to receive $0.10 from the Bureau of Land Management and still receive the 25-percent Forest Service payment, yielding well above $0.75 per acre. In addition, the issue of whether even the $0.75 per acre adequately compensates a county for lost property taxes remains unclear. 101 A recent study sponsored by the Appalachian Regional Commission, which includes several county case studies, states that Swain and Clay Counties, N.C., which are 80 percent and nearly 50 percent Federally owned, respectively, would receive an average of $1.22 per acre from out-of-State private owners if Federal lands were in their hands. However, the counties receive only $0.75 for their National Forest land. The study claims that $98,182 per year is being denied the two counties even if the Federal Government would pay the low out-of-state corporate tax rate instead of the $0.75 per acre. Similarly, the report states that, "if the 70,000 acres owned by the Forest Service in Bland County were taxed at the same rate as land owned by county residents, the county would realize an additional $16,000, a substantial increase for a county of 6,000."103 In 1980, Bland County, which is 30 percent federally owned, received $451,487 revenue from property taxes versus $47,122 from the In-Lieu and 25-percent 102 payments combined. 104 In Union County, Ga., the tax assessor asserted that property taxes yield about $800,000 in annual revenues; whereas, In-Lieu payments for National Forest land-which account for nearly half the total county acreage yield only about $55,000105 (He failed to mention the 25-percent payment to Union County, although for the last few years it has been small.) While In-Lieu payments in the Southern Appalachian National Forest counties generally have not equaled property tax revenues for private lands, less tangible benefits must also be considered. These include increased revenues from tourism (which will be addressed in the next chapter), the value of wildlife and hunting, the value of forest products, and watershed control. 10% Furthermore, such adverse effects as may be traced to Federal landownership must be compared with the effects of any absentee ownership, whether corporate or individual. As this chapter has suggested, and chapter VIII will further consider, the economic and social problems that many Southern Appalachian counties have faced may be more, or as, attributable to private absentee landownership, and the resource exploitation that accompanies it, than they are to Federal ownership of land. Table 19.-Payments made from the 25 percent and in-lieu funds to 5 of the 12 selected Southern Appalachian counties, 1975-80 36. Telephone interview with Neil Walp, Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington, D.C., December 11, 1979. 37. "Fact Sheet on ARC," June 1979. Appalachian Regional Commission. 38. "Fact Sheet on ARC." 39. Burlage, "Toward A People's ARC." John Gaventa, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980), pp. 163, 164. 40. Comptroller General of the United States, Report to the Congress, Should the Appalachian Regional Commission Be Used as a Model For the Nation? U.S. General Accounting Office, April 27, 1979. 41. Comptroller General Report on ARC, April 27, 1979, 107. 42. Data for the analysis of ARC funds that follows were obtained from computer printouts on total ARC funds spent by county and state, and for selected counties, by project. Provided by Joe Cerniglia, Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington, D.C. 42. WNRC, FS, Acc. No. 67A4805, Planning-President's Appalachian Regional Commission, "Program Highlights-The Timber Situation in Brief," p. v, November 27, 1963. 44. "Program Highlights," PARC, xiii, November 27, 1963. 45. "Program Highlights," PARC, xiv, November 27, 1963. 46. Mary Breckenridge, Wide Neighborhoods: A Study of the Frontier Nursing Service (New York: Harper & Row, 1952), Chapter 35. 47. Breckenridge, Wide Neighborhoods, Chapter 35. Also quoted in Thomas R. Frazier, Project Leader, Redbird Purchase Unit, "Redbird Roundups," Forest Service public relations publication, 1966. See also, Robert F. Collins, A History of the Daniel Boone National Forest (Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Press, 1975), pp. 259-262. Collins notes that Ms. Breckenridge tried unsuccessfully in 1936 to help the Kentucky State Garden Club save a tract of "virgin" timber then being logged on Lynn Fork of Leatherwood Creek in southern Perry County by having it included in the new Cumberland National Forest Purchase Unit. 48. Frazier, "Redbird Roundups," 1966, and John F. Day, Bloody Ground, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., 1941), p. 200. 49. "Fordson Coal Company, Peabody-Kentucky," miscellaneous paper in possession of Thomas E. Frazier, former Redbird ranger, USDA, Forest Service, Regional Office, Atlanta, Ga. 50. "Profiles of Politics," The Leslie-County News, Hyden, Ky., July 21, 1966. 51. Perry, McCreary Conquest, p. 227. 52. Thomas R. Frazier, “A Proposal for Housing, Relocation and Employment in Eastern Kentucky," 1966. Unpublished document provided by the author in a personal interview, USDA Forest Service Regional Office, Atlanta, Ga., July 10, 1979. 53. Frazier, “A Proposal for Housing,” 1966. 54. Interviews with Thomas E. Frazier, Lands, Regional Office, Atlanta, Ga., July 10, 1979; March 27, 1980; January 27, 1981. 55. NA, RG 95, FS, OC, NFRC, Final Report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1976, pp. 4, 5. 56. NA, RG 95, FS, OC, NFRC, Minutes, March 15, 1972. 59. NA, RG 95, FS, OC, NFRC, Minutes, February 23, 1973. 65. Records on Land and Water Conservation Fund purchases, 66. NA, RG 95, FS, OC, NFRC, Final Report of the National Forest Reservation Commission, p. 4. 67. NA, RG 95, FS, OC, NFRC, Minutes, March 15, 1972. 68. NA, RG 95, FS, OC, NFRC, Minutes, January 26, 1972. 69. NA, RG 95, FS, OC, NFRC, Minutes, January 26, 1972, 3, 4. 70. Si Kahn wrote about this tract in The Forest Service and Appalachia, pp. 60-65. Kahn quotes several residents who were opposed to the federal purchase, which, Kahn says, the Forest Service "pushed through" in spite of the opposition. 71. National Forest Management Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2949. 72. Edward C. Crafts, "Saga of a Law," American Forests 76 (June 1970); and Steen, The U.S. Forest Service, pp. 285-289. 73. