By Brandt Mannchen

To obtain wilderness in the National Forests and Grassland in Texas (NFGT) took more than 12 years.  This resulted on October 30, 1984 in conservationists, including the Sierra Club, fighting the U.S. Forest Service, timber industry, un-sympathetic politicians, and some rural folks getting 38,667 acres designated by the U.S. Congress in five areas:

1) Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area (3,855 acres) in Sam Houston National Forest.

2) Big Slough Wilderness Area (3,639 acres) in Davy Crockett National Forest.

3) Indian Mounds Wilderness Area (12,369 acres) in Sabine National Forest

4) Turkey Hill Wilderness Area (5,473 acres)

5) Upland Island Wilderness Area (13,331 acres) in Angelina National Forest. 

Before we see how this happened, we must determine how Wilderness got started and what led to its consideration for East Texas.  This history is incomplete and comes from documents in my personal files.  I have plagiarized mercilessly my sources and I thank them for their erudition and scholarship, which if not performed, would make this effort impossible.

There is no easily obtained wilderness history of the fight to obtain East Texas Wilderness Areas and the Sierra Club’s role in this event that I know of.  This document will have to do until someone comes along, takes more time, finds more sources, and makes a better effort than I have.  Good luck and God bless them when they do.  

Before The Wilderness Act of 1964

Ideas about wildlands, free-willed lands, and wild landscapes were thought of and considered for 100’s if not 1,000’s of years before today, in reality when the U.S. Forest Service (FS), via its Regional Forester, agreed with Aldo Leopold, a District Ranger, in the Southwest Region (Arizona and New Mexico), and by administrative order set aside about one-half million acres as the Gila Wilderness Area. In June 1924, there began a federal policy on Wilderness that would ultimately lead to the passage of The Wilderness Act of 1964.

About this same time, Arthur Carhart, also a FS employee, was pushing the FS to protect important scenic areas in other national forests.

In 1929, the FS promulgated the “L-20 regulation”, the first federal policy for Wilderness preservation.  At that time, these areas were called “primitive areas”.  The purpose was to “maintain primitive conditions of transportation, subsistence, habitation, and environment to the fullest degree compatible with their highest public use with a view to conserving the values of such areas for purposes of public education and recreation.”

Unfortunately, the FS, with the L-20 regulation, did not prevent development, road building, logging, grazing, or water resource development within primitive areas.  This meant that primitive areas were ephemeral at best and their fate was left to the discretion of the FS administratively.

During the 1930’s Bob Marshall, Chief Forester of the Office of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior, pushed the Wilderness idea.  In 1934 he pressed the Secretary of Interior, Harold Ickes, for a “nationwide wilderness plan” and a “Suggested Program for Preservation of Wilderness Areas” which would have resulted in a Wilderness Planning Board to select areas.

Marshall, in 1935, also helped form The Wilderness Society whose mission was, “That hope is the organization of spirited people who will fight for the freedom of the wilderness.”  The eight founders of The Wilderness Society included Bob Marshall, Aldo Leopold, Benton MacKaye, Robert Sterling Yard, Harvey Broome, Ernest C. Oberholtzer, Bernard Frank, and Harold C. Anderson. 

While the FS and the National Park Service vied for supremacy for recreation, scenic landscapes, and the public’s attention, Marshall moved to a position in 1937 in the FS Chief’s Office that made him responsible for Wilderness.

Secretary Ickes drafted and had introduced in the U.S. House and Senate in 1939 a national park wilderness protection bill.  This was the first national wilderness bill ever proposed.  It would have preserved “perpetually for the benefit and inspiration of the people of the United States the primitive conditions existing within national parks and national monuments” and would have authorized the President to proclaim, “wilderness areas when he determines that it would be to the public interest to do so.”  The bill had a Senate hearing but never passed the Senate or House. 

The FS, in September 1939, replaced its L-20 regulation with the U-1 and U-2 regulations.  U-1 was for Wilderness areas 100,000 acres and larger and U-2 was for wild areas that were 5,000 acres to 99,999 acres.  Logging and road building were not allowed and the U-1 areas required a Secretary of the Agriculture decision for establishment and boundary adjustments.  L-20 primitive areas were to be reevaluated and reclassified with public hearings and boundary reconsiderations before being declared Wilderness or wild areas. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964

After World War II, through the late 1940’s, 1950’s, and early 1960’s, a concerted effort to create protected Wilderness areas on federal public lands took hold and gained speed.  It took eight years to pass a bill, from 1958 to 1964, with many drafts and modifications of the legislation.  U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey introduced the first Wilderness Act.

Many people helped pass The Wilderness Act of 1964.  Some of these wilderness protectors were:  Olaus Murie, Mardy Murie, David Brower, Harvey Broome, Aldo Leopold, Ernest Oberholtzer, George Marshall, Joe Penfold, Benton Mackaye, Stewart Brandborg, Irving Clark, Charles Callison, Howard Zahniser, Ira Gabrielson, Sigurd Olsen, Hubert Humphrey, Mike Nadel, Frank Church, Clinton Anderson, John Saylor, and many others.    

During this time and later, fourteen “Biennial Wilderness Conferences” were held by the Sierra Club, from 1949 until 1975.  These conferences were places where wilderness benefits, values, strategies, and concerns were discussed, presented, and debated and where much networking occurred.

Howard Zahniser, appointed Executive Secretary of The Wilderness Society in 1945, often was the person who connected actions together, prepared strategies for a successful campaign, and drafted The Wilderness Act.  According to Mike McCloskey of the Sierra Club, there were 65 Wilderness bills introduced, eighteen hearings, with six in Washington, D. C. and twelve in the field, thousands of pages of transcripts, and an incredible number of letters.

Zahniser died on May 5, 1964 and did not get to see his and others’ efforts end in the passage of The Wilderness Act.  Finally, the deed was done.  On September 9, 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed The Wilderness Act.  To give a flavor for what The Wilderness Act is all about several sections are quoted below.

The Wilderness Act was created, “To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.”

Section 2(a), of the Act spelled out the wilderness system statement of policy which included:  “In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.  For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness areas”, and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness”.

Section 2(c), provides the definition of wilderness which is given as:  “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.  An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been effected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make it practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

Section 4 of the Act deals with Uses of Wilderness Areas, Prohibition of Certain Uses, and Special Provisions.  Section 4(b), Use of Wilderness Areas, states:  “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.  Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.”

Section 4(c), Prohibition of Certain Uses, states:  “Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”

Section 4(d)(1), Special Provisions, states:  “Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable.  In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.”

It was thought that the long-haul was over for protection of Wilderness.  But it was just beginning.

Purity Theory, RARE I, and The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act of 1975

Soon after the Wilderness Act was signed into law, the FS began resisting its’ implementation via their misinterpretation of the law.  The “purity theory” was a way that the FS could disavow Wilderness as a real forest management issue.  With this theory, the FS excluded millions of acres of wild lands from assessment as Wilderness by stating that they were not wild enough to be Wilderness.

