads throughout the United States, was officially recognized on June 28, 1958 when Congress established the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (NORRRC). Chaired by Laurance Rockefeller, the Commission consisted of six citizen members and eight Congressional members. The Commission was asked to assemble an inventory and evaluation of the nation's outdoor recreational resources. It would assess the current condition of facilities and future needs for the remainder of the 20th century. This Commission was an idea set forth by the Izaak Walton League in 1949 with the hope that if the nation had an idea of future needs, public land would be kept for public use rather than being sold to developers and used for other purposes.

An advisory council comprised of leaders from state, municipal and private sectors in recreation fields was established to assist the NORRRC. The Commission was to prepare a report by September 1, 1961 estimating the country's recreational requirements for 1976 and 2000. The Commission was asked to define the responsibilities of federal, state, and private landowners or agencies connected with recreation. It confronted a vast array of issues and problems, among them the overcrowding in National Parks, the need for more recreational opportunities in the East, and the need to zone water bodies for various types of recreation. [2]

There also were grass roots reasons for the NORRRC review. Richard Costley, Supervisor of the Allegheny National Forest, who worked as a liaison between the NORRRC and the Chief of the Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture, believed the Commission was established because "Americans were starting to get into trouble." He pointed to motorbikes, black leather jackets and boots, drugs, and long-haired poets as "the symbols of the emerging counter-culture whose values and standards were alien to the established generation." Costley saw this trend as a result of American's loss of contact with the land and out-of-doors. [3]

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

The report of the NORRRC was called the "Rockefeller Report." One recommendation was that the federal sector should stockpile recreation-quality land for future use. Toward that end, Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act in 1965. Its purpose was to assure adequate outdoor recreation for the American people consistent with conservation of natural resources and to finance the necessary purchases. With regard to recreation, the Act provided for federal assistance to the states in planning, acquiring, and developing needed recreation land and water areas and facilities. Also created were the Golden Eagle Passport (an annual pass to all fee collecting facilities), the Golden Age Passport (an annual entrance permit for senior citizens). Sources of revenue for the L&WCFA came from federal taxes collected on special fuels and gasoline used in motorboats, money from the sale of surplus government property and admission fees for federal recreation areas. [4]

The L&WCFA also provided for the charging of admission fees for the National Park System and National Recreation Areas of the Forest Service. The Act specified purposes for which the Fund could be spent. Among these were land acquisitions of inholdings within National Forests, wilderness areas of the National Forest System, other areas in or adjacent to National Forests which were "primarily of value for outdoor recreation," and lands for the National Wildlife Refuge System. [5] The provision of the L&WCFA which allowed for charging admission to recreation areas was to help obtain more and better recreational land and facilities for the public. There was some confusion in getting the public accustomed to being charged for using the facilities. Most people came to realize that the yearly $7.00 passport which was good on any National Forest was a fair deal. [6]

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

Most of the money from the L&WCFA has gone to the two Eastern Regions of the Forest Service as the ones most in need of recreational opportunities. Dick Ackerman, Recreation and Lands Staff Officer on the Green Mountain National Forest, explained that there had been very little money for land acquisition throughout the early 1960's, "maybe one case a year," but under the L&WCFA, the Forest Service could finally purchase land. Naturally, each purchase had to be justified on a recreation basis.

To purchase land through the L&WCFA, a National Forest submitted plans to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Later changed to the Heritage Conservation Recreation Service; this agency went out of business in the Reagan budget cuts. While it functioned, the Agency had the power to disperse funds according to the recreation plans submitted by all of the various recreational interests throughout the country. The problem on the National Forests was that in proportion to other agencies, they had a very small number of site specific recreation opportunities. The thrust of recreation in the Forests has always been for dispersed recreation use: hiking, hunting, fishing, and the kinds of recreation uses that take a large area of land like snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. The site specific recreation composites required by the Bureau did not work well for the National Forests. The state and private sector were better adapted to plan those.

