ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER TWO: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MOUNT ROGERS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
CHAPTER THREE: SOME INHOLDERS OF THE MOUNT ROGERS AREA
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS
ENDNOTES
SOURCES
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION INDEX
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

This report was funded independently by a grant from the Institute for Human Rights Research located in San Antonio, Texas. All opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those many people, both in government and out, who permitted me to interview them. I would especially like to thank several people who greatly assisted he by supplying me with various documents, namely Kirby Brock and Robert Spivey of the United States Forest Service, Arlene Crow and Larry and Lorraine Pierce from the mount Rogers National Recreation Area, Charles Cushman of the National Inholders Association, and Steve Berry from the office of Congressman William C. Wampler.

The tallest mountain in the state of Virginia is Mount Rogers, over 5700 feet high, named after William Barton Rogers, the first state geologist for Virginia and later the founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Around Mount Rogers, in the Southwest corner of Virginia, is a rural landscape among beautiful green hills and mountains ranging from the North Carolina border on the south to north to the New River, misnamed because it is geologically the oldest river on the North American continent (Photos 36 and 37). In the mid-1960's Congress created the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area as a new concept in multiple-use recreation designed to satisfy the needs of those relatively close urban centers which were far removed from the older and more naturally spectacular National Parks.

The Mount Rogers NRA was placed under-the management of the U. S. Forest Service and this report will examine one aspect of that management, land acquisition. The report will focus less on Forest Service policies and more on the inholders affected. In 'his report the term "inholder" will be used in the broad sense of a property owner whose land adjoins, or is significantly affected by Federal land. Most of the field research conducted for this report was done in the four counties of Carroll, Grayson, Smyth, and Washington in Southwest Virginia. In the Sources section, some people listed under Interviews will not appear in the specific endnotes following each chapter. The knowledge gained from such sources was of a general nature.

In 1974, as part of their preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service contracted Professor Edwin Rhyne from the College of William and Mary to write a social impact analysis which he again updated in 1979. The Rhyne reports, at first glance, might be regarded as the documents more similar to this report than any others concerning the Mount Rogers area. Both authors conducted field research in the region and both interviewed approximately the same number of inholders. This report, however, will have a narrower focus. Following a brief history of the NRA, the report will detail how the lives of various inholders have been affected by the USFS land acquisition policies. Case studies, or profiles will be presented. The Rhyne reports were grounded in anonymity which is, more often not, demanded for certain studies. Despite its good points, this approach made the reports somewhat lifeless.

This report will not shroud the inholders interviewed in anonymous statistics and matrices. Hopefully, it will be anything but lifeless. The reader will meet real identified people, with real feelings and perceptions about their lives on the land around Mount Rogers, Virginia.1

The Mount Rogers National Recreation Area is part of the larger Jefferson National Forest and is managed by the U. S. Forest Service. That agency has a rather anomalous position within the Department of Agriculture dating from the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt. Prior to the conservation-minded Chief Executive, our National Forests had been ensconced in the Interior Department, but Roosevelt feared that unscrupulous administrators of that Department might sell timber leases to logging and lumber companies to the point of denuding the nation's forests. Therefore, he transferred the National Forests from Interior to Agriculture which he hoped would more scientifically and properly manage the harvest of those trees in the National Forest System. By leaving the compartment of government which managed the vast majority of Federal lands, the Forest Service was able to achieve a rare degree of autonomy within USDA which has persisted to this day.

For decades the Forest Service was primarily concerned with the controlled usage of its timber reserves, a task which, for the most part, it has performed admirably. For instance, in the specific case of the Jefferson National Forest, Forest Service management has done a remarkable job of reforestation. Prior to World War One, much of the area which now encompasses the National Forest (the bulk of which is in Southwestern Virginia with smaller parts in Kentucky and West Virginia) was stripped of its taller trees by voracious timber concerns. The Forest Service has returned the land to a lush state of pine-laden beauty and controlled timber harvesting. In the last few decades as the multiple-use management skills of the Forest Service have become more refined, recreation, mining, and a variety of other non-lumber uses have emerged to compete with the timber industry for space within the National Forest System. In the early 1960's the concept of National Recreation Areas came into being as a result of efforts by the Recreation Advisory Council, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy foresaw an increased public appetite for recreation on Federal lands and, being an Easterner, realized that the majority of Americans were far removed from post of the National Parts. Therefore, National Recreation Areas were devised to increase the amount of land for recreation without the more stunning and unique features needed for the establishment of a National Park. NRA's must be relatively close to large urban centers and can fall under the management of either the National Park Service or the U. S. Forest Service, but the majority of the dozen or so NRA's existing today are managed by the latter agency.1

One of the first National Recreation Areas established was the one centered around Mount Rogers, Virginia within the Jefferson National Forest. Its creation was due largely to the efforts of Congressman W. Patrick Jennings who represented Southwestern Virginia in the House of Representatives at that time. Session after session in the early 1960's Jennings kept introducing his Bill which would provide for a "Mount Rogers Wonderland" or "Whitetop Wonderland" NRA in his home district. (Whitetop was the name of another tall mountain near Mount Rogers.) Finally in 1965, Jennings' Bill passed the House. The following year the Senate approved his measure and on May 31, 1966 President Lyndon Johnson signed the Act which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Mount Rogers National Recreation Area under the management of the U. S. Forest Service. 2

The boundaries drawn up enveloped 154,000 acres among the counties of Carroll, Grayson, Smyth, Washington, and Wythe. Approximately 84,000 of those acres were already part of the Jefferson National Forest and of the remaining 70,000 acres, 39,000 were to be acquired by the government. The Forest Service told the Senate Agriculture Committee that it estimated 40 per cent of the 39,000 acres might be obtained by easements. An easement is basically a contract between a landowner and the government whereby the property owner agrees to certain restrictions on his or her land such as not constructing another building without Forest Service permission. For this specified control over part of the land in order to maintain an area's esthetic mandate, the government purchases the easement from the landowner while the landowner, in turn, retains title to the land and agrees to abide by the easement terms. Easements can be scenic, developmental, construction-type, or other forms, but all have the similarity of being less costly for the government than outright fee purchase of land and individually negotiable between property owner and government as a construction of contract law.3

Thus, the Mount Rogers NRA was ushered forth as a new venture in recreation and multiple-use management by the Forest Service. Early in 1967 local citizens in the five-county area banded together and formed "Citizens for Mount Rogers" which soon became the Mount Rogers Citizens Development Corporation to insure that the local populace would share in whatever new economic benefits the Recreation Area might bring. The first president of this organization was Albert Mock, Jr. The MRCDC also hoped to plan for the controlled development an the private lands within and near the NRA. This organization soon realized it needed more professional planners and a more formal structure. The CDC group hired a planner who then formed the Mount Rogers Planning District Commission, a landmark organization in the history of Virginia. It was the first regional planning agency in the state and the prototype for the 23 other planning districts which followed in its wake by the early 1970's. The concerns of the MRPDC were primarily centered on the physical planning for the NRA such as waste disposal, parking, taxation, and law enforcement, but as the years wore on the organization grew more concerned with human resources. The practical planning of the MRPDC coupled with the boosterism of the MRCDC worked together with the initial assumption that the NRA would bring enormous economic benefit to a poor rural area of the state. 4

While all of this was going on in the late 1960's, the Forest Service was formulating a preliminary plan of its own for the new Recreation Area. Early in 1968 the Forest Service presented its vision of the Mount Rogers NRA. At that time and for the following ten years, the Forest Service estimated that the NRA would draw five million visitor days per year by the year 2000. A "visitor day" is a unit of measurement for calculating park and recreation area usage. One visitor day is any combination of use totaling 12 hours (such as one person for 12 hours or six people for two hours). Five million visitor days was an extremely high estimate and yet very much in line with the "boom" mentality of the times. An independent technical report, by the firm of Gardner Gidley in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, predicted nine million visitor days by the year 2000. More important, what the Forest Service had proposed to attract such a large population was a massive series of recreational complexes which included a luxury ski slope facility near Pine mountain, and five major recreation complexes with campsites, swimming facilities, trails for hikers-and horseback riders, and picnic units. Also anticipated were several impoundments, or "artificial lakes", for fishing and a semi-restricted scenic highway to cross virtually the entire length of the NRA along the crest of Iron Mountain (Photo 1) . The theme chosen by the Forest Service to represent the Mount Rogers area was "Rural Americana." 5

In these days of declining expectations it is difficult to recapture the mentality of economic confidence of the late 1960's. There was very little opposition to NFS pronouncements regarding Mount Rogers in the early years. Most people probably believed that the certain economic boom within the NRA would outweigh any disruptions of life in this Southern Appalachian region although, just as probable, few persons took the time to seriously consider the specific impact of 5,000,000 visitor days, a scenic highway, and a ski lodge on the mountain people who happened to live in the pathways of these projects. It was only alter two crucial changes were experienced by people in the early and mid-1970's that opposition to the Mount Rogers NRA began to swell; the economic future suddenly appeared clouded with doubts and the Forest Service's land acquisition plans for the Recreation Area began to hit people quite literally where they lived.