When the FS did this, it fueled citizens to prepare even more of their own Wilderness proposals, bypass the FS, and take their Wilderness proposals straight to the U.S. Congress and Senate members.  Grassroots organizing pushed forward Wilderness proposals that either the FS opposed or had not yet addressed.  The U.S. Congress often accepted the boundaries and acreage citizens proposed for Wilderness areas over what the FS said was appropriate.

The U.S. Congress decided in the Wilderness Act that lands that had been roaded or logged could be part of a Wilderness if Nature could heal the abuse over time.  Before the Wilderness Act was passed, the FS agreed with this type of action and administratively designated the Shining Rock Wild Area in May 1964 (U-2 regulation) that had an area that was to be logged.  The FS stated, “The skid trails and log landings will be revegetated and otherwise treated as necessary to hasten natural recovery and prevent vehicular access.”

When the Wilderness Act was signed into law, the FS adopted this new “purity theory” interpretation of the Act.  Defacto Wilderness, national forest that had never been protected by the FS as a primitive or wild area (U-1 and U-2 regulations), was proposed by citizens as Wilderness.  The FS did not like losing control of its’ decision-making authority and determined that no areas that had evidence of past human impacts could qualify as Wilderness under the Wilderness Act.

This so-called “purity theory” reached its’ ultimate conclusion in 1971 when the FS stated that no national forest lands in the eastern U.S. could be considered for Wilderness designation.  The FS wanted the U.S. Congress to agree with its interpretation of the Wilderness Act which could then be used to prevent the creation of Wilderness not only in the eastern U.S. but also in the western U.S.

The FS drafted a bill which said that while Wilderness could not be designated in the eastern U.S. there could be a separate and competing system of “wild areas”.  These “wild areas” would have allowed logging to “improve” wildlife habitat and recreation.  This bill passed the U.S. Senate in 1972.

Conservationists put together their own bill, which was introduced in 1973, the Eastern Wilderness Areas Act, which packaged citizen proposals for Wilderness areas in national forests in the East, Midwest, and South and banished the “purity theory” as interpretation of the Wilderness Act.

The Eastern Areas Wilderness Act was passed and signed into law by President Gerald Ford on January 3, 1975.  Congress rejected the “purity theory” and the FS had to abandon this illegal interpretation of the Wilderness Act.

During this same time, the issue of roadless lands and their applicability for Wilderness arose.  These roadless lands were not the primitive and wild lands that the FS had designated via the U-1 and U-2 regulations but other wild lands which had not been assessed or determined by the FS to be primitive or wild.

The FS decided to use the new National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in January 1970, to “get ahead of and regain control” over the citizen Wilderness proposals that were brought to the U.S. Congress.

From 1971 through 1973, the FS operated a Roadless Area Review and Evaluation process (RARE I) which was supposed to inventory all roadless areas and select some of these for Wilderness study.  The FS used their “purity theory” criteria during RARE I, which removed almost all roadless areas in the East, South, and Midwest.

The first material that I have that indicates Sierra Club interest in Wilderness in East Texas is a letter and report, dated May 15, 1972, by E.O. Kindschy, Chair, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club (and the three Sierra Club Regional Groups:  Gold Triangle, Houston, and North Texas).  This report provided input to Mr. T.A. Schlapfer, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, about potential areas in the National Forests in Texas for Wilderness or wild areas.

Mr. Kindschy stated, “Attached is a copy of our preliminary report including our recommendations for the National Forests in Texas … Because of the short time available for the study, we were able to do a thorough analysis of only Sam Houston National Forest.  We hope to continue this work in the other three National Forests in Texas and will send you supplements to the report as they are completed.”

Kindschy went on to say, “It is emphasized that this is an incomplete list of recommended study areas.  We may add areas in Angelina, Sabine, and Davy Crockett National Forests to our list of recommendations as a result of continuing studies … Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the identification of potential areas.  We feel there is a pressing need for such primitive recreation areas in the East and hope our recommendations will be useful in establishing such a Wilderness/Wild Area system.”

The letter and report were sent not only to John Courtenay, Forest Supervisor for the National Forests in Texas, but also to Francis Walcott, Chair, Wilderness Committee for Sierra Club, Orrin Bonney, Chair of the Sierra Club Regional Conservation Committee (which the Lone Star Chapter was a member of), Mary Wright, Lone Star Chapter Conservation Chair, Paul Conn, Chair, Wilderness Task Force, and Ned Fritz, Chair, Texas Committee on Natural Resources (TCONR).

People who worked on the report included Paul Conn, Steve Dycus, Mailla Evans, Emil and June Kindschy, John Ossenfort, Don Purinton, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Tatum, Brom Wilkin, and Mary Wright.

The report states, “To date we recognize eight areas which we recommend be set aside and studied for preservation either under the Wilderness Act of 1964 or under any new form of legislation which will give the areas at least the degree of preservation which the Wilderness act provides.”

The potential Wilderness areas listed are from three national forests, not the one that Kindschy indicated in his letter.  The eight potential Wilderness areas included:

1) Caney Creek North, Sam Houston National Forest (SHNF), 7,000 acres

2) Caney Creek South, SHNF, 2,600 acres

3) Little Lake Creek, SHNF, 2,700 acres

4) Four Notch Forest Preserve, SHNF, 1,800 acres

5) Big Thicket Scenic Area (today called Big Creek Scenic Area), SHNF, 3,900 acres

6) Winters Bayou, SHNF, 900 acres

7) Big Slough Area, Davy Crockett National Forest, 9,300 acres

8) Patroon Bayou Area, Sabine National Forest, 7,400 acres

The introduction to the Sierra Club report stated:  “In his February 8, 1972 message on the environment, President Nixon directed that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior accelerate the identification of areas in the Eastern United States having wilderness potential … In the eyes of some people in the Forest Service the land use histories in the South and East make it questionable whether many forest areas otherwise desirable qualify under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act.  Therefore, the Forest Service is considering alternate means of creating wild areas and is seeking input from interested individuals and groups.  The Sierra Club has been asked to help in formulating a plan for eastern wilderness and in identifying potential wild areas.”

Then the report said, “John Courtenay, Supervisor of National Forests in Texas, asked the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club to review five Texas areas the Forest Service had proposed for wilderness classification.  These areas are (1) The Big Thicket Scenic Area, (2) Winters Bayou Ecological Area, (3) Patroon Bayou Area, (4) Four-Notch Experimental Forest and (5) the Big Slough Area.”

“In addition, the Chapter was asked to suggest other areas for candidacy.  This report contains the Lone Star Chapter’s Wilderness Task Force’s assessment of the five areas and descriptions of several other areas in the Sam Houston National Forest which we feel should be considered for wild area classification.”