Richard Ackerman recalls that in the 1970's, the Green Mountain National Forest was the first Forest to receive approval for a recreation composite on a whole unit basis. Such approval allowed the Forests to effectively acquire any lands that were available inside the whole unit recreation composite. . . "so all lands that were available we could easily justify." [7]

Land Purchases Under the L&WCFA

Land and Water Conservation Act Funds were used in 1966 by the Ottawa National Forest to purchase the 20,626 acres known as the Sylvania Tract for $5,740,000 from the Fisher and Christianson estates. On July 28, 1966, Regional Forester George S. James and Supervisor Michael W. Kageorge ceremonially took control of the tract. The land is located in the western end of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, wholly within the Ottawa National Forest. It had been in private ownership for 66 years. On it were 36 named lakes covering 4,000 acres, and it abounded in wildlife, excellent fishing, unspoiled beauty, and virgin hardwood timber, rare in that part of the country because it escaped the ax of the woodsmen. The Sylvania Tract was the largest purchase made at that time under the L&WCFA. Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, the Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman, and Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey came to Ottawa National Forest to dedicate the Sylvania Recreation Area. [8] The Sylvania Tract is currently being considered for wilderness status.

L&WCFA funds were used to purchase land in the Shawnee National Forest for the preparation of Cedar Lake. Built primarily as a water supply for the City of Carbondale, Illinois, the Cedar Lake Management Area was to also provide a recreation experience for those persons interested in undeveloped uses such as hiking, fishing, and "primitive" camping.

On the Hoosier National Forest four artificial lakes were proposed for flood control purposes in the 1960's. Through the combined efforts of the Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service and the local Conservancy District, four fine recreational lakes were built. The significance of this effort was noted in 1968 when the project was named the National Watershed of the Year by the National Watershed Congress.

On the Monongahela National Forest, the Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area was established by public law on September 28, 1965. This was the first National Recreation Area established on any National Forest by Act of Congress. Within the boundaries lie some of the greatest natural attractions of the Monongahela. A magnificent observation tower was constructed on top of Spruce Knob, West Virginia's highest mountain. Within a day's drive of this National Forest reside over 50 million people. [9]

The acquisition program under the L&WCFA was expanded to encompass the additions to the National Forest System made by new designations. There was the further purpose of protecting endangered species and wildlife habitat. The amount appropriated has varied from zero dollars in one of the Nixon years to about $90 million in one year of the Carter administration. In general, according to Gordon Small, Director of the Lands, Watershed, and Minerals Staff group of the Regional Office, "We continue to use the Weeks Act as the basic acquisition authority, but we use the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the funds. We have acquired some very significant wildlife and recreation oriented properties through the L&WC fund." [10]

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The original idea for a National Scenic Rivers System came from the NORRRC's report of 1961. As a result of the report, a study committee selected by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior devised a plan that included six streams for the preservation but little protection. Another list of nine streams was to be studied. Nothing came of this preliminary effort.

In 1968 Congressman John P. Saylor of Pennsylvania introduced a bill to create a system of 16 rivers immediately and to study another 50 within the next three years. Saylor stressed the importance of such legislation because extensive urban and industrial development, along with mining, were threatening to pollute and destroy scenic rivers. He believed that by saving scenic rivers, the public would continue to have the opportunity to escape the "grinds and strains of large cities" by being close to nature. [11]

By 1983, the Wild and Scenic Rivers System had grown to 61 river segments in 23 states, a total 6,943 river miles. The original list of 27 rivers to be studied had grown to 88, but along with this growth had come problems. The Reagan Administration, while cutting river protection budgets, continued to pump money into dam building. Local opposition to Wild and Scenic status was causing political problems, and the result was that the whole program was nearly mired.