To its credit, the Forest Service always stated during these early years that its proposals for the NRA such as the ski slope and scenic highway were preliminary or "draft". Nonetheless, the Jefferson National Forest could not operate in a vacuum and specific managerial assumptions had to he made to proceed with the Congressional mandate for Mount Rogers. In 1967-1968 a Land Management Plan was drawn up for the NRA and its implementation slowly commenced. At this time the Jefferson Forest leaders set the objective of acquiring 16,300 acres of land from 124 different owners by 1969 (Stage I) and the lesser priority acreage of 22,700 by 1973 (Stage II). 6

The expected land acquisition of the NFS slowed considerably as the economic downturn of the 1970's dampened plans for the Mount Rogers NRA. One million visitor days had been predicted by 1972. The reality of tourism within the Recreational Area was a much smaller amount. The year 1971 saw only 320,500 visitor days. As of December 1972 the Forest Service had acquired only 13,000 acres instead of the whole of the 39,000 "must acquisitions" it had originally intended to obtain by that time. As stated before, part of the reason was economic. President Richard Nixon impounded much of the Forest service appropriations during the early 1970's and his administration was somewhat miserly with those NFS funds which it did release. Another reason for the slowdown was the nascent protest against the Forest Service methods of land acquisition. 7

One of the very first people to speak out against the expansion of NRA lands was the Reverend Bill Gable, a Lutheran pastor who lived in the Konnarock area. Gable moved into the area in mid-1971 and by Christmas of that same year began to hear stories about people being forced off their land by the Forest Service. He investigated the complaints and discovered that some inholders who did not want to sell were being driven off their properties by Declarations of Taking. A Declaration of taking is a severe form of condemnation derived from a 1931 Act of Congress whereby the government, in acquiring land for public use, gains title to the property immediately and evicts the former owner usually within 20 to 90 days. The government also must immediately deposit an amount of money with the court equal to what it estimates the value of the land to be. The former owner can then withdraw any part of this money without prejudicing his right to contest the government's estimate of his or her land value. The only issue to be decided in the trial following a Declaration of Taking is whether the government's estimate of the property is truly just compensation for the former owner. The value of the land is based on the time of the DT, not at the time of trial. Also in Declarations of Taking, the government is obliged to relocate the former owner based on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 which provides for moving expenses and assistance in finding a comparable relocation site. In a straight condemnation, or condemnation by complaint, the landowner retains title to the property until after all litigation is over. The property can be altered before the final decision is rendered and the determination of just compensation is made at the time of trial which is normally years after the government hat initially condemned the land. In these cases, if the government feels that the amount of compensation awarded the property owner is excessive, it can then dismiss the case from condemnation and would be only obliged to pay litigation costs and attorneys' fees to the property owner. From the government's point of view, Declarations of Taking are much quicker routes for the acquisition of land than straight condemnation and often less costly, although their implied usage is to be more of an emergency nature such as when a landowner might be violating an easement restriction by clear cutting a large amount of timber. For the property owner, a DT can be the most traumatic event in one's life. 8

When Bill Gable perceived what was occurring around him with regard to land acquisition, he organized inholders to oppose further condemnation by the Forest Service. He formed the Laurel Valley Land Owners Association near Konnarock. Gable had 82 acres of land within the NRA, but personally was never approached by the Forest Service for his land. He also attempted to organize the landowners in the Fairwood Valley area where many inholders bad been served Declarations of Taking. This area was the site near one of the proposed impoundments and a large recreation complex. Gable saw his primary mission as helping to preserve the mountain culture by getting the NPS to cease its forced evictions of landholders unwilling to sell. He also believed that Mount Rogers would not bring about the great economic boom many had hoped for. In 1971 a very negative research report was issued regarding the supposed monetary benefits of the NRA (Recreation Potential in the Appalachian Highlands, a report for the Appalachian Regions Commission, prepared by URS Research Company, San Mateo, Calif.). Also, at a meeting of inholders near Whitetop mountain in 1973, Gable forced the Forest Service to admit that they had no specific plans for economic development for the local people. After some thought, a Jefferson forest leader told the stunned audience of 150, "You can all cut firewood for the campers". 9

Gradually more people began to listen to Bill Gable. The Boards of Supervisors of the affected counties began to echo many of his same questions to the Forest Service, particularly in Washington County whose Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution opposing further condemnations. Gable hired a lawyer, John Lowe from Charlottesville, to fight in late 1973 against the Declarations of Taking going on in the Fairwood region. Lowe tried to obtain an injunction against further evictions on the basis that (1) the Secretary of Agriculture had not signed for each condemnation and (2) the Forest Service was in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by not conducting an Environmental Impact Statement for its great plans for the Mount Rogers area. Actually, at the same time, the Forest Service announced that it already intended to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Early in 1974 the Jefferson National Forest supervisor estimated that the DEIS would take about six months to complete. As part of that process, the NFS contracted for the first social impact analysis by Professor Edwin Rhyne of the College of William and Mary. In September of 1974 the Forest Service had to revise its schedule as it announced that the DEIS would take much longer than anticipated. The people of the Mount Rogers area began to lose their earlier enthusiasm for the Recreation Area. Albert Mock, Jr., the first president of the Citizens Development Corporation, lost 1700 acres of his property in a condemnation suit early in 1973. He felt that the Forest Service was proceeding beyond the scope of the Congressional intent and said he had become very discouraged about the NRA. Said Mock:

If it could be a project which truly involved people here, I'd be very much in favor of it. But as it stands now, I can't see that local people are going to get any benefits out of it.

When the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (or Unit Plan as it was often called) was released to the public in early 1978 a crescendo of opposition was soon heard from much of the local citizenry. What upset so many people was not that the Unit Plan contained a new scope of planning for the NRA, but rather that nothing had been deleted from the original plans of the late 1960's. The 63 mile scenic highway and the ski slope complex on Pine mountain were still being proposed for the area by the Forest Service as were the several impoundments and extensive campground facilities. The DEIS still projected 5,000,000 visitor days by the year 2000 even though the 1970's were proving to be a dismal disappointment in this regard. The year 1978 saw only 434,000 visitor days within the NRA. To many, it appeared that the Forest Service had ignored totally the past ten years of OPEC-induced gasoline shortages, a sagging economy, and a dwindling rate of tourism growth. 11

The opposition to the Forest Service plans was greater than what Rev. Gable was able to garner in the early years of the decade. People opposed the plans for the Mount Rogers NRA for a variety of environmental and economic reasons in addition to opposing the land acquisition tactics of the USFS. An organization which called itself Citizens for Southwest Virginia was quickly formed. As in the case of opposition to the National Park Service along the Blue Ridge Parkway, this group was a curious mixture of relative newcomers to the area as well as being partly led by members of same of the oldest families of the mountains. Leaders of the Citizens group included Charley and Tula Newman, Lawrence and Lorraine Pierce, and June Slemp. Citizens for Southwest Virginia published two extensively-read newsletters, hired legal aid, and very quickly were able to present nearly 3,000 signatures in opposition to the DEIS or Unit Plan for Mount Rogers to the Forest Service. By late spring the astounding total of nearly 24,000 signatures had been collected in opposition to the DEIS. (These signatures are now in the possession of June Slemp.) The Citizens group had five stated goals:

(1) to stop further condemnation of land

(2) to stop the proposed ski slope

(3) to stop the proposed scenic highway

(4) to promote further development of the NRA, on guidelines emphasizing moderate camping and tourist facilities, hiking, trails, and horseback riding

(5) to keep Rural America alive and not turn it into a sideshow for tourists

As one can gather from this, opposition to land acquisition from unwilling sellers was only one part of the furor against the plans for the NRA. Environmental concerns often drew the greatest attention. The Citizens group was joined by allies such as the National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club. Also assisting was The Plow, a twice-monthly newspaper published in Abingdon and edited ably by Bill Blanton. 12

On the other side, there were still many local persons who favored the DEIS and the greatly expanded NRA. Some of these people included local mayors, supervisors, and many businessmen who hoped for, or already had, commercial concerns near the fringe of the Mount Rogers area. Often the most bitter and heated exchanges were between these two opposing groups rather than between the Citizens group and the Forest Service as one might assume. In between, there were many locals who opposed only various parts of the Unit Plan. For example, Wythe County Planner, Robert Johnson, opposed the scenic highway, but favored all other aspects of the proposed development. Again, to its credit, the Forest Service stressed that these proposals were of a draft nature and the agency no doubt expected comments on the DEIS but the quantity and intensity of the reaction from the inholders and others must have surprised the USFS greatly.

The Forest Service absorbed the criticisms directed at its DEIS and prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement which was finished early in 1980. In many ways, the DEIS was a victory for Citizens for Southwest Virginia and their supporters. The Forest Service significantly scaled down the plans for the NRA. Gone was the scenic highway as well as all of the impoundments except one near Bournes Branch. The ski slope and lodge was canceled and the projected tourist use of the Mount Rogers area was lowered to 2,000,000 visitor days by the year 2000. To those most concerned with the plight of the inholders, however, the DEIS was a cruel disappointment. Even though the major recreation projects first proposed in the 1960's had been discarded by the Forest Service, almost the exact same quantity of acreage targeted for land acquisition was in the Final EIS as had been in the Draft EIS for Mount Rogers. What was especially galling to many inholders was the fact that many of the former landowners forced off their property by the government by Declarations of Taking had been evicted for stated projects, such as the scenic highway and the Fox Creek impoundment, which the Forest Service now said had been canceled. The FEIS also contained a map which specified the types of land acquisition intended. The majority of acres were specified as willing seller-willing buyer and, as in the DEIS, for the first time in the history of the NRA, the Forest Service proposed to obtain some of the acreage by easement purchases (the area around Brush Creek). There is, however, a great amount of acreage on the map color-coded in yellow which means a "must acquisition" for the USFS and, presumably, a return to condemnations for those homeowners unwilling to leave their land for a price. Many of the inholders "in the yellow" apparently never even received a copy of the FEIS, or "blue book" as it is sometimes called. The reader will now meet several of those people in the following chapter, as well as others, and, hopefully, will discern their feelings, their fears, and their hopes for the future.13

In 1934 Pauline Dixon and her husband, Jay, opened the Iron Mountain Grill on the crest of Iron Mountain near Troutdale. Jay's family had been in the Mount Rogers area for generations and he had inherited the land for this new enterprise. They struggled hard for many years with their diner and in 1952 they were able to build their home nearby. The years following were finally profitable for the Iron Mountain Grill and the Dixons were able to rent it out to different management for the fifteen years prior to their conflict with the Forest Service in 1973-1974. At that time the long range plans of the National Recreation Area called for a scenic highway to be built right through the Dixon's home and business. The Dixons did not want to leave what had taken so long to build up. In late 1973 they even refused to let Forest Service personnel on their property for an appraisal and in April of the following year they were served with a Declaration of Taking and given 21 days to vacate. Pauline Dixon said at the time the Forest Service had promised to help her house-hunt in the city of Marion, but this aid was never forthcoming. Bitterly, the Dixons relocated themselves and built a new house. They also contested the government's estimate of their land which the USFS said was $93,000. After the subsequent trial, the Dixons were awarded $160,000 for their approximately 150 acres, but they had already spent $22,000 for their lawyer and $80,000 for their new house. In the spring of 1975 the Forest Service moved their former home from its old site to a different one and asked the Dixons whether they would like first bid for it, a fact which further enraged them because had they known that such an opportunity was going to present itself, they never would have built the second home. Finally, after the Forest Service gave up on its plans for the scenic highway, the agency proceeded to rent it back to the same person that had been renting from the Dixons. Today, the iron Mountain Grill (Photo 2) stands where it always has, but Pauline and Jay Dixon have lost it as a source of income. When they drive by their former business nowadays, Pauline Dixon said, "I used to cry, but I don't look that way anymore."1

Like the Dixons, the Youngs were served a Declaration of Taking in the spring of 1974 by a Federal Marshal. This had occurred after seven years of what the Youngs called "harassment" by the Forest Service in trying to obtain their former land for part of the Fox Creek impoundment. They had lived on the land for 17 years and had raised tobacco and cattle. After they received the DT, Robert and Helen Young hired a lawyer who managed to get them a higher value for their land plus thousands of dollars in relocation funds, but as the Youngs said, "There are lots a things money doesn't compensate for." Helen Young went under a doctor's care after being forced off her land and had a nervous condition for two or three years. The Youngs do not like to go back to their former home especially since they are now under the impression the house is being lived in by Forest Service personnel in the aftermath of the cancellation of the Fox Creek impoundment.2

The Crows have owned land in the Brush Creek area of the NRA since 1976. In July of 1978 Arlene, her husband and two sons moved onto the property with the hope of retiring there permanently after a 20 year period of living briefly in a variety of locations all over the world due to Chuck Crow's career in the military. That same year they were approached by a lands acquisition forester who wanted to purchase an easement on their land. Arlene Crow and her family had just recently been made aware of what had happened to their neighbor, the Reverend Roy Taylor (who will be discussed next) and, according to their understanding at the time, they were very much fearful of easements. Now, Arlene Crow admits that easements were not explained to her fully. She had been under the impression that they were non-negotiable. Even before the Crows settled into their home (Photo 4) , they had moved to Brush Creek fully intending someday to have Arlene's parents, Sherman and Mary Poland, live on the property also. Arlene's mother was in poor health and eventually the Polands did move onto the Crow property (Photo 17), but for many months Arlene Crow worried whether an easement restriction might prevent her mother from retiring to the healthful life found in Southwest Virginia. The Crows wish there was better communication links between the Forest Service and the inholders. They never received the FEIS, or "blue book," even though their property was planned for an easement. This was explained to this researcher by the Forest Service that an inholder's name must be brought to the attention of the headquarters of the Jefferson National Forest in Roanoke to receive important mail. Arlene Crow had written letters of concern only to the District ranger level, so apparently continuous linkage among the various Forest service channels might improve the needed and shared inholder-USFS discussions.3

Reverend Taylor had lived 15 years in the Brush Creek area until he was told about 1978 by the Forest Service that they wanted to purchase his land for use as a ranger station. Some time later the USFS changed its mind and said that they wanted the Taylor property only for a scenic easement. Reverend Taylor has since moved to North Carolina to a new ministerial position, but he recalled his reaction to the proposal in a letter:

... I asked the question "If I should take an easement and when I got older and not as much money coming in and couldn't keep it in good maintenance what would happen to me then?" the answer 'we would give you fair market value after appraisal were made it you failed to take the offer, your place would be condemned and then a price we would offer you would have to be take... I didn't want any part in paying for a home & someone else tell me what I could do and could not do.