“In approaching the problems of identifying potential wilderness or wild areas it was quickly concluded that there are no large, pristine roadless tracts in the Texas National Forests.  But because of the concentration of population in East Texas and the heavy recreational use of the Texas forests there is an intense need to preserve wild areas.  Therefore, the objective became the identification of reasonably large areas with unusual biological characteristics which could be converted into wild areas with relatively minor changes.” 

The Sierra Club letter and report make for confused reading because they mixed Wilderness Act requirements with that of a FS proposed “wild lands” system that was not law and that appeared to conflict with the Wilderness Act.  The letter and report gave the appearance of an attempt to cover all bases in case things changed in the U.S. Congress or legally.  The Sierra Club letter and report addressed both RARE I and the FS wild lands legislative proposal.

Ultimately, 56 million acres of roadless land was inventoried by the FS for RARE I.  The Secretary of Agriculture stated that 12.3 million acres would be subject to further Wilderness study.  The FS biased RARE I by fragmenting roadless tracts so they would receive fewer points in its’ rating system for solitude, reduced points on proposed areas where commercial timber sales existed, and adopted a “purity” definition that precluded most roadless areas from Wilderness study. 

However, on January 3, 1975, The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.  This should have ended the “purity theory” interpretation of the Wilderness Act by the FS.  The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act stated:  “Section 2(a) The Congress finds that – (1) in the more populous eastern half of the United States there is an urgent need to identify, study, designate, and preserve areas for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System;”

“(3) additional areas of wilderness in the more populous eastern half of the United States are increasingly threatened by the pressures of a growing and more mobile population, large-scale industrial and economic growth, and development and uses inconsistent with the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the areas’ wilderness character.”

“(b) Therefore, the Congress finds and declares that it is in the national interest that these and similar areas in the eastern half of the United States be promptly designated as wilderness within the National Wilderness Preservation System, in order to preserve such areas as an enduring resource of wilderness which shall be managed to promote and perpetuate the wilderness character of the land and its specific values of solitude, physical and mental challenge, scientific study, inspiration, and primitive recreation for the benefit of all the American people of present and future generations.”

Never again would the “purity theory” be used by the FS to prevent citizens from proposing Wilderness.  Or would it?

Before Introduction of the Texas Wilderness Act of 1984

The fight for wilderness in East Texas was heavily entwined with the parallel fight to change how the FS managed the 675,000 acres in the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.

As a result, due to differences in opinions about how to handle forest management issues like clearcutting, these differences in opinion spilled over into the Wilderness campaign.

Some Sierrans thought other Sierrans were too sympathetic and influenced by the FS about Wilderness.  Other Sierrans thought that the aggressive and personal stance some Sierrans and the TCONR, the group Ned Fritz founded, took against the FS was naive and sabotaged possible agreements between the Sierra Club and the FS that could move Wilderness efforts forward.  Thus were allies driven apart.

A letter from Lorraine Bonney, Orrin Bonney’s wife, dated March 25, 1976, expressed these frustrations.  The letter was written to Gordon Robinson, an independent forester who often served as the Sierra Club’s professional consultant for forest management issues like clearcutting.

In her letter, Lorraine said, “A sort of pitiful thing has happened here in Houston, and in the Chapter.  According to a study done in May 1972 by the Lone Star Chapter we had all these six potential wild/wilderness areas all lined up as a starter for some wilderness establishment here.” 

“Then about a year and a half ago Sam Houston NF set up this “Charette” business, invited timber com., chambers of commerce, motorcyclists, etc., etc., and the conservationists.  They had these work shops … broke into groups of about 10 to a group and settle how the planning of the Raven District … should be divided up.  Result:  We might get a Little Lake Creek Wild Area of 2,700 acres; Caney Creeks North and South went down the drain.”

“Now the San Jacinto District is coming up in Sept.,/Oct. for another charette … But Paul Conn is anticipating already that Four Notch is lost … Somehow the F.S. has brainwashed the Houston Group until they sound like hard core USFS foresters almost.”

“I wonder if you remember Hubert Davis … Hubert is a good friend of ours.  I know he’s been a timber man in the past, but to speak for the S.C. like he is doing has simply astounded me … I’m hoping what you say sinks into Paul Conn.  He’s good man and worth saving.  He’s been listening to Hubert too long.”

Divide and conquer has been a tactic that has long been successful in seeding discontent in an organization.  It appeared that the Lone Star Chapter and Houston Group were in the grip of this tactic and people, instead of talking with each other, were beginning to decide who was and who was not a friend or ally.

This was further emphasized via a letter that Paul Conn sent to Rob Deshayes, President of the Houston Audubon Society on April 18, 1976.  In the letter Paul urged the Houston Audubon Society to help with the San Jacinto “Charette”.  The Sierra Club needed expertise and support for Winters Bayou and Big Creek Scenic Areas.  Paul sent Rob a copy of the Sierra Club wilderness proposals.

Paul’s final sentences say it all, “Please contact me or any of the trip leaders if you and your members are interested in seeing these areas.  We don’t want their potential overlooked in the Charette as happened at Stubblefield.”  The reference to Stubblefield was the Raven Charette when this important area was left out of group proposals.  Paul was acutely aware that protection of wild areas was important and needed additional support.

 Another letter from Lorraine Bonney, this time to Paul Conn on May 29, 1976, lays out the same concerns.  Lorraine referred to a tendency to accept what the FS said and to parrot their position with regard to Wilderness areas, which are appropriate, and which were not.  She was especially concerned about the loss of Four Notch as a potential Wilderness area.  She also blamed the Lone Star Chapter because it did not address how the Sierra Club should participate in the Charettes.  Lorraine said that the Sierra Club should invite Gordon Robinson to discuss forests, Wilderness, and other related issues.

Lorraine’s last paragraph stated, “I’m sorry all this had to come via letter, Paul.  I wanted to talk to you in person about some of this.  A letter is at best a precarious method, easy to misinterpret.  I blame it all on the charettes and believe the charette is an extremely subtle method of the Forest Service to get the Sierra Club working for it and against the Sierra Club principals.  I am not out to hurt anybody’s feelings and the last thing I want to do is cause a rift in the Chapter, but I am out to see if something can be done about what I feel is a bad thing for the Chapter, for wilderness in Texas, and for the Sierra Club.”  

The Raven and San Jacinto District charettes created a way that the FS could undercut Wilderness enthusiasm and proposals, resulted in a point of argument between conservationists, and placed the FS at an advantage (“divide and conquer”).

The Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club, during this time, provided many of the leaders that worked on Wilderness and forestry issues for the Group and the Lone Star Chapter.  This probably occurred because there were few Groups in Texas; no Group had a national forest in its’ boundaries except the Houston Group (which had Sam Houston National Forest); many of the Chapter’s early leaders came from Houston when there were no Groups; and the Lone Star Hiking Trail, which the Chapter had sponsored was a great recruiting tool to get volunteers to hike, take care of the trail, and be concerned about forest management and Wilderness preservation.