Secretary of Interior James Watt had gained control of the program, taking it away from the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, and little progress had taken place in evaluating 24 study rivers since the transfer. [12]

The attitude of the Reagan Administration toward the Wild and Scenic Rivers System drew more fire from Chris Brown, Director of the American Rivers Conservation Council. In 1984 Brown declared, "They have tried to drown the whole program through funding cuts, changed recommendations, reorganizations, management plans and court cases." [13] But despite the Reagan Administration's suggested harsh cuts in funds for the program, Congress continued it and added several new rivers to the System in 1984. One of these was 23 miles of the AuSable-Pere Marquette River in western Michigan in the Manistee National Forest. Part of the Pere Marquette had been designated in 1978. The Forest Service had recommended that 74 miles of the AuSable be added to it, but private landowners along the River protested and Congress reduced it to 23 miles.

Also in 1984, Congress authorized study of the Wildcat River in the White Mountain Forest in New Hampshire. The 14 mile stretch of the River to be studied includes a 120 foot waterfall. By being placed under study, that portion of the River was protected from development for the next six years. [14]

The National Trails System Act

The National Trails System Act became law on October 2, 1968. President Lyndon B. Johnson had first requested such a law in his Conservation message of early 1965, and then again in 1966. On these occasions and when Secretary of Interior Morris Udall sent to Congress a plan for a trails system in 1966, Congress failed to act. Finally, under continuing pressure from the President and based on a report of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, a bill was passed. It established two trails as part of the National Scenic Trails System and designated 14 other trails to be reviewed and evaluated. One of the initial trails was the Appalachian Trail, stretching 2,000 miles from Maine to Georgia. Large segments of the trail lay in the White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests.

Other trails in the Eastern Region placed on the study list were:

1. The Potomac Heritage Trail (825 miles) from the mouth of the Potomac River to its sources in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

2. The North Country Scenic Trail (3,200 miles) from the Appalachian Trail in Vermont to the Lewis and Clark Trail in North Dakota.

3. The Long Trail (255 miles) from the Massachusetts border north through Vermont to the Canadian border.

4. The Kittaning Trail (130 miles) from Shirleysburg to Kittaning in Pennsylvania.

Three types of trails were devised in this Act. The first, national scenic trails, were those in remote areas usually used for hiking purposes. The second were national recreation trails near cities and used for jogging and biking purposes. The third were connecting or side trails. Only Congress had the right to designate a scenic trail; the other two types could be established by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. The purpose of the National Trail System was to provide recreational trails and preserve historic ones. Where the trails crossed private lands, it would have to be with the permission of the owners. Or the land would have to be acquired from the owner in exchange for other federally owned land. Rules for the operation of the trails would be developed by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. [15]

When completed, the North Country National Scenic Trail will stretch 3,200 miles from Crown Point, New York, westward to Garrison Dam on the Missouri River in North Dakota. In 1985 the Chippewa National Forest's 75 continuous miles of the trail were completed. The YCC had begun the trail construction in 1977. Each year thereafter the YCC, the YACC (Youth Adult CC), and the Senior Community Service Employment Program all worked on the trail. The Walker Ranger District developed an Adopt-a-Trail program. The program turned responsibilities of maintenance of trail sections over to local Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, schools, and individuals. [16]

The North Country Scenic Trail traverses 60 miles of the Chequamegon National Forest. A 40 mile segment of the Ice Age Trail was constructed on the Chequamegon in 1976 and was designated a National Recreation Trail in 1977

Since the 1920's, the Appalachian Mountain Club has published a detailed guide to the White Mountain National Forest trails and described all 1,100 miles of the Appalachian Trail. About every three years the author of the guide has toured the various Districts in the New England forests to check the trails. Ken Sutherland, retiree, described the Forest Service's relationship with the Appalachian Mountain Club as both enemies and friends. The AMC often objected to any hindrances on their recreation uses of the trail. They have developed the well used and maintained AMC Hut System. Nevertheless, the cooperation between the two groups is long-standing and essential to both organizations. Sutherland estimates that the Forest Service maintains about 50% of the trails and the AMC about 30%, leaving the rest to be cared for by other local clubs. Keeping the trails open is as important to the Forest Service for fire control as it is to the hikers for their enjoyment. [17]

