you cannot find anything in it that gives pri- 

 ority to timber and water. Yet, to be perfectly 

 frank, that had been the customary understand- 

 ing in the past both in the Forest Service and 

 outside . . . Our interpretation of the sentence 

 is that it really has no significance with respect 

 j to management of the National Forests. It does, 

 however, concerning their establishment. The 

 1897 Act said, among other things, that no Na- 

 tional Forest shall be established except for cer- 

 tain specified purposes and then a little later 

 timber and water are mentioned as two of the 

 purposes. Now when the Multiple Use Act says 

 that it is not in derogation of the 1897 Act but 

 supplemental to it, the effect is that the Nation- 

 al Forests now may have as one of the purposes 

 of establishment one of the other resources 

 enumerated in the first sentence. But in addi- 

 tion you must also have either water or timber. 

 In other words, it means that a National Forest 

 cannot be established just for recreation alone 

 or for range alone, but it can have one or more 

 of those purposes as objectives of establishment 

 if it also has water or timber. 



A brief review of the hearings on the bill 

 and the statements made on the congressional 

 floor at the time of its consideration indicates 

 that much effort was expended in an attempt 

 to preserve "pet" priorities — those of special 

 importance to certain groups. The listing of 

 the resources alphabetically in the bill was 

 merely an attempt to prevent any overt indi- 

 cation of that intent. Widespread support for 

 the bill was achieved by "satisficing" all of 

 the various interest and pressure groups. In 

 the end, however, it is doubtful if any of the 

 maneuvering altered the basic direction out- 

 lined in the act . 



The overriding priority, common to both 

 f the Act of 1897 and the MU-SY Act of 1960, 

 is concern for the permanence (i.e., sustained 

 '.. yield) of the forest, which is to be regarded as 

 1 -..an ecological system. Thus, as emphasized 

 throughout the foregoing" discussion, regard- 

 less of any administrative priorities that may 

 have been established among the resources (or 

 uses, or products) of the forest, all manage- 

 ment considerations must be directed toward 

 the prevention of "destruction and depreda- 

 tion" of the forests (Act of 1897) and toward 

 the "harmonious and coordinated manage- 



50 Crafts (1970) p. 52, emphasis added. The court 

 opinion in the McMichael case is in agreement with 

 this interpretation, although it cites a "consistent ad- 

 ministrative interpretation" that Crafts' statement in- 

 dicates did not prevail. 



ment of the various resources . . . without im- 

 pairment of the productivity of the land" 

 (MU-SY Act). 51 



There is no indication from the foregoing 

 that there has been any legislative intent to 

 identify priorities in use. Historically, Nation- 

 al Forest administration has consistently 

 evolved, albeit slowly, toward a position of no 

 established priorities, with weights left to be 

 assigned on a regional or local basis. Even now 

 that evolution is proceeding within the organ- 

 ization. Further evidence of the validity of 

 this interpretation is found in the enactment 

 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

 1969 and the Wilderness Act of 1964. 



The Wilderness Act 



In the Wilderness Act of 196 4, 52 a Nation- 

 al Wilderness Preservation System was estab- 

 lished with provisions for review of certain 

 areas as to the suitability of their remaining 

 within the wilderness classification (fig. 8). 

 Having set up the reasons why a wilderness 

 system was desirable and specifying what it 

 meant by an area of wilderness, the bill speci- 

 fied that "all areas within the National Forest 

 classified at least 30 days before the effective 

 date of this Act ... as 'wilderness,' 'wild,' or 

 'canoe' are hereby designated as wilderness 

 areas." Having then set up a process for re- 

 view of the land so designated, the act con- 

 tinues, 



(a) The purposes of this Act are hereby 

 declared to be within and supplemental 

 to the purposes for which National For- 

 ests and units of the National Park and 

 national wildlife refuge systems are es- 

 tablished and administered and .... 



(1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed 

 to be in interference with the purposes 



51 Rogers (1969, p. 129) similarly interprets the 

 law: "There is no obligation whatever upon the Secre- 

 tary to sell one log from National Forest lands, 

 except as it may be incident to the management of 

 those lands for sustained-yield production. He is 

 authorized to sell, but not required to do so, and the 

 amount he sells is completely within his administra- 

 tive discretion" (emphasis added). 



52 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131-36. 



30 