Some Houston Group leaders and volunteers who worked on Wilderness and forestry issues during this time included Orrin and Lorraine Bonney, Brom Wilkin, Paul Conn, Dorothy Harlow, Jean Clark, George Malone, Jerry Akers, Hubert Davis, George Smith, George Russell, Emil and June Kindschy, John Glover, and Brandt Mannchen.   

Sometime during this period, the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club drafted either a “wilderness policy” or “position paper”.  The document mentions both and is not signed or dated but probably comes from 1976 or early 1977 because it mentions that this document would be for “charette participants”.

The document includes Wilderness management, benefits/values of Wilderness, criteria for designating Wilderness, how to manage “temporary Wilderness”, and a goal of 5% or 33,000 acres of Wilderness in the National Forests in Texas.  I have never seen a finalized copy of this document.

In Ned Fritz’s book, “Sterile Forest:  The Case Against Clearcutting”, he refers to several conversations with Emil Kindschy where the Sierra Club agreed not to oppose a Wilderness study bill that Ned was trying to get Houston Congressman Bob Eckhardt to introduce.  Ned said that Kindschy stated, “Yes, but some of us have been working on these wildernesses for four years and about had something worked out with Courtenay.  Now, you’ve raised the ante entirely on your own; and Courtenay is pulling out on us.”  The Wilderness Areas Kindschy referred to were Little Lake Creek, Big Slough, and Chambers Ferry.

It seemed that allies disagreed with each other on occasion.  When trying to save East Texas Wilderness, tension could come from different directions, even those you don’t expect.

RARE II and East Texas Wilderness

As we have seen, RARE I was not a success for conservationists who were disappointed with the results.  During the fight to pass a bill called the “Endangered American Wilderness Act”, which was introduced in 1976 (the bill was signed into Law by President Jimmy Carter on February 24, 1978), the FS stated in 1977 that it would begin a new effort to determine potential Wilderness in roadless areas (defacto Wilderness), which became known as RARE II.

RARE II required an inventory of almost 3,000 roadless areas, which were mapped, studied, and totaled 62 million acres.  However, during the RARE II process, which lasted from 1977 through 1979, conservationists ran into problems because the FS evaluation process and criteria were biased and the FS “purity theory” resurfaced.  Ultimately the FS stated that 47 million acres were placed in nonwilderness or “further planning” categories.  Via court, the FS was required to prepare a site-specific environmental impact statement before each inventoried national forest roadless area could be developed.

Before the FS workshop on RARE II, the Sierra Club and others had put together a proposal for 100,000 acres of Wilderness in the National Forest in Texas.  After RARE II, the number of Wilderness acres shrank to 65,000 acres.

The Sierra Club in Texas attended the August 6, 1977 public workshop in Lufkin held by the FS to set evaluation criteria for Wilderness, review FS maps, and nominate lands for an inventory of roadless areas to determine which areas could become Wilderness.

This was the beginning of Phase I of the RARE II process in Texas.  According to a 1977 Sierra Club “Forestry and Wilderness Alert”, “Phase I is not an opinion-gathering exercise, nor a popularity contest, and does not involve choosing priorities between areas.  It is basically a technical matter:  If a particular acre of land meets the criteria, liberally interpreted, it should be included.  Conservationists should work to have all roadless and undeveloped lands included in the inventory on an equal basis, assuring that the boundary of each area includes all of the continuous roadless land.”

“The purpose of the August 6 meeting is two-fold.  We will not only have the opportunity to nominate lands for wilderness study, but about half of the session will be dedicated to developing criteria which will be used in later stages of the RARE process to evaluate the wilderness potential of the nominated areas.  For this reason, it is important that we have a large conservation turnout to assure that reasonable, but FLEXIBLE, criteria be proposed so that we will not be as restricted as the Forest Service might wish.  We will be divided into groups to discuss criteria.  Unlike the charette process, we do not have to arrive at a group consensus.  Individuals are to fill out a special form, and these will be sent directly to Washington.  Please do not stay away just because you are not familiar with the National Forests in Texas.  You can learn a lot by perusing the maps with us and by talking with all the participants.”

A list of 10 “unofficial criteria” that could be used were listed (significant natural features, example of representative natural systems, diversity of wildlife communities, etc.) and three non-criteria which were features that are undesirable in Wilderness but their presence does not exclude the area from Wilderness designation if desirable features out-weigh the detracting features (evidence of man’s presence, existence of private lands, limited improved roads). 

After the August 6, 1977 meeting, many conservationists were disappointed because of FS bias.  The FS had drawn maps of potential Wilderness areas that were either not inclusive or included features that would count against Wilderness study.

The results of the rating of Wilderness study areas was not acceptable to the Sierra Club.  An undated Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club document, “Wilderness in Texas:  Comments to the Forest Service”, Makes the following points and urged people to write the FS now:

“1) There was no public input into the WARS (Wilderness Attributes Rating System) ratings in Texas.

2) There was no evaluation phase to allow adjustment of the inventoried boundaries.  No alternative boundary proposals were allowed.  The present boundaries are not those supported by wilderness proponents and include features which prejudice the public against the areas.

3) Consideration of wilderness must take into account the fact that in Texas the National Forests are a small percentage (5%) and the proposed wildernesses are an extremely small percentage (one-half%) of east Texas timberland.

4) The east Texas timber industry will not be affected by such a small percentage of timberland being set aside for wilderness.  The Forest Service’s own analysis shows this.

5) Areas excluded from the inventory due to “active timber sales” should be reinstated.  Wilderness is being established for the future: a few thinnings now will be unnoticed in a short time.

6) The National Forests should emphasize providing what private lands do not supply (wilderness, old growth forests, wildlife) rather than what would compete with private lands (timber, minerals).

7) Issues such as potential national need for minerals and timber should not be a factor.  If the needs do arise, the resources will still be there if the lands are designated wilderness.

8) Many areas will be needed in Texas since the proposed areas are relatively small and must serve the needs of such a large number of people.

9) Make the point that you will be visiting these areas.  Name any areas you have been to.  Support with specific comments the individual areas.”

The TCONR, who worked with, but independently from, the Sierra Club, in the fall of 1977, made a proposal that the Four Notch Wilderness study proposal be expanded to include 2,500 acres.  This area was called the Briar Creek – Brandy Creek Extension.  On September 8, 1977, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club nominated a Briar Creek Area, which included about 400 acres to expand the FS Four Notch Area as a Wilderness study proposal.

In the July/August 1978 Lone Star Sierran, the Sierra Club laid out its Wilderness proposal, with maps, for almost 60,000 acres in the National Forests in Texas.  The proposal included:

1) Sam Houston National Forest – Little Lake Creek, 4,900 acres, Briar Creek (also known as Four Notch) 4,800 acres, and Big Creek 5,000 acres.