The 1968 legislation, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National Trails System Act, brought new expertise into the Forest management staff. Onto the Green Mountain National Forest staff, for example, specialists such as soil scientists and wildlife managers were hired for the first time. [18]

The Ottaquechee Land Trust

The Ottaquechee Land Trust began as a response to the National Scenic Trails System legislation. The National Park Service attempted to acquire land for the Appalachian Trail on land between Rt. 100 and the Connecticut River, through farmland, recreational land, summer resort land, and through Woodstock. According to Dick Ackerman, the people living in the region were upset. The Ottaquechee Land Trust was formed out of a coalition of private individuals responding to this perceived threat by the National Park Service. Although the now powerful Ottaquechee Land Trust started as an organization to deal with the National Park Service, today they are most concerned with the preservation of farm land in Vermont. [19]

Private Recreation Businesses in the National Forests

In early 1986 the first concessionaire permit for a campground on the Hiawatha National Forest was awarded to Mr. Charles D. Muscott who agreed to manage two campgrounds for the Forest Service. The reason given by Recreation Officer Art Easterbrook was that Recreation was not given "the bucks to operate those." [20]

In 1961 the Allegheny National Forest took steps to tighten the lease provisions of National Forest land used by vacation home owners. New special use permits with specified terms were issued to home owners who signed such contracts. All previous permit holders were given an opportunity to secure one of the new term permits. The attitude of Forest Supervisor John E. Franson was that the older permit holders would have to up-grade their homes in order to obtain a permit renewal. Also, since the Allegheny planned to improve the roads to the summer homes, it added a fee for road maintenance to the cost of the permits. [21]

The Dolly Copp Campground on the White Mountain National Forest is one of the oldest used public campgrounds in the country. Forest Historian/Archaeologist Billie Hoornbeek has spoken to fourth generation campers there. In 1917 the Forest Service had what is viewed now as a "bad idea." They were going to put the campground out to lease to campers. But the Forest Service realized in time that "they were in the position of putting land together for all people for all time, not just special people, so they canceled the whole program." [22]

The White Mountain National Forest still had problems with the Dolly Copp Campground arrangements. During the 1940's and 1950's there grew a core group from Massachusetts that spent the whole summer there. They formed the Dolly Copp Campers Association. Although they lived in canvas tents, some of their camps were so elaborate it took seven hours to put them up. They stayed from May through October.

Since the Forest Service was hard up for funds, they began to accept the campers' offers to do various jobs in the campground. Campers operated the information center, the lodge, and had movies, dances, religious services, and even a library. They were "sort of a closed corporation; if you weren't from this Massachusetts group, you might kind of belong, but not really." They became so powerful said Hoornbeek, "they were naming the campground roads after themselves, took over the administration building so that finally the Forest Service staff had to obtain permission from them to use one room in the building for storage."

Finally, around 1958 the Forest Service learned that the Campers Association manning the gate were telling Canadians that they were not welcome and would have to go to another campground. "When we found that out we clamped down on them. They lost their power. Their association died, and we were free of that encumbrance." [23]

The populations that use the National Forest in New Hampshire are constantly changing. The newest problem is the condominium and "second home" development right along the border of the Forest. A growing number of people from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other states are buying "second homes" near the White Mountain National Forest lands, and "it is changing the complexion of the land." They want specialty shops and bring with them requirements such as sewage and water and transportation. Billie Hoornbeek, Historian on the White Mountain, warns that they will be looking to obtain water from the National Forest at some point and will want sewage disposal. Says Hoornbeek, "Water quality is one thing we have to monitor closely; such increased use has a big effect." [24]

This new population of Forest users is basically well-to-do and urbanized. According to Public Relations Specialist Ned Therrian, "The majority of them have little knowledge of resource management or even about the outdoors, but they have strong ideas about how they want it to look. They come up here for the weekends or a short period of time. Their experience here is an emotional one in most respects . . . very different than that of the person who works here. These people are more than willing to use their knowledge and ability to write and talk when they feel something is wrong. They write to their Congressmen, to the President . . ." [25]