Donna Taylor and her family are close neighbors of Arlene Crow. About three years ago they wanted to sell their small plot of land, slightly more than one-half of an acre, located on Virginia state road 602, also known as Brush Creek Road. They did not receive any offers which pleased them and the Forest Service, at the time, expressed no interest in their land. According to the recent FEIS, their plot is now earmarked for an easement and the Taylors have heard such negative comments about easements that they would prefer to sell. Since almost all of the land on the other side of Brush Creek Road across from the Taylors has been purchased by the Forest Service, Donna Taylor worries whether someday her home might be overrun by the problems which would accompany the campsites scheduled to be built across the road from her. She is particularly annoyed by a house which stands vacated directly across from her home. The property was purchased by the Forest Service and yet the former owner's house still stands. Donna Taylor said the property is strewn with litter (Photo 6) and that the soil is eroding (Photo 7). She was especially incensed by a recent incident she witnessed at the house. One weekend same Forest Service personnel were using the vacant house as a hunting lodge. When one forester discovered that no key had been brought along to open the house, he smashed open the door window in order to get inside. (Photo 80).5

Owners of one of the most attractive farmhouses in the entire eastern portion of the NRA (Photo 91), the Byrds have lived on their land for several decades. About four years ago the Forest Service took Albert and Mary and many of their neighbors on bus ride throughout their section of the NRA and pointed out the plans for the Recreation Area and why they wished to obtain various people's property. At that time the Byrds were told that the USFS was not interested in the land on the side of state road 602 where the 73 acre Byrd farm was. Six months later they were approached with a scenic easement offer which they refused to sign. They were also told by the lands acquisition forester not to communicate the "deal", or terms of the easement proposed, to their neighbors. So fearful of easements were the Bards that Mary thought she might have a nervous breakdown during this period. As many of their neighbors across 602 sold their properties to the Forest Service, Albert and Mary expressed puzzlement as to the great variations in prices for land offered by the USFS. According to the couple, some former residents received $5,000 or $6,000 per acre while their son Wendell was offered only $850 per acre. 6

Pearman is an inholder who has never been approached by the Forest Service in regard to his land, but, like Albert and Mary Byrd, he is disturbed by what he sees as the many inconsistencies of USFS policy all around him. Pearman lives near the proposed Bournes Branch recreation complex which had the one remaining impoundment in the FEIS. Pearman said there is no need for the proposed two and one-half mile road connecting state road 602 with Bournes Branch as there are sufficient roads and roadbeds already in existence. In another part of the NRA, he drove this researcher along NRA road 690(Photo 10) and 667 which contained numerous unmaintained campsites (Photo 11). These roads were built by the USFS in the mid and late 1960's, but appear to have been largely abandoned. Erosion is setting in off parts of the roads, probably due to motorcycling (Photo 12), and there were a couple of 20 acre clearings (Photo 13 and 14) in evidence which would seem to be appropriate foundations for campsites. The Forest Service explained that such clearings may actually have been intended for some of the wildlife usages of the USFS, such as for grazing or nesting. Frank Pearman questioned if the Forest Service cannot maintain and develop the land they already have, why does the agency continue to acquire so much acreage.

There were a number of other visible signs in other parts of the NRA noticed by this researcher which, at first glance, might have indicated that the Forest Service could not fully maintain the land which it already possessed. For example, several Forest Service signs were missing the center portion of the sign which carried the message or directional indication. All that remained was the wooden frame (Photo 18). This was explained by the USFS that several of the signs had been removed for cleaning. Along the Fairwood Valley area most of the evidence of the former owners has been "returned to nature" according to the mission of the NRA, but there was still an occasional house foundation present (Photo 19) and, in one instance, an entire house and shed stood vacant and deteriorating (Photos 20 and 21). These structures appear to have been probably abandoned for at least three years and, perhaps, dated back to the 1973-1974 period when much of the USFS land acquisition in that area occurred. There were also other small plots of Forest service property which contained some junked automobiles and other litter (Photos 22 and 23); and the most unsightly property seen by this author in or near the entire NRA sported the sign of a Jefferson Forest warden on the front lawn, a lawn which also included an old rusted school bus and several other junked autos (Photo 24). Such a sight may be totally beyond the scope of USFS power and also such wardens are not actually full-time Forest Service employees, merely local residents contracted by the government to be a reporting station for forest fires and other matters. Nonetheless, if the Forest Service had any choice in the matter, it would seem logical to assume that the agency would have chosen a more esthetically pleasing setting or a more conscientious property-owner with which to entrust its official designations and signs.

Returning to Frank Pearman, he felt that the 75c per acre that the USFS is supposed to pay to local governments in lieu of property taxes is not an equitable trade for the agency's tax exempt status. A recent 12 county survey by the Virginia Land Owners Association seems to confirm Pearman, saying that most residents and businesses in the area averaged at least $1.25 tax per acre with many going over $1.50 per acre. The MRPDC has also decried the loss of local taxes due to the expanding NRA. In fact, the executive committee of the MRPDC recently adopted the recommendation of its land use and environmental planning advisory, council that all further land acquisition by the Forest Service cease "until payments in lieu are increased and funded to offset the tax loss to local governments." 7

Although they are relative newcomers to the area, the family of Larry Pierce is one of the oldest in the region. Larry was born in Nebraska after his father had left the Southern Appalachian region over 50 years prior. The original Pierce family cabin, in fact, still stands on the property of the Jarvises near Sugar Grove and the older half of the structure dates back to approximately 1800 (Photo 16). After Larry retired from his job as a carpenter in Los Angeles, he and his wife, Lorraine, and their family moved to the land of his "roots" in late 1977. The 103 acres Pierce purchased from relatives had been in his family for at least 100 years. When the Pierces first moved into the area, Larry went to the Forest Service to inform them that he intended to build his awn house on his land near Troutdale. At that time, the USFS told the Pierces of the possibility that the agency might want a scenic easement on part of their property. Shortly thereafter, in early 1978, the DEIS, or Unit Plan, appeared which indicated that approximately one-half of their property was a "must acquisition" for the Forest Service, meaning that if the Pierces did not want to sell, the only alternative was condemnation proceedings in the form of a Declaration of Taking. This threw the Pierce's plans for retiring in the NRA asunder. Lorraine Pierce began waking up in the middle of the night to cry. Determined to hold onto their property, the Pierces became active in Citizens for Southwest Virginia. When the FEIS came out in 1980, to their astonishment, Larry and Lorraine discovered that the other half of their land left free in 1978 was now "in the orange," or color-coded to signify that the USFS wanted the remaining acreage on a "willing-seller" basis. In effect, the USFS now desired all of the homestead of the Pierces. Presently, since Larry Pierce was hesitant in constructing his house after the 1978 DEIS appeared and he rented a house just outside the NRA, according to internal Revenue statutes, he forfeited the capital gains on their previous house by failing to buy a new "home" within 18 months after sale of the prior one. Therefore, the Pierces have withdrawn their entire savings to pay the $6,000 tax bill. Larry Pierce said he is "broked out," but will not quit fighting for the right to live on his land. 8

There were many inholders who willingly sold their land to the Forest Service within the boundaries of the NRA and the great majority of these people offered nothing but compliments in-the way they were treated by the USFS. One such inholder was Paul Jones, the brother-in-law of the aforementioned Rev. Roy Taylor. Jones has been partially disabled for 14 years and about three years ago he put his house and approximate three acres up for sale near Cripple Creek. He and his wife were getting tired of the frequent commutes to the hospital in Galax. The Forest Service approached him and asked whether he would consider their offer for his land. Jones stated that he never felt pressured in any way by the agency, calling the agency personnel he encountered "the nicest people." Jones was very satisfied with the government price for his property (more than $13,000) and, as for any regrets about leaving the beautiful surroundings of the NRA, Jones said, "I wouldn't trade where I am now for three places like that."

Elbert Anders is another former inholder who experienced no problems with the Forest Service as he was glad to sell his one acre nearly three years ago off Brush Creek Road. A neighbor of Anders then was Allen Waller who now lives in Damascus. Waller also owned an acre bordering Brush Creek and bartered back and forth with the Forest Service three times before a price was reached with which he was well satisfied." Waller wishes he could have more business dealings such as the one he had with the USFS.