2) Davy Crockett National Forest – Big Slough, 4,600 acres and Alabama Creek, 3,400 acres.

3) Angelina National Forest – Turkey Hill, 6,500 acres, Graham Creek, 9,000 acres, and Jordans Creek, 5,000 acres.

4) Sabine National Forest – Chamber’s Ferry, 4,700 acres, Indian Mounds, 8,200 acres, and Stark, 3.400 acres, a total of 59,500 acres.

The FS RARE II inventory included just over 80,000 acres.  The Sierra Club proposal had been limited to the best Wilderness candidates and was less than 10% of the National Forests in Texas.

The article went on to say that timberland in East Texas, including National Forests, is about 12 million acres.  The National Forests in Texas is about 5% of the total East Texas’s commercial timberland and the 59,500-acre Wilderness proposal was one-half percent of the commercial timberland.

The article told people to write the Supervisor of the National Forests in Texas since the RARE II draft environmental impact statement would be out for review and comment.  The article stated that the EIS was inaccurate and biased, the assessment of areas in Texas via the Wilderness Attributes Rating System was inadequate, and Texas was one of only two states where the public was not allowed input on the rating system.  The FS had offered 10 alternatives with none recommending more than 36% of the Sierra Club Wilderness areas.

The article urged Sierrans to write the Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, and support the Sierra Club Wilderness proposal.  The article also urged people to attend FS “open houses”, submit comments, attend FS RARE II slide shows, ask questions, write letters to newspapers, and call state and congressional elected officials and tell them to support the Sierra Club Wilderness proposal.

A Sierra Club, TCONR, and Houston and Dallas County Audubon Societies’ “Texas Wilderness Alert”, was sent out in August 1978 with the Sierra Club Wilderness Proposal and a map and description of each of the 11 proposed Wilderness areas. 

This alert had different acreages for some of the Wilderness areas than were previously proposed.  The acreages were now:

1) Four Notch-Briar Creek Wilderness Area went from 4,800 acres to 7,200 acres.

2) Big Slough Wilderness Area went from 4,600 acres to 3,600 acres.

3) Turkey Hill Wilderness Area went from 6,500 acres to 6,200 acres.

4) Jordans Creek Wilderness Area went from 5,000 acres to 7,800 acres.

5) Chamber’s Ferry Wilderness Area went from 4,700 acres to 4,500 acres.

6) Indian Mounds Wilderness Area went from 8,200 acres to 10,700 acres.

The total conservationist proposal went from 59,500 acres to 65,700 acres, an increase of 6,200 acres. 

On August 16, 1978, John Glover, Chair of the Forest Practices Committee of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, wrote a letter to John Courtenay, Supervisor of the National Forests in Texas about the RARE II process and the unfairness the FS had introduced in potential Wilderness consideration.  Glover made the following points to Courtenay:

“1) After the summer of 1977, the FS did not follow through with a study period and selection process that it had said it would hold and that left conservationists with the original areas proposed and the boundaries for each of those areas.

2) The Wilderness Attributes Ratings System (WARS) was used to calculate ratings using the original boundaries which included unnecessary roads, campgrounds, and other features that were detrimental to the rating of each area.

3) No public input was allowed for the WARS ratings.  Only Texas and Arkansas failed to take public input on the ratings.  The ratings documented a “strong subjective bias toward the old, now discredited “purity” requirements for wilderness candidates.”

4) The RARE II process has not given consideration to areas favored by wilderness supporters which are subsets of the areas now in the RARE II inventory.

5) Several environmental organizations have agreed on a set of area boundaries which should be used in evaluations.

6) “The Sierra Club strongly requests that these new boundaries be used from now on, that new WARS ratings be calculated on them with public input, and that the final EIS reflect alternatives based on them.”

The February – March 1979 issue of the Sierra Club Lone Star Sierran reported that the FS had ignored the Sierra Club request about revising the Wilderness ratings and had only recommended 10,212 acres for Wilderness in the National Forests in Texas.

The acres recommended were:

1) Little Lake Creek, 2,700 acres.

2) Big Slough, 4593 acres.

3) Turkey Hill, 2,919 acres.

Three areas were recommended for further planning:

1) Four Notch, 5,605 acres.

2) Graham Creek, 7,766 acres.

3) Chambers Ferry, 4,817 acres.

The Sierra Club article observed that the 14,000-acre open riding area for motorcycles in Sam Houston National Forest is larger than the 10,212 acres for Wilderness proposed by the FS in all four National Forests in Texas.  This result showed what the FS priority was.

The article reported that the Sierra Club’s 10 proposals for Wilderness got public input that was at least 4:1 in favor of Wilderness.  It stated, “After 1 and one-half years of work on RARE II, the Forest Service totally ignored the desires of Texas citizens to set aside natural areas as wilderness.”

The article related that 2,700 public comments supported the Four-Notch-Briar Creek area and all other areas but also stated “please protect the personal property rights of the residents surrounded by or adjacent to the area”.  The FS, “… incredibly interpreted this to mean the writers were actually opposed to all of the wilderness areas they had written in to support?  Of course, all of the ten proposed areas can be made wilderness without endangering private property rights in any way.”

“The course that RARE II has taken is enough to cause concern about a possible conflict of interest situation.  John Courtenay, Supervisor of the National Forests in Texas, is on the Board of Directors of the Texas Forestry Association (TFA).  TFA is the timber industry’s professional organization in Texas, and the TFA Board has taken a public position opposing any wilderness in Texas.  It is difficult to see how the Supervisor could have given our proposals completely unbiased consideration while remaining on the TFA Board.”

“Indeed, up through the level of the Forest Service Regional Office in Atlanta, wilderness in Texas received essentially no consideration at all.  There were ten steps in the Forest Service’s final decision-making process which led to the Secretary’s recommendations.  The first eight of these steps were performed at the Regional Office with the forest supervisors participating.”

“At the end of the eighth stop, there were no Texas areas in the wilderness category, in spite of the 80% favorable public comments!  This apparently loomed as so potentially embarrassing to the Forest Service that either Chief John McGuire in step 9 or Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler in step 10 added the three Texas proposals, but at the same time dropping two other areas from “further planning to “non-wilderness”.  At first glance it may look like they did us a favor; but is you think about it awhile, you’ll see we were had again.”

The next step in the process, since getting the FS’s support during RARE II had failed, was to get a sponsor in the U.S. Congress for a Wilderness bill.  A letter on November 25, 1980, from Jerry Akers, Chair, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, requested that members write Houston U.S. Congressman Bill Archer to introduce an East Texas Wilderness bill.  This effort did not succeed. 