User Fees

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 authorized the federal government to collect user fees at federal recreation areas that met certain conditions. As of September 30, 1967 the Region had made $304,406 on the sale of annual daily entrance and user permits, an increase of $90,400 over the previous year. Over 18,300 annual permits had been sold, an increase of more than 3,700 over 1966. One of the intangible benefits of the system has been the tremendous increase of personal contact with visitors into the National Forest. [26]

In recent years there has been growing sentiment for user fees for use of hiking trails in the National Forests. In the White Mountain National Forest the number of employees was reduced by two-thirds during the Reagan Administration. Yet, the use of hiking trails by hikers from the cities and suburbs of the East rose dramatically. Forest Service managers throughout the Eastern Region were looking for ways to pay the costs of maintaining the trails and rescuing hikers. One idea debated by Congress was user fees.

There have traditionally been no fees for the use of hiking trails on the National Forests but the Forest Service has been forced to re-examine its policy. The National Park Service had been charging for the use of its facilities for years, and in 1985 the Wall Street Journal speculated that the Forest Service might have to begin the practice also. [27] However, despite a proposal by President Reagan and a Senate bill in 1982, both of which would have imposed user fees, Congress has imposed none. [28]

Changing Recreation Needs

The "jewel of the north country" is what the White Mountain National Forest has come to be called in New England. During the grand hotel era hundreds of thousands of tourists came by train to stay in hotels all summer long. The motor car ushered in the next era. The privileged arrived from New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Early botanists and other natural scientists talked about the area. Writers and artists depicted the area. There was a large school of painters, an offshoot of the Hudson painters who came there to paint for over 50 years and glorified the area. The recreation use of the area has snowballed. [29]

The Forest Service's perception of recreation needs of the public has had to change. Billie Hoornbeek of the White Mountain National Forest notes that they are attracting new kinds of tourists in the 1980's:

"When I first came here there were mainly the winter skiers and hikers. They were a more rugged group not interested in shopping or other amenities. They just came to the forest to hike. And, of course, you had the fall leaf peepers who mainly stayed in their car."

Now people seem to want a resort area available to them 24 hours a day, complete with fine outdoor clothing stores, movie houses, just everything. The hard-core hikers are not as large a proportion as they used to be. The tourists season is no longer just in the fall and the ski season, but all year round. Thus, the Forest Service is faced with new problems: what to do with the snowmobiler where the cross country skiers really object. Now says Hoornbeek, "the coming thing are llamas." There is talk in New Hampshire of raising llamas on farms to use as beasts of burden for the hikers. The trails are too rocky for horses. Billie Hoornbeek does not think it is going to be one of the most popular of ideas, "but it may take hold." [30]

Supervisor Steve Harper of the Green Mountain National Forest believes that the Forest Service could do more for bicyclists and people riding in their cars. Each year there are twice as many bicyclists as before. That and cross-country skiing have become big on the Green Mountain. "The bicyclists haven't asked for much yet," said Harper, "but we're talking now about using some kind of simple symbol with arrows that point to public land." Harper wants to make the National Forest available so people can use it without the feeling of a lot of restrictions:

"People come here from the city and there are all these rules in the city: don't do this, don't do that. They come up here and want to feel free. So we're trying our best to minimize the regulations and emphasize the welcomeness with signs that say, This is your National Forest - you are welcome to use it." [31]

The White Mountain National Forest imposed restrictions in the mid-1960's and now they are beginning to have to think about more restrictions. They have had to limit use in one of their wilderness areas. They are scrutinizing the resource damage in the fragile environments above treeline, in the overused campgrounds, and on trails which are worn down in the mineral soil and causing erosion. Although use of the highways cannot be limited, the Forest Service is anticipating limitations on use of the backcountry. "We really worry about having such crowds that we will have to turn people away," said Billie Hoornbeek, "It's a weird situation." [32]

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 brought great changes to the Forest Service. The Act had two purposes: to declare a national environmental policy and to promote efforts to prevent and eliminate damage to the environment. [33] The Act also established the Environmental Protection Agency which was assigned the task of systematic review of operations that might cause damage to the environment.