Bo Bailey now lives in Indiana, but about six years ago, like Paul Jones, he put his property up for sale and was soon approached by a lands acquisition forester who made what Bailey considered a very generous offer, or as he put it, "they offer you the moon." Even though he and his wife came from two of the older families in the area, Bailey was glad to sell his 115 acres near the Cherry Park Shelter and move from the area to a much better economic situation. Discussing the generous relocation benefits of the USFS, Bo Bailey related how his former neighbor in the NRA, elderly Norman Sheets, was moved from a decrepit shanty to a very nice brick house. Bailey said he thought that the Recreation Area had definitely raised the land values around Mount Rogers. He said he felt that many inholders who did not want to sell were merely waiting for higher prices for their land. For those people, though, who "actually went through con-damnation, he expressed sorrow, but added, "that's the only way we can have anything." 9

Swinney is also classified as a willing seller by the USFS, but the 50 year old textile mill worker now states that he regrets his decision to sell and felt pressured into doing so. He was assisted in his relocation by the Forest Service and even though his new house (Photo 26) rests on slightly more land than his prior residence, he said the quality of his living has declined. His new house is within the city limits of Fries, overlooking the well-traveled highway into town (Photo 27), while his former plot overlooked a beautiful valley from Iron Mountain. The new land has no good drainfills, he said, while his former land had two. Since his relocation, in February 1980, his property taxes have doubled. Arlie Swinney enjoys hunting and he has a very deep love for his beagle hunting dogs, but, unfortunately, they have all developed ticks since his move to "the city." He cannot understand why the Forest Service wanted his former land. His house there could not be seen from state road 602 below nor from the crest of Iron Mountain above so there was no question of it being "unsightly." As part of his agreement with the government, Swinney must dismantle his former home within 180 days, a task which he sadly does on a near daily basis (Photo 28). At government expense then, Arlie Swinney has moved into a larger house on more land, but this "poor country boy" as he called himself, has also moved into a much more "urban" environment, the ramifications of which he was unprepared for. 10

Even though the story of Dr. Cranton is long and complicated; and even though he is an inholder who has never been approached by the Forest Service for his land and, therefore, might be considered only marginal to the focus of this report, his experience might illustrate a unique case study of one who spoke out against the policies of the USFS for the Mount Rogers area. Dr. Cranton moved into the area in 1976 on a grant from the National Health Service Corps of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Such programs are designed to correct the maldistribution of medical care in this country by bringing physicians to rural and other areas greatly in need of health care. A clinic was set up for Cranton and, in return, the former jet pilot and Navy doctor signed a three year contract to stay in the area. He was the only physician within a 20 mile radius of the Troutdale area. Cranton brought with him an increasingly popular approach to medicine called holistic health care which emphasizes preventive care and patient participation in the maintenance of the "whole" person. Coupled with his interest in parapsychology, the health care methods of Dr. Cranton soon ran into a small, but vociferous group of local citizen opposition. Holistic health care soon became "Holyistic" health care to a minority of local ministers and a faction on the board which controlled the clinic. Unfounded and outrageous rumors began to circulate about the doctor and his family. One rumor was that he practiced spiritualism and had attempted to raise the dead. The accusers actually requested HEW to remove Cranton from their community. At this time, the Department declined to act on such charges. After the DEIS for the Mount Rogers area appeared in early 1978, though, the opposition to the physician reached new proportions of intensity and force despite the fact that he had built up a large practice and the vast majority of the surrounding residents found him to be an excellent and much-needed figure for the community.

After a class he voluntarily gave in emergency medical techniques for the citizenry, Cranton voiced some environmental concerns about the DEIS and urged everyone present to read the Unit Plan and the extensive plans for the area. At this same time, Elmer's wife Nancy, was running for a seat on the town council and she soon began writing extensively to the local newspapers in opposition to much of the Forest Service plans for the area. Most of the Crantons concerns about the DEIS were regarding the potential ecological damage, but they also opposed condemnations. Shortly after the articulate viewpoints of the Crantons became known, several local politicians, including the mayor, joined with the previous religious opposition to the doctor in calling for his transfer from their locality. Cranton is convinced that those local politicians were so pro-development in their outlook for the area and had such an economic stake in seeing the full fruition of the USFS plans for the Recreation Area that they fostered the continuation of rumors and gossip about the Crantons' personal lives. Cranton was compared to a cult figure such as those associated with the "Moonies" and his family was rumored to worship a dead cat which was supposedly tied up on a pole in their backyard. The scurrilous stories persisted that spring. Nancy Cranton went west to visit her mother and a widespread rumor resulted that she had left to communicate with her dead mother. In, fact, the mother of Nancy Cranton was very much alive and even visited her daughter's home. Due to the persistent local political pressure, the National Health Service Corps took the extraordinary step of ordering Dr. Cranton transferred to Yukon, West Virginia despite the fact that there was a year and one-half to go on his contract. In May of 1978 Cranton filed for an injunction against HEW in District Court, The Court quickly ruled in favor of the doctor saying that the transfer was unwarranted. In his decision the judge said:

... it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Dr. Cranton was transferred on the request of the Committee because of his association with the holistic healing group and because of the speech that he had made concerning the Mount Rogers Park ... he was transferred because of a violation of his First Amendment rights of freedom of association and free speech.

Following his victory in court, Dr. Cranton then sued HEW and, in an out-of-court settlement, HEW let him out of his contract without the $15,000 penalty in return for the doctor dropping his lawsuit. Unlike 95% of NHSC doctors, Elmer Cranton has chosen to remain in the once "physician-poor" area he serviced as a government doctor. In this regard, the Smyth County Medical Society said that, "Dr. Cranton may be considered to be one of the few successes of the NHSC." In a continuing bureaucratic nightmare, the successor Department of HEW, Health and Human Service, seems determined to bring another doctor to the area under the auspices of NESC despite the fact that both the local medical society and the Virginia State Medical Society have declared that such an action would be totally unnecessary since Dr. Cranton intends to stay in the area. In other words, even according to government guidelines, the greater Troutdale region is in no need of another physician, especially one financed by the taxpayers. Dr. Cranton's account borders on the unbelievable, but it is all thoroughly documented. In no way should it be inferred that the Forest Service was responsible for what happened to him. The recent life of Elmer Canton and his family in the NRA may only be indicative of the fanaticism and zeal of those inholders and local interested parties who would have the most to gain economically from a greatly expanded and fully developed Mount Rogers National Recreation Area. 11

Like Arlie Swinney, the Wamplers are listed as willing sellers, but Juanita Wampler wishes she had never moved from her former land near Brush Creek. About four years ago, at a meeting at the Faith Baptist Church, a lands acquisition forester explained that the. Forest Service wanted much of the land along Brush Creek Road for the purpose of eventually constructing campgrounds. No mention or explanation of easements was presented at that meeting, according to Juanita and, shortly thereafter, she began to experience pressure from the Forest Service to sell. She said the Forest Service threatened her by always concluding their sales offer with "we'll get it anyway" remarks about the potential use of condemnation. Her husband was truly indifferent to the land acquisition plan and did not mind moving at all. Thus, the Wamplers finally moved from their land about one year ago and even though their acreage increased from two and one-half to nearly eight, Juanita is not happy to be living in a mobile home near Pries. It used to be a ten minute drive to her mother's house, but that is a trip which now takes forty minutes. She believed that many of her former neighbors sold their land because they were fearful of the large influx of campers which the growing NRA would produce. Juanita Wampler is so angry at having left her former home that she cannot return to the area to this day. 12

Roy is a cousin of Larry Pierce and had three brothers who all lost their land to the Forest Service in the past decade. Roy's brother, Hurley, received a Declaration of Taking for his 80 acres near Comers Cree in 1974. His brother, Percy, was a disabled veteran with a nervous disorder and who Roy believes was pressured into signing a sales agreement. When Roy found out how much was paid to Percy, he said that he would have purchased the land himself for such a low price. The experience of his brother Clydie, who died last November, further convinced him that the USFS does not offer fair market value for the land it desires. Clydie Johnson received a DT for part of his land in the Fairwood region and, after appealing the price the government deposited for his property, was awarded more than double the price the USFS had said his acreage was worth. Roy Johnson is a retired telephone worker who has two parcels of land in separate locations. Currently, about one-half of his land has been put an a willing-seller basis of acquisition by the Forest Service, but Johnson does not want to sell. He is particularly annoyed by the surveying methods of the foresters whereby they have painted bright red stripes upon some of his trees. After the experiences of his brothers, Roy Johnson said he would not trust anything the Forest Service might communicate to him. 13