In 1980, the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club lobbied Houston U.S. Congressman Mickey Leland to introduce a wilderness bill.  U.S. Congressmen Bob Eckhardt, Henry Gonzalez, Mickey Leland, and others filed HR 7599 on June 17, 1980, to designate East Texas Wilderness in Turkey Hill, Graham Creek, Jordan Creek, Big Slough, Alabama Creek, Chamber’s Ferry, Indian Mounds, Little Lake Creek, Four Notch, and Big Creek.  A Subcommittee hearing was held in Houston on October 22, 1980.  This did not lead to passage of the bill and Eckhart was defeated in the 1980 election.

The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club pushed for Wilderness in other forums.  On May 25, 1981, the Chapter sent a letter to William M. Lannan, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, as its’ input for a proposed land management plan for the four National Forests in Texas.

The letter said, in part, “While we see the establishment of 65,000 acres of wilderness as the PRIMARY issue to be addressed in this Plan, we would like to provide the following suggestions and comments on several important issues … Wilderness …

“1. The Forest Service should give ACTIVE support to its own wilderness recommendations (Big Slough, Turkey Hill, Little Lake Creek), such as brochures distributed to the public describing the special features of these areas and requesting further public support for wilderness legislation.

2. The Forest should sponsor informal get-togethers between wilderness proponents and opponents, providing maps and other data as needed by the participants.  These meetings should be on a Saturday so as not to conflict with participant’s jobs.  They should serve as a means for the participants to discuss differences, and not as a means for the Forest Service to obtain recommendations.

3. We strongly support establishing the three “further planning areas”, Chambers Ferry, Four Notch, and Graham Creek, as Wilderness.”

4. Because of the generally recognized inadequacy of the RARE II process, we recommend that all ten areas which have been widely proposed for wilderness designation be protected from all timber management and development activities until final resolution of the wilderness question.

5. The Forest Service should refrain from saying that an area has been “removed from wilderness consideration and returned to multiple-use management”.  Wilderness is included as one of the standard multiple uses; indeed, cutting for timber is the only one of these uses excluded from a wilderness area.  An area being managed for timber production is considerably more restrictive on other uses than is an area set aside as wilderness.”

A July 3, 1980 Christian Science Monitor article quoted George Russell, Sierra Club, as saying, “Why don’t they clear-cut their own durn land?”  He referred to clear-cutting in the proposed Four Notch Wilderness Area in Sam Houston National Forest by the FS.

The article states, “Indian Mounds, an area designated for wilderness study in the East Texas national forests, was mistakenly made the site of an advertised bid for commercial usage before Congress discovered what was going on.  Since the bid had been let, the House Interior committee sent a letter, signed by its chairman, Morris K. Udall, John F. Seiberling, and other committee members, instructing Agriculture Secretary Bob Bergland to go ahead with the contract because of the advanced stage of sale but to keep activity to a minimum, not cutting within a hundred feet of stream course, cutting any new logging roads, or engaging in site preparation (burning cut land to control returning growth), so that Congress can still consider it for wilderness.”

During this time when the Sierra Club and others were searching for a Congressional sponsor for a Wilderness bill it was important for others to speak out.  On June 13, 1981, the Houston Post published an editorial called, “Before it’s too late”, which pushed for Wilderness in the National Forests in Texas and pointed out that while 100,000 acres was first requested that citizens had compromised down to 65,000 acres but the FS wanted only 10,212 acres.  The editorial ended, “But to let all the natural forests of East Texas go to tree farms, to lose all the unpredictable charm and delights of wilderness and wild things, would be to strip Texas of its splendid variety.  Unless Congress acts quickly, it will be too late.”  

The Houston Sierra Club, via its Education Committee, prepared a “Texas Wilderness” brochure which talked not only about what Wilderness is but also talked about Texas Wilderness and efforts by opponents to prevent Wilderness in the U.S. Congress.  The brochure urged Sierrans and the public to write to Texas Representatives and Senators and oppose anti-wilderness bills. 

The Fort Worth Star Telegram on July 31, 1981, wrote an editorial called “Clearcut action needed”, that supported the designation by Congress of 65,000 acres of Wilderness in the National Forests in Texas.  On August 12, 1981, the Dallas Times Harald did the same with an editorial entitled, “Save wilderness areas”; The East Texas Light in Shelby County on January 29, 1982, wrote an editorial, “Wilderness areas urged”; and Staff Writer for the Huntsville Item, Booth Gunter, wrote a column entitled, “Clearcutting called waste”, where he also talked about the importance of having Wilderness in East Texas.

Now, as the Sierra Club and other conservationists were pushing for a Congressional sponsor for Wilderness legislation, further problems erupted that could eliminate proposed Wilderness Areas from consideration.  These problems included salvage logging for southern pine beetles (SPB), prescribed burning, and timber sales.  

A May 31, 1983 letter from the Forestry Committee of the Houston Sierra Club provided comments on an Environmental Assessment (EA) of how SPB control should be implemented if RARE II Wilderness or Further Planning Areas are found to contain the SPB.

Some quotes from those comments include, “The Houston Sierra Club is concerned about any proposal that would potentially negatively impact the 10 areas (about 65,000 acres) that we have proposed for Wilderness designation … Therefore unless absolutely necessary (an emergency only) we could not be in favor of trying to control these infestations.  We say this in order to emphasize how important these areas are … We recognize that the Wilderness Act allows for the control of forest pests in Wilderness areas.  However before this is done in Texas we would first decide what the definition of emergency is … We would not be in favor of the control by chemicals … We would not be in favor of control by salvage since this measure may actually encourage a greater cutting of an area than needed so that more timber can be cut from areas where timber cutting is in all other cases denied … We are not in favor of pile and burn …”

“If control must be done we would favor cut and leave.  However this must be done with great care so that larger than necessary areas are not cut, buffer zones are left at streams and the Lone Star Hiking Trial or any trails, and that when trees are felled they do not unduly destroy the understory, grass or herb layers, damage other healthy trees, vines or other parts of the forest habitat …”

“Finally the reason we are not in favor of any particular method that you mention is because not only do they have negative impacts on Wilderness areas, which may be used to disqualify the areas as Wilderness, but they in general have not proven effective.  A lot of methods have been tried but none has really been able to hold the southern pine beetle at bay.  They may be, in some instance, more destructive than the beetle.  This lack of a good alternative which works most of the time on southern pine beetle infestations also needs to be discussed in the EA as well as what effect a healthy mixed hardwood-pine forest has on such infestations.” 

A June 23, 1983 document, probably from the TCONR, listed the Sierra Club as a sponsor of the 65,000-acre Wilderness proposal and acknowledged that “Citizens originally requested 100,000 acres; then retreated to 65,000-acres in spirit of compromise.”

This document enumerates several important factors about the Wilderness proposal including:

1) “Impact on Oil and Gas Industry:  Since all the minerals under the ten key areas are already leased or owned by private interest, exploration and production will continue unabated, regardless of wilderness designation.

