149
Conservation and Controversy: National Forest Management, 1960–95
modity interests proved to be powerful enough to compel
attention. Agency policies therefore often appeared to reflect
a bias toward timber production rather than attempting to
serve some broader conception of the public interest
(McConnell 1966) or one more closely tied to a growing con-
stituency of national forest visitors whose interest centered
on recreation. Professional foresters, who made up the bulk
of agency personnel and its management, had motivations
and goals different from those of the timber industry. Despite
these tensions, established working relationships between
forester and logger, and between the Forest Service and the
timber industry, appeared to lend credence to conservation-
ist claims that timber considerations dominated the agency’s
agenda. In fairness to the Forest Service, however, Congress
made continuing budget appropriations in order to expand
the agency’s timber program. This strongly suggested that
Congress believed that Forest Service timber management was
consistent with the purpose of furnishing “a continuous sup-
ply of timber for the use and necessity of the citizens of the
United States” and thus squarely served the public interest.
After MUSY was enacted, the Forest Service slowly began
to expand its staff to bring in new kinds of professional ex-
pertise. Even so, the preponderance of foresters in the Forest
Service and the agency’s role in supplying timber to private
industry provoked doubt about the “multiple-use” orienta-
tion of the agency. The multiple-use philosophy allowed the
agency to avoid many management controversies, but as the
following discussion indicates, this approach never satisfied
important segments of the public.
The Wilderness Act of 1964
Advocates in support of the idea that separate areas should
be set aside for wilderness preservation had always opposed
the idea of multiple use as the guiding principle for all forest
lands. They believed that if wilderness was accorded a status
only equivalent to any other use of forest resources, wilder-
ness would necessarily be subservient to timber and other
commodity uses when the agency made determinations. Al-
though the Forest Service had already designated many wil-
derness areas in the national forests,
1
many conservationists
did not believe that the agency valued wilderness enough to
ensure that the existing “primitive area” designations would
survive the timber industry’s preference for increased timber
harvest levels in national forest lands. The Forest Service
claimed this designation was sufficient to ensure that these
lands would be managed as wilderness. Some wilderness
proponents were unconvinced and sought legislation to make
it impossible for the status of these lands to be altered admin-
istratively (McCloskey 1966). Some of these lands, located in
national forests, national parks, and other federal lands, were
to be reserved as wilderness, and the status of additional ar-
eas was to be reviewed in the following ten years.
Agency efforts to deflect attention from the wilderness is-
sue failed to divert wilderness supporters from their goal of
securing legislative protection for wilderness designations.
In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act, despite the op-
position of the Forest Service. This statute established a Na-
tional Wilderness System. Certain lands administered by the
federal land-management agencies, including 2.1 million acres
of land that previously had been administratively protected
by the Forest Service, were designated as “wilderness” or
“pristine” areas, with the status of other areas to be reviewed
during the following decade. In the Sierra Nevada, a number
of areas in national forests, prized for their scenic beauty and
recreational value, were reserved. These areas were located
mainly in the alpine and subalpine zones. The agencies re-
tained control over wilderness areas under their administra-
tion, but the new designation limited uses on these lands.
Ironically, the designation permitted no timber harvest on
these lands but, subject to presidential review, continued to
permit other development, including mining, grazing, and
water development. Loss of the range of options that the For-
est Service formerly controlled on these lands was something
of a blow to agency prestige, because it implied that the agency
could not be trusted to preserve this land on its own (Dana
and Fairfax, 1980, 227–29).
The National Environmental Policy Act
Enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
represented a major watershed in public policy. The expres-
sion of public concern for environmental values reflected the
concern of many individuals in this era. NEPA was intended
to ensure that environmental factors would be considered as
part of the decision-making process. A major element in the
law is the requirement that an environmental impact state-
ment (EIS) be prepared for federal actions having a “signifi-
cant effect on the environment (National Environmental
Policy Act 1969, sec. 102 (2)(c), U.S. Code, vol. 42, sec. 4332).”
NEPA, however, did not require that environmentally ques-
tionable projects be abandoned, so there was no expectation
that preparation of an EIS would lead to dramatic changes in
Forest Service proposals or in the policy of multiple use. The
EIS, however, requires that the public be provided an oppor-
tunity to comment on agency proposals. This element of the
law has had a profound impact, both on the decision-making
processes of all federal agencies and on the relations of these
agencies with the public. Public disclosure of information also
provides citizens with an opportunity to challenge these de-
cisions in the political process and in court. Additionally, in
some cases, the time required to prepare and to complete the
documents required by NEPA has provided another obstacle
that has deterred some project proponents. In this way, the
procedural aspects of NEPA have exerted a significant influ-
ence on a wide range of Forest Service land-management ac-
tivities and programs.
An early example of the procedural aspects of NEPA re-
quirements and their far-reaching effects is amply illustrated
in a celebrated controversy in the Sierra Nevada, where the