The 56 year old Earl Jackson (Photo 31) lives with his 77 year old mother, Orra, off state road 602 in a house of which part of the foundation dates back 100 years. Jackson is 95% disabled from an industrial accident and would like to retire on his mother's 100 acres and start raising a few head of cattle. All that he grows now is a little corn and hay, but he is especially proud of the golden pheasants he has raised. The Forest Service, though, wants a good chunk of his best pasture land for the previously mentioned two and one-half mile connecting road from 602 to Bournes; Branch which would cross part of the Jacksons front lawn (Photo 32). Orra Jackson is seriously ill and several times lands acquisition foresters have approached her to buy part of the land, once while-she was recovering from a stroke. Earl said it was fortunate that he was present at each occasion due to his mother's nervous condition and he finally asked the foresters to stop harassing his mother. Earl's extended family exemplifies same of the problems which develop when some family members want to sell their land while others are reluctant. Directly across from Orra Jackson is the land of a cousin of Earl's who wants to sell to the USFS. Earl said that his cousin offered the Forest Service $2,000 per acre for his land, but the agency declined that price. Nearby, off road 602, is the property of 90 year old Alice Jackson, sister-in-law of Orra. This beautiful farm (Photo 33) would have been largely submerged under water had all the originally proposed impoundments been built. Earl said that he was worried what an expanded NRA might do to local taxes, particularly with regard to the anticipated need to hire more police. A jump in property taxes of only several hundred dollars, Earl Jackson feared, could thoroughly disrupt the subsistence living of many of the inholders to the point where they might not be able to afford to stay on their land. 14

June comes from one of the oldest families in the entire area. Her mother's side of the family was banished to the area by one of the Georgian Kings of England in the early 1700's. Her husband's family has been in the region so long that there is a Slemp Creek. The Slemps live in Marion now and are technically not inholders, but have been very concerned about the policies of the Forest Service. She reiterated that the paternalistic attitude" and insulting tone of the 1978 DEIS triggered widespread anger on the part of many locals. She said what was particularly offensive in the DEIS to many of the long-time residents was the social assessment summary, or first Rhyne report, completed in 1974, but not released until 1978. In part, that social report made the following generalization about the Southern Appalachian person:

He has a relative lack of skill in seeing or understanding the needs of others, particularly 'outsiders' which will be a hindrance to reacting to economic opportunities provided by the NRA.

The parents of Virginia Parsons' husband lost their land near Comers Creek via a Declaration of Taking in the mid-1970's. Her mother-in-law, 76 year old Vinny, suffered a nervous breakdown following their eviction and has been hospitalized five times since. Her father-in-law, 86 year old Ed, has also been very ill since the serving of the DT, but his sickness is more physiological in nature, according to Virginia. She described herself as "really unsatisfied" at the way the government has treated the former property of her in-laws. Ed had kept an antique wagon in excellent condition on the property which soon had two of its wheels stolen because the Forest Service refused to gate the road entrance to the property even though the Parsons family had requested that action. Since then, the USFS has put a locked gate at the access to their former land. 16

Willie Wilson's ancestors go back four generations in the area where he now lives near Elk Creek and Willie intends to stay where he is until he dies. The Forest Service, however, has listed much of his property as a "must acquisition" in the FEIS, a copy of which Willie never would have seen had not his neighbor, Jim Fink, given him his copy. Wilson is a proud man with a deep respect for the land of the area. He hunts not to kill, but only to eat what he slays. He is saddened and cannot understand why the Forest Service has deadened much of the hardwood (e.g. oak and hickory) near his land for the purpose of planting white pine seedlings. Don't they know, he asked, that hardwood and the fruit it bears (e.g. acorns and other nuts) are absolutely essential for much of the wildlife in the region? Wilson also considers himself deeply patriotic and recounted how he felt that the finest years of his youth were those he spent in the 82nd Airborne Division. He served both in Korea and at the Berlin Wall Crisis of 1961. Few inholders seemed as determined as Wilson to hold onto their land. Saying that he was not afraid to die, Willie Wilson swore that blood would flow down his road before he would ever leave his home. He said, "I was born here, I was raised here, and I intend to die here." By the end of his interview with this researcher, tears had welled up in his eyes. 17

Terry is an inholder, but that fact is incidental to the reason why she was included in this report. Terry used to work for the Forest Service from September, 1977 to June, 1978, but quit because she could not agree with what the Forest Service was doing around Mount Rogers. She left for two specific reasons: (l) the USFS land acquisition policies in the area which she called "brutal," and (2) safety reasons; specifically she was told to inject hardwood trees with a toxic dermal agent and not given any gloves for protection of the hands even though the cans specified that precaution. She said that she was ridiculed at safety meetings when she mentioned this. Coming out of college with a degree in forestry technology, Terry was immediately placed in charge of an entire crew. She had a bright future ahead of her in what had once been one of the most male-dominated agencies in the government, but, with extreme disappointment, she quietly resigned after less than a year of service. She has heard from friends in the USFS that the region in which she worked was regarded as somewhat of an aberration within the Forest Service and that in the western United States the USFS is much more respected by its neighboring citizens. Terry Parlier-Holmes hopes that such stories are true, but, for the moment, she does not intend to return and begin work again for the Forest Service. 18

In 1979 Professor Edwin Rhyne wrote a second social impact analysis for the Forest Service as part of the process toward issuance of the Final EIS. It was essentially an update of his report made five years earlier, but he did make the statement that opposition to the NRA had increased greatly since 1974. To an outsider, a seemingly important question might be one that both Rhyne and this author cannot answer with certainty, or as the Professor said, "Whether there was more total support or opposition to the proposed NRA is a more difficult estimate to make." Despite this, Rhyne said that he encountered more support in his field research for the 1978 Draft EIS than opposition, an observation of questionable astuteness due to the fact that nearly 24,000 signatures were collected against it and the Forest Service, itself, altered it so greatly as compared to the FEIS. The question, though, whether a majority of people around Mount Rogers support the National Recreation Area is actually not a very important question at all upon a deeper examination of the other issues.

It may very well be that a majority of inholders support an expanded NRA without the larger components of a ski lodge, a scenic highway, and all the impoundments. There is certainly a long and genuine list of truly willing sellers and the pro-development mayor of one of the key towns within the NRA was recently re-elected. Actually, though, a more pressing question for this report, and perhaps for our society, is whether a minority of individuals must suffer for the proclaimed good of the many. In other words, how many inholders need to be forcibly removed from their hones in order to adequately fulfill the Congressional mandate given to the Forest Service to fulfill its mission of managing a multiple-use National Recreation Area. It has been nearly six years since the last Declaration of Taking was used against an inholder in the Mount Rogers area. For those affected, obviously, the trauma feels as if it had occurred yesterday, and what is tragically ironic about the forced evictions of years past is that the reasons why many of those inholders were driven from their homes were for specified projects later canceled.

Like any responsible agency, the Forest Service must manage the Mount Rogers NRA the best way it knows how. For example, much of the reason that the ski complex was originally proposed was because the actual Act creating the National Recreation Area had the following language, "...effectuating the establishment of adequate summer and winter outdoor recreation facilities." It is understandable, then, why the Forest Service chose to promote the ski lodge (even though the snowfall for the area would probably not have consistently supported such expansive skiing). Like any agency, the Forest Service must follow the intent of Congress. The intent of Congress, though, often changes, as it should, with the trends of a dynamic nation.

The mid and lake 1960's had an economic boom mentality which may not be seen again in this century. Former Congressman Jennings said that he wanted the people of his district to "think big." many of them did and many did not. In part, the Forest Service displayed this ambivalence. It proceeded along some of the lines envisioned by Jennings and his supporters while, in other regards, it moved far too slowly for those same people who sincerely had hoped that the NRA would prove to be an enormous boon to the area. As Professor Rhyne correctly observed, the people and culture of Southwest Virginia have changed and will continue to change no matter what direction the Mount Rogers NRA takes. In fact, it could be argued fairly easily (and in enough detail to require two more reports) that the two greatest causes of cultural change in the area in the last 25 years have been the construction of Interstate Highway 81 and the spread of television. Both of these wrenched the people and their communities from their long-standing isolation with far greater force than could ever occur via the NRA. For a few score households, though, the NRA has had the unfortunate and troubling effect of violently wrenching them from their status among the hills and mountains they had loved.