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, 74 Stat. 215. 74. Crafts, "Saga of a Law," p. 15; for additional background to the legislation, see Steen, The U.S. Forest Service, Chapter XI. Chapter VIII Recreational Development of the Southern Appalachians: 1960-81 The recreational development of the Southern Appalachian Mountains during the 1960's and 1970's was extensive. It brought widespread changes in landownership patterns, greater visitation and use of the region's forests, and a vocal, organized, and critical response from the Southern Appalachian mountaineer. After 1965 the Federal Government provided millions of dollars from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire private lands. Then a series of Federal laws established National Recreation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, a National Trail, and finally confirmed and extended wilderness areas in the region's National Forests. At the same time, second-home builders and resort developers helped increase the pattern of absentee landownership already typical of the region. In response to the accelerating loss of private and locally held land and local land-use control, residents throughout the mountains organized to protest. The people of the Southern Appalachians now seemed much more determined to resist giving up ownership of land than they had been in the past. As discussed in chapter VI, outdoor recreation became more and more a national pursuit and a national concern after World War II, as the spendable income, leisure time, and mobility of Americans increased rapidly. Concern with the Nation's ability to satisfy recreational demands was expressed in Federal legislation in June 1958, when President Eisenhower created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC).' The Commission's task was to inventory and evaluate America's outdoor recreational resources, both current and future, and to provide comprehensive information and recommendations so that the necessary quality and quantity of resources could be assured to all. It was composed of four senators, four congressmen, and seven private citizens. The Commission's immense report was issued in 1961, in 27 volumes. In essence, it found that America's recreational needs were not being effectively met, and that since future demands would accelerate, money and further study were needed at the Federal, State, and local levels. The Commission provided more than 50 specific recommendations, which can be grouped into five general categories. These were: (1) the establishment of a national outdoor recreation policy, (2) guidelines for the management of outdoor recreation, (3) increased acquisition of recreational lands and development of recreational facilities, (4) a grants-in-aid program to the States for recreational development, and (5) the establishment of a (Federal) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.' Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Is Created During the next 10 years, virtually all the ORRRC recommendations were enacted. In April 1962 the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) was established in the Department of the Interior.' Edward C. Crafts, former Assistant Chief of the Forest Service, became its first Director. The Bureau's purpose was to coordinate the recreational activities of the Federal Government under a multitude of agencies and to provide guidance to the States in planning and funding recreational development. At the same time a policymaking Recreation Advisory Council was established by executive order. It was composed of the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Defense, and Health, Education and Welfare, and the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency." The Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 was passed to expedite coordination of recreational planning by Federal agencies and initiate a comprehensive national recreation plan. A year later, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was passed to provide funds for Federal and State recreational development. This heavy Federal legislative and administrative emphasis on outdoor recreation was to have a decided impact on the Southern Appalachians during the 1960's and 1970's. Many of the Federal recreation programs and dollars spent on recreation were channeled into the region. The number of annual visitors to the southern mountain forests rose substantially, as increased recreational development-both public and private-increased tourist attractions and investment possibilities. In addition, the renewal of Federal funding for recreation made land acquisition appear much more urgent than it had previously been for general National Forest purposes. Consequently, the Forest Service decided to exercise its condemnation power as a final option, if needed, to acquire especially worthy sites from owners unwilling to sell. Such condemnation aroused residents in several areas, many of whom organized for the first time in often bitter protest of Federal land acquisition policies. Since the early 1900's, with the genesis of the movements for National Parks in the Great Smoky and Blue Ridge Mountains and for the Blue Ridge Parkway, the recreational potential of the region's natural resources had been well recognized. By 1960, decades of Federal land acquisition throughout the region had put together very large tracts close to the Eastern Seaboard that appeared ripe for recreational development. Studies conducted for the Appalachian Regional Commission were somewhat contradictory. One made for ARC by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1966-67 declared the Southern Appalachian region had great potential to provide for rapidly rising demands for public recreation. The study, in estimating demand for outdoor recreation from 373 counties and parts of 53 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas within 125 miles of Appalachia, calculated that to meet 1967 needs, at least 600,000 more acres were required for boating, 20,000 acres for camping, and 30,000 for picknicking. By the year 2000, it predicted, the recreational demands placed on the region would be "staggering"; thus, an intensive effort was believed necessary to provide recreational supplies to meet the demands. However, another study, made jointly by two private firms less than a year earlier for ARC, had warned against major public investment." |