Since the Forest Service had been in the business of protecting the environment for more than half a century, the NEPA concept was nothing new. The Act did, however, require greater effort on the part of many different specialists in preparing the environmental impact statements required for forest plans and proposed actions. In 1974, the Forest Service issued the Environmental Program for the Future, a 10 year plan for management and operation of the resource systems and research activities of the Service. Based on public reaction, the Forest Service later provided Congress with the far more complex information required under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, also known as the Humphrey-Rarick Act. The latter called for an even more detailed Forest Service assessment of the entire nation's needs in the future for renewable resources. It also required the Forest Service to make management plans to meet the predicted resource needs. [34]

Summary

Great increases in public use and interest in the National Forests have led to big changes in recreation. Pressures from environmental and wildlife groups along with changing public perceptions have brought important new laws. These have made it necessary to re-think past policies and procedures at all Forest Service levels from Washington to the Ranger Districts. In some National Forests of the Eastern Region, the New England ones for instance, recreation has become the number one use. And throughout the Region, managers have come to realize that recreation is one of the most important of the multiple uses.

Reference Notes

1. Director of Division of Recreation and Land Use, Forest Service, John Sieker to Regional Forester, February 29, 1958, and attached letter of response, Regional Forester, Region 7, 65A-0036, Box 22, PRC, RG 95.

2. Kenneth B. Pomeroy, Chief Forester, American Forestry Association, "The New National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission," American Forests 64, No. 11 (November 1958), pp. 16-18, 38-41.

3. Richard Costley, "Where Air is Fresh and Pure: Outdoor Recreation and the Allegheny National Forest." Special 50th Anniversary Series (Allegheny National Forest, 1973).

4. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 78 Stat. 897, Title I; and Congressional Quarterly Almanac XX. 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 477.

5. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Sec. 1, 2, 4, 7.

6. 50 Year History of the Monongahela, p. 58.

7. Richard Ackerman, Interview.

8. Contact, October 1967.

9. 50 Year History of the Monongahela, pp. 58-59.

10. John P. Saylor, "Once Along a Scenic River," Parks and Recreation 3 (August 1968), pp. 20-21, 57-58.

11. Ibid.

12. Verne User, "Our Wild and Scenic Rivers System, " National Parks (December 1983).

13. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, XL, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Washington: 1984), p. 318.

14. Ibid., pp. 317-320.

15. Ibid., XXIV 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Washington: 1968), pp. 477-78.

16. Chippewa National Forest, "Report to the Public, Fiscal Year 1985," (Chippewa National Forest, 1985), p. 1.

17. Noyes (Mike) Shirley, Kenneth I. Sutherland, and Leavitt G. Bowie (White Mountain National Retirees), Interview, October 2, 1986.

18. John A. Douglass, "History of the Green Mountain Forest," p. 119.

19. Richard Ackerman, Interview.

20. "Hiawathaland," (publication of the Hiawatha National Forest), February 1986, p. 3.

21. John E. Franson to Regional Forester, December 28, 1961, 65-0036, Box 22, PRC, RG 95.

22. Billie Hoornbeek, Interview, October 3, 1986.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Ned Therrian, Interview.

26. Contact, October 1967.

27. Wall Street Journal, July 23, 1985, p. 33.

28. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 38, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Washington: 1982), p. 445.

29. Billie Hoornbeek, Interview.

30. Ibid.

31. Steve Harper, Interview.

32. Billie Hoornbeek, Interview.

33. National Environmental Policy Act, 83 Stat. 852.

34. Harold K. Steen, The Forest Service, pp. 321-322.

Timber harvesting, Chequamegon National Forest, Wisconsin.