As communities and Congressional intents change, so has the Forest Service. For years easements were not attempted within the NRA. The Forest Service still regards them as creating permanent adversary relationships within an area. Unlike National Park Service lands, National Forest lands allow for a variety of uses by the public such as hunting, fishing, wildlife grazing, foraging, and camping; a fact which, according to the USFS, makes easements unwieldy. Also, even though easements are regarded as a less costly form of land control than fee acquisition, the Forest Service said there are long-term hidden costs associated with them, or, in other words, the continual enforcement needed (e.g. periodic inspections). Despite all of these misgivings, the Forest Service at Mount Rogers has nonetheless undertaken the arduous task of implementing and promoting easements within the NRA. The new leadership at the Jefferson National Forest has often gone out to explain easements to the people and intends to continue to do so. The Jefferson Forest leadership stated that it would welcome an individual easement proposal from every affected inholder. The Forest Service also welcomed the assistance of the official lobby of the inholders, the National Inholders Association, in explaining the rights and options to those people most concerned, and often uninformed, about their land. It will be an enormous educational endeavor due to the long-term deep suspicions prevalent and the process will take years.

Of greater concern is the large amount of acreage still listed, not as easements, but as "must acquisitions." If these are truly needed, all parties must be informed as to the reasons. Whether any listings might be converted to easements is another potential avenue of discussion which might better relations between inholders and the Forest Service. Since those specified properties will presumably no longer be needed for the scenic highway or the ski lodge, their new multiple uses might be flexible enough to alter their acquisition from "must" to easement, or even to willing-seller. Obviously, there will be much needed dialogue on this difficult problem. As in the case of inholders along the Blue Ridge Parkway, there was fairly consistent comment on how the past two years of relations with the Forest Service has been the best in memory. Many inholders sensed a new willingness of USFS personnel to talk candidly about the future of the NRA and its relationship to land acquisition.

As another part of the changing Forest Service, it might be advisable for the agency to reconsider its policy of using Declarations of Taking, as opposed to straight condemnations, in the last-resort event of the use of eminent domain. The Forest Service has always used Declarations of Taking on the assumption that they are less painful (by the virtue of being quicker) to the affected party. To the Forest Service, the inholder can quickly withdraw the government-deposited money for his or her property and the litigation is less lengthy. One wonders, though, whether the process of straight condemnation, whereby an inholder, especially an elderly one, can remain in one's home for several years while the litigation progresses, might be a more preferable form of eminent domain than the heart-wrenching sight of the government evicting a citizen within 30 days or so. in retreating from its traditional use of DT's, the Forest Service would be trading a little more cost and time for its purposes for a more humane treatment for the affected inholder. Hopefully, the issue of DT's versus straight condemnations may become moot. The new Forest Service leadership in the area has indicated a greater determination to use eminent domain only as the very last resort, or as was put to this researcher, "If we're patient enough, we'll only be willing seller-willing buyer. In continually re-thinking and re-evaluating its goals and methods, the Forest Service would also be honoring the one man to whom it owes so much, Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the Forest Service, who said shortly before his death:

...our organization and our methods must never be frozen, but always subject to change.... Never change for the sake of change, but change for the sake of betterment the moment we were sure that betterment would follow change. The old battle cry of bureaucracy, 'We have always done it this way,' meant nothing to the men of the Forest Service. 1

1 Bristol Herald Courier, January 9, 1969, p. 1; Edwin Rhyne, "Social Impact-Analysis for the proposed Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area," September, 1979.

1 Daniel R. Barney, The Last Stand (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1974), pp. 10-13, 107-109; Interview with Kirby Brock, District Ranger, Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, June 13, 1980; Michael Frome, Whose Woods These Are: The Story of the National Forests Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1962),pp. 33-44, 59-62; Interview with Robert Spivey, Jefferson National Forest Supervisor, June 16, 1980; U. S., Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Mount Rogers National Recreation Area Final Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Atlanta: Forest Service, 1980), pp. 117-118.

2 Bristol Virginia-Tennessean, August 12, 1973, (clipping-pagination unavailable); interview with former Cong. W. Patrick Jennings, Sr., June 27, 1980; U. S., Congress, House, A Bill to Establish the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area in the Jefferson National Forest, H.R. 10366, 89th Cong., 1ST sess., 1965, pp. 22955-22957; Mount Rogers NRA FEIS, pp. 110-112.

3 Ibid. , pp. v. lll,,115-116.

4 Bristol Herald Courier, August 30, 1973, p. B1; Ibid., July 29, 1979, p. 4B; Brock interview; Galax Gazette, July 25, 1979, p. 9A; Wythe County News, February 1, 1968, p. 1.

5 U. S., Department of Agriculture. National Forest Service, " Mount Rogers National Recreation Area Final Management Plan Summary 1980"(Atlanta: Forest Service, 1980; ______,___________. ____________ "Mount Rogers National Recreation Area - A Review" Atlanta: Forest Service, 1969), pp.,4, 6-7, 11; Washington County News, June 18, 1970 p. 1; Wythe County News, February 1, 1978.

6 Spivey interview; U. S., Department of Agriculture. Forest Service "Special Landownership Adjustment Plan for Mount Rogers National Recreation Area" (probably prepared in Roanoke: Forest Service, 1967).

7 Bristol Herald Courier, February 25, 1973, p. 1OC; Bristol Virginia-Tennessean, August 12, 1973, (clipping-pagination unavailable); U. S., Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Capsule Report No. 1 Mount Rogers National Recreation Area," July 1, 1971-December 31, 1971 (probably prepared in Marion, Virginia: Forest Service, 1972); Washington County News, April 29, 1971, p. 2.

8 Declaration of Takings Act, Statutes at Large, XLVI, part 1, 1421-1422 (April, 1929-March, 1931);Interview with Bill Gable, June 14, 1980; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Statutes at Large, LXXXIV, part 2, 1894-1907 (February, 1970-January, 1971); U. S., General Accounting Office. Federal Land Acquisitions By Condemnation--Opportunities to Reduce Delays And Costs (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1980),-pp. 58-59, 75-78; Ronald Zumbrun, Raymond Momboisse, and Eileen White, "Legal Aspects of Federal Government Takings of Land" (Sacramento: Pacific Legal Foundation, 1980).

9 Bristol Herald Courier, August 30, 1973, p. B1; Gable interview; Mountain Life and Work, August, 1973, pp. 18-19.

10 Bristol Herald Courier, August 30, 1973, p.B1; Bristol Virginia-Tennessean, January 27, 1974, 1(clipping-pagination unavailable); Gable interview.

11 U. S., Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Mount Rogers National Recreation Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I (Atlanta Forest service, 1978), pp. 1-2; Mount Rogers NRA FEIS, p. 6.

12 Letter from David Burwell, Counsel, National wildlife Federation, to Donald Blackburn, Acting Supervisor, Jefferson National Forest, July 3, 1979; Letter from Donald Hutchison, Chairperson, Foothills Group, Sierra Club, to Lorraine Pierce, Secretary, Citizens for Southwest Virginia, October 6, 1978; Interview with Charley and Tula Newman, June 14, 1980; "Newsletter" of Citizens for Southwest Virginia, May, 1978; Ibid., August, 1978; Interview with Larry and Lorraine Pierce, June 13, 1980; The Plow, March 4, 1978, p. 1B; Ibid., April 1, 1978, p. 27; Ibid., June 15, 1979, p. 5; Response of Citizens for Southwest Virginia to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement," August 1, 1978 (Troutdale, Virginia: published by Citizens for Southwest Virginia, 1978); Interview with June Slemp, June 15, 1980; Mount Rogers NRA FEIS, p. 131.

13 Interview with Arlene Crow, June 11, 1980; Letter from Robert Johnson, Wythe County Planner, to Cong. William C. Wampler, December 21, 1978; Pierce interview; Mount Rogers NRA DEIS, pp. 180A, and maps; Mount Rogers NRA FEIS, pp. v-vii, 60, and map.