2) Impact on Other Industry:  65,000 acres comprise less than one-half of one percent of east Texas timberlands.  Even the Forest Service acknowledges that wilderness would have an insignificant impact on the economy of East Texas, and no effect on air pollution control;

3) Impact on Local Taxes:  None.  Proposed increase in allowable cut would offset harvest closures in wildernesses;

4) No Taxes:  Already federal land.  Wilderness enjoys lowest maintenance cost.  By designating now, we save necessity to buy less desirable lands in the future at inflated prices to fill the growing needs to undeveloped recreation.

5) Impact on Tourism:  Wilderness designation boosts tourism, providing jobs.

6) Imperfections:  Forest Service has run roads and made clearcuts in all ten areas.  Short roads must be left open into five proposals for access to private tracts.  Corridors bisect two proposals.  However, bast majority of roads are not needed.  They and clearcuts will revert to nature.  Meanwhile remainder of the wilderness proposal is sufficient for current use.

7) Threat:  Forest Service is engaged in clearcutting all available commercial timber and planting 94% to pine.

8) Immediate Threat:  Forest Service is constantly starting additional clearcuts, roads, burns in proposed wilderness except portions it has recommended.

9) Popularity:  In the Forest Service RARE II public input, in 1978, 95% of the Texans who commented on each of the above ten areas favored wilderness first, except Chambers Ferry, which was about 70%.”

Conservationists were leaving no stone unturned as they sought a Wilderness champion to introduce a bill.  State Representative Fred J. Agnich, Texas House of Representatives, Chair of the House Committee on Environmental Affairs, sent out a news release on June 25, 1983 extolling the virtues of the “Citizens Wilderness Proposal”.  The news release urged a U.S. Congressperson to introduce a bill to designate the 65,000-acre Citizens Wilderness Proposal.      

The Sierra Club continued to push the FS about damage that would occur if RARE II Wilderness or Further Planning Areas were found to have southern pine beetles and were controlled by the FS.

In further comments on the proposed EA, the Conservation Committee of the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club stated, “The effects of such control should be explored on game, nongame, and endangered species as well as the natural ecosystems of the forests.  In particular both Federal and State endangered or threatened species or those on the Texas Organization for Endangered Species list should be looked at as far as possible effects go.  Any areas which have Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, have had in the past, have the potential for colonization or future expansions of its range or numbers, must be off limits to any control measures and the effects of control measures on the woodpeckers must be explored thoroughly for all alternatives.” 

On July 8, 1983, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and TCONR made a Media Release” about a press release that the FS released on July 6, 1983 about SPBs and Wilderness areas.

The media release stated, “Contrary to charges by the Forest Service, the pine beetle population is primarily outside, rather than inside, the areas proposed by citizens for protection from clearcutting practices.  Sothern pine beetles increase in numbers far more in managed pine stands than in the six mixed hardwood/pine areas which the Forest Service is not allowed to clearcut because they are recommended for wilderness protection or further planning.”

“The Forest Service is looking for every possible pine beetle in our wilderness proposals because they have a vendetta against wilderness.  They don’t want even 65,000 acres of the 660,000 acres in our national forests in Texas to be protected from clearcutting.  They have tried every way they could think of to impair our proposals – including unnecessary road building, excessive clearcutting in advance of schedule, excessive burning, and early this year, in areas which they recommended for non-wilderness, destructive pine beetle salvage operations.  Once they damage an area, the Forest Service says it is not pure enough to be designated a wilderness.  It is an old trick.”

“The Wilderness Act allows insect control to take place in wilderness.  We simply want them to prove that it is necessary and helpful before they start it.  Texas Committee on Natural Resources and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club have requested the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement before they proceed with their pine beetle tree-cutting operation.  That is the only way to make them look at the harmful results which such a program would have.”

“The Forest Service says that all their pine beetle cutting would have “no significant impact.”  It would merely rip up ten of the best and oldest mixed forests remaining in East Texas, the last examples of such ecosystems as Upland Longleaf pine/Sandjack oak parkland, beech/magnolia forests, Overcup oak/Swamp chestnut oak/Shagbark hickory bottomlands, and many other great places for hunting, camping, picnicking, and enjoying nature.  The Forest Service cares little about the people continuing to have adequate public areas for those activities.”

“We say, let them try to stop pine beetle in their (and our) 600,000 acres not requested for wilderness.  Let them rip up the areas that they can and will clearcut and not the few preserves we want for the people.”

On July 25, 1983, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) sent a letter to John E. Alcock, FS Regional Forester in Atlanta, Georgia to provide an Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation about control of SPB to protect the endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) using the FS’s “Final Environmental Assessment Report Southern Pine Beetle Control in Proposed Wilderness Areas and Further Planning – Wilderness Areas”.

This consultation was about 26,820 acres of RARE II Recommended Wilderness and Further Planning Areas in the National Forests in Texas.  The idea was to protect RCW “colonies” and prevent the spread of the SPB into adjacent forest lands by control in the Big Slough, Turkey Hill, Little Lake Creek, Graham Creek, Four Notch, and Chamber’s Ferry proposed Wilderness Areas.

FWS stated that the FS should do the following:

“1) Limit control work in RCW colony sites during the breeding season (March through July) to those situations where only a few trees need to be cut and there is a good chance to prevent infestation of cavity trees.

2) To reduce disturbance in RCW colonies during the breeding season, limit control work to a 30-minute period in the morning and another 30 minute period in the afternoon.  RCW activities should be monitored during control work and, if the birds are excessively agitated by the activity, it should be stopped.

3) To ensure minimal disturbance in RCW colonies, no salvage operations should be conducted in colony sites during the breeding season.

4) Where a RCW colony is encountered near a SPB spot, do not begin control work until a qualified Forest Service biologist has made an on site evaluation to assure compliance with the special conditions for control work in RCW colony sites.

5) Use chemical control only as a last resort.”

Three control methods that the FS proposed and that FWS said were “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the red-cockaded woodpecker” were:

“Monitoring for SPB infestations would be used on small spots (less than 10 trees) that are not adjacent to managed timber stands or RCW colonies.” … 1) “Salvage is the preferred control method in spots with more than 50 infected trees.  A 40-70 foot buffer strip would be cut at the head of the SPB movement and infested trees removed from the area.”  “2) Chemical control would be used from October to April in spots with less than 50 active trees.  Only infested trees would be cut and saturated with Dursban 4E.”  “3) From May to September, in spots with less than 50 active trees, the cut and leave control method would be used.  A buffer stirp is also necessary with this method.”

The FWS also said, “The control measures could also impact the red-cockaded woodpecker.  Unrestricted work in the colony site during the March-July nesting season could significantly disrupt reproductive efforts … This kind of radical habitat modification is likely to cause either nest desertion or failure.  Every effort should be made to avoid actions that would contribute to nest failure, since this species has such a low reproductive rate … If the infestation is widespread in the colony site and already in cavity trees, there is little or no justification for control during the breeding season, as that colony site is already doomed, and could produce one more brood if left undisturbed.”