1 Interview with Pauline Dixon, June 14, 1980; Galax Gazette, March 7, 1979, p. Bl.

2 Interview with Robert and Helen Young, June 14, 1980.

3 Crow interview; Spivey interview.

4 Letter from Rev. Roy Taylor to Arlene Crow, May 27, 1980.

5 Interview with Donna Taylor, June 13, 1980.

6 Interview with Albert and Mary Byrd, June 11, 1980.

7 Brock interview; Crow interview; Interview with Frank Pearman, June 12, 1980; Wythe County News, undated clipping-probably June 9 or 10, 1980).

8 Pierce interview.

9 Interview with Elbert Anders, June 19, 1980; Interview with Bo Bailey, June 24, 1980; Interview with Paul Jones, June 21, 1980; Interview with Allen Waller, June 19, 1980.

10 Interview with Arlie Swinney, June 12, 1980.

11 Interview with Dr. Elmer Cranton, June 14, 1980; Letter from Dr. Frank Merker, Smyth County Medical Society President, to Frank Mays, Director, Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency, March 22, 1979; Smyth County News, May 23, 1978, pp. 1 & 4; Ibid., May 25, 1978, pp. 1 & A-13; Order, Elmer M. Cranton, M.D. v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr. (District Court, Western Va.) Civil Action Nos. 78-0091-A and 78-0101-A; Letter from Leonard Varmette, Jr., Administrative Assistant for Health Planning, Medical Society of Virginia, to Dr. Samuel Vernon, Smyth County Medical Society Vice-President, April 15, 1980.

12 Interview with Juanita Wampler, June 12, 1980.

13 Interview with Roy Johnson, June 15, 1980.

14 Interview with Earl and Orra Jackson, June 11, 1980.

15 Slemp interview; Mount Rogers NRA DEIS, p. 69.

16 Interview with Virginia Parsons, June 15, 1980.

17 The Plow, July 17, 1978, pp. 6-7; Interview with Willie Wilson, June 13, 1980.

18 Interview with Terry Parlier-Holmes, June 14, 1980.

1 Barney, p. 132; Jennings interview; Rhyne, "Social Impact Analysis," 1979; The Southwest Progress, April 11, 1979, p. 2; Spivey interview.

Burwell, David. Letter to Donald Blackburn, July 3, 1979.

Hutchison, Donald. Letter to Lorraine Pierce, October 6, 1978.

Johnson, Robert. Letter to Congressman William C. Wampler, December 21, 1978.

Merker, Dr. Frank. Letter to Frank Mays, March 22, 1979.

Taylor, Reverend Roy. Letter to Arlene Crow, May 27, 1980.

Varmette, Leonard, Jr. Letter to Dr. Samuel Vernon, April 15, 1980.

Declaration of Taking Act. Statutes at Large, Vol. XLVI (April, 1929-march, 1931).

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition

Policies Act. Statutes at Large, Vol. LXXXIV (February, 1970-January, 1971).

U. S. Congress. House. A Bill to Establish the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area in the Jefferson National Forest. H.R. 10366, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965.

__________. Department of Agriculture. National Forest Service. Capsule Report No. 1, Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, July 1, 1971-December 31, 1971. Probably published in Marion, Virginia: Forest Service, 1972.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. Mount Rogers National Recreation Area--A Review. Atlanta: Forest Service, 1969.

______.__________. _________. Mount Rogers National Recreation Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Vol. 1. Atlanta: Forest Service, 1978.

______. _________. _________. Mount Rogers National Recreation Area Final Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Atlanta: Forest Service, 1980.

______. _________. _________. Mount Rogers National Recreational Area Final Management Plan Summary 1980. Atlanta: Forest Service, 1980.

______. ________. _________. Special Landownership Adjustment Plan for Mount Rogers National Recreation Area. Probably published in Roanoke: Forest Service, 1967.

______. District Court, Western Virginia. Order, Elmer M. Cranton, M.D. v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Civil Action Nos. 78-0091-A and 78-0101-A.

______. General Accounting Office. Federal Land Acquisitions By Condemnations--Opportunities to Reduce Delays And Costs. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1980.

Anders, Elbert. June 19, 1980.

Bailey, Bo. June 24, 1980.

Berry, Steve. June 10, 1980.

Brock, Kirby. June 13, 1980.

Byrd, Albert and Mary. June 11, 1980.

Campbell, Paul. June 24, 1980.

Cranton, Dr. Elmer. June 14, 1980.

Crow, Arlene. June 11, 1980.

Dixon, Pauline. June 14, 1980.

Gable, Rev. Bill. June 14, 1980.

Jackson, Earl and Orra. June II, 1980.

Jennings, Cong. W. Patrick, Sr. June 27, 1980.

Johnson, Roy. June 15, 1980.

Jones, Paul. June 21, 1980.

Newman, Charley and Tula. June 14, 1980.

Parlier-Holmes, Terry. June 15, 1980.

Parsons, Virginia. June 15, 1980.

Pearman, Frank. June 12, 1980.

Pierce, Larry and Lorraine. June 13, 1980.

Slemp, June. June 15, 1980.

Spivey, Robert. June 16, 1980.

Swinney, Arlie. June 12, 1980.

Taylor, Donna. June 13, 1980.

Waller, Allen. June 19, 1980.

Wampler, Juanita. June 12, 1980.

Wilson, Willie. June 13, 1980.

Wright, Dave. June 9, 1980.

Young, Robert and Helen. June 14, 1980.

Bristol Herald Courier. 1969, 1973, 1979.

Bristol Virginia-Tennessean. 1973-1974.

Galax Gazette. 1979.

Mountain Life and Work. 1973.

The Plow. 1978-1979.

Smyth County News. 1978.

The Southwest Progress. 1979.

Washington County News. 1970-1971.

Wythe County News. 1968, 1978, 1980.

Barney, Daniel R. The Last Stand. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1974.

Citizens for Southwest Virginia. Newsletter. May, 1978.

__________. ____________. August, 1978.

__________. Response of Citizens for Southwest Virginia to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area and Mt. Rogers Scenic Highway. Troutdale, Virginia: Published by Citizens for Southwest Virginia, 1978.

Frome, Michael. Whose Woods These Are: The Story of the National Forests. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1962.

Rhyne, Edwin. Social Impact Analysis for the proposed MO. Rogers National Recreation Area. 1979.

Zumbrun, Ronald.; Momboisse, Raymond.; and White, Eileen. Legal Aspects of Federal Government Takings of Land. Sacramento: Pacific Legal Foundation, 1980.

Slide number	Subject
1	Crest of Iron Mountain
2	Iron Mountain Grill
3	Arlene Crow
4	Home of Chuck and Arlene Crow
5	No slide with this number
6	Litter on Forest Service property across from Donna Taylor
7	Soil erosion on same property
8	Broken door window on same property
9	Home of Albert and Mary Byrd
10	NRA road 690
11	Former campsite off NRA road 667
l2	Soil erosion off same road
13	Road to 20 cleared acres off same road
14	Clearing of land near NRA road 667
15	Larry and Lorraine Pierce
16	Original Pierce family cabin
17	Home of Sherman and Mary Poland
18	Forest Service frame for sign near Cripple Creek
19	Foundation of former home in Fairwood area
20	House in Fairwood-Fox Creek area
21	Shed on same plot of land
22	Junked automobiles on Forest Service property off Virginia state road 602
23	Litter off state road 602 near Cripple Creek
24	Forest Service warden property off state road 604
25	Arlie Swinney
26	New home of Arlie Swinney
27	View from new Swinney home
28	Former Swinney home
29	Dr. Elmer Cranton
30	Roy Johnson
31	Earl Jackson
32	Proposed road entry to state road 602 from the Jackson property
33	Home of Alice Jackson
34	June Slemp
35	Terry Parlier-Holmes
36 & 37	The New River

Kent Anderson received his Ph.D. in history from the University of Washington in 1975. Prior to that, he was a pre-doctoral instructor in U. S. history at that institution for three years. With few changes, his dissertation was published by Greenwood Press in 1978 under the title of Television Fraud: The History and Implications of the Quiz Show Scandals as part of their Contributions in American Studies series. Anderson has also worked for the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the C. V. Mosby Publishing Co. other research citations of Kent Anderson have appeared in Public Administration Review and the three volume work, Perspectives on Political Philosophy, edited by David K. Hart and James Downton.