It was apparent, that more than potential Wilderness was at risk due to logging in the proposed Wilderness Areas and Further Planning Wilderness Areas.

As the battle to protect areas citizens wanted for Wilderness heated up and continued for many years, finally a Wilderness bill was introduced in the U.S. Congress.  Dallas Congressman, John Bryant, on August 4, 1983, introduced a bill to protect 65,000 acres of Wilderness in ten areas in east Texas.

The “Citizens Wilderness Proposal” had at last been made an issue on the national level!  And not a moment too soon!  From 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, through 1984 when the Bryant bill became law, the five Wilderness Areas that passed Congressional muster were all partly clearcut. 

In a press release about HR 3788, the following organizations were listed as supporting the bill:  TCONR, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Dallas County Audubon Society, Houston Audubon Society, Texas Independent Bird Hunters Association, Houston Sportsmen’s Club, Save Indian Mounds, Hemphill, Four Notch – Briar Creek Task Force, Huntsville, East Texas Quality of Life Coalition, Huntsville, Nacogdoches County Audubon Society, Polk County Bowhunters, Wilderness Club of Cleveland, and East Texas Conservation Association, Nacogdoches.

The Wilderness Areas proposed included:

1) Turkey Hill Wilderness, 6,200 acres.

2) Upland Island Wilderness, 9,200 acres.

3) Jordan Creek Wilderness, 7,800 acres.

4) Big Slough Wilderness, 3,800 acres.

5) Alabama Creek Wilderness, 3,400 acres.

6) Chamber’s Ferry Wilderness, 4,500 acres.

7) Indian Mounds Wilderness, 12,700 acres.

8) Little Lake Creek Wilderness, 4,900 acres.

9) Four Notch Wilderness, 6,200 acres.

10) Big Creek Wilderness, 5,000 acres.

A Houston Post commentary, “Before it’s too late”, came out soon after the bill’s introduction.  On August 22, 1983 the Post commentary said, “The proposal is so sensible and inexpensive that it is hard to understand congressional slowness to accept it … Action on this proposal is long overdue.  As passage is delayed, the Forest Service goes on building new roads, burning the underbrush that is home to wildlife and clearcutting trees in the wilderness tracts we hope to protect.”

The Sierra Club and other organizations sent fact sheets out to their members and the public about U.S. Congressman John Bryant’s HR 3788, Texas Wilderness bill.  One undated fact sheet, talked about what Wilderness is, what Wilderness means to you, and urged people to write their U.S. House of Representative in favor of the bill.

On August 20, 1983, the Huntsville Morning News printed a story that the Sportsmen’s Clubs of Texas (SCOT), which represented 35,000 Texans, had gone on record and supported the Bryant bill.  Eight days later, The Huntsville Item published an editorial in favor the HR 3788 which pointed out the only Wilderness in Texas was found in West Texas and that people in the eastern part of the state and urban centers also needed Wilderness that was easy to get to.

Meanwhile the battle to prevent or limit logging in proposed Wilderness areas continued.  On September 15, 1983, the Conservation Committee of the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club submitted comments on the final SPB control EA to William Lannan, Forest Supervisor of the National Forests in Texas.  The Sierra Club complained that it never received a copy of the draft EA even though it had requested twice, May 31, 1983 and June 30, 1983, a copy of the draft EA.  The Sierra Club also requested a copy of the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Texas RARE II Areas of August 16, 1983 and an EA dated July 1983 which it has not known about or received a copy.

The FS was focusing on the Four Notch Wilderness area proposal because SPB were killing trees there.  The Sierra Club complained that cutting 500 acres (cut and remove (salvage) or cut and leave), about one-eleventh of the Four Notch area which was a large area to log.

The letter ends by stating, “We request a written response to our comments especially why we never received the EA after commenting during the scoping.  We also urge you to stop any pine beetle control in the Wilderness areas until you have thoroughly studied the problem in the entire National Forest and surrounding private lands and have completely redone your environmental analysis in the form of an EIS.”

Another letter sent by the Houston Sierra Club on September 21, 1983 to Gordon Steele, Staff Officer, Planning and Environmental Coordinator of the National Forest in Texas, provided comments on the re-evaluation of the 16 RARE II areas as mentioned in an August 8, 1983 Land Management Planning Update.

This letter reiterated the Sierra Club’s support for setting aside 65,000 acres of Wilderness in 10 areas.  The letter also supported further evaluation of the other 6 areas for Wilderness designation.  Winters Bayou in SHNF was mentioned as “an excellent example of southern hardwood bottomland forests”.

The letter ended, “For these reasons and many others we fully support Wilderness designation for these areas.  We look forward to working with you in the future on getting such designation approved by Congress.  Please keep us informed about any further developments and ratings or any other actions which concern Wilderness in Texas National Forests.”

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club and TCONR were fighting a rear-guard action to stop logging in proposed Wilderness areas.  On October 14, 1983, Sierra Club and TCONR issued a media release.  The release was about what FS SPB logging was doing to the Four Notch area that citizens had proposed for Wilderness.  The groups stated that 700 acres had already been logged.  The FS had decided in its October 7, 1983 EA to log healthy pine trees in the fall and winter months.  The logging was likely to spread the SPB rather than control it.

The Sierra Club and TCONR pointed out that a Technical Bulletin 1613 from the FS said that October through December SPB logging is “associated with significantly high levels of proliferation during the following January – May”.  Logging operations damaged healthy pine and hardwood trees by knocking off limbs and tops.  The groups also pointed out that the SPB control sales are bid at an emergency low process which depresses the timber market.

They further stated that cutting buffer zones of healthy trees around the trees with SPBs has not worked.  The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club’s Executive Committee on September 17, 1983 approved a position that stated that there should be no logging of trees for SPB control in proposed Wilderness areas unless an EIS is prepared.

Sierra Club and TCONR stated that the FS blamed Hurricane Alicia for the failure of its SPB control program.  The groups pointed out that Alicia did not come ashore until August 13^th which was a month after the FS made numerous sales of buffer trees and after the first buffers had been cut and SPBs jumped those buffers.

October 23, 1983, the Houston Sierra Club visited the proposed Four Notch Wilderness Area where the FS was using helicopters to salvage log SPB pine trees.  A Texas Forest Service news article also reported about the logging.  Mike Lannan, Forest Supervisor of the National Forest in Texas and Mark Webb, District Ranger for the Raven Ranger District in Sam Houston National Forest, met with Hubert Davis and Brandt Mannchen of the Houston Sierra Club.

The FS stated that 85% of the pine in the Four Notch area were 70 years or older.  The FS said that private land was affected by the SPBs.  The FS said there were about 1300-1600 acres of dead pine trees.  The roads used to log the proposed Wilderness were significantly improved by use of gravel, widened from 12 feet to 22 feet, and had drains, culverts and side ditches installed.  The FS stated they had cut a 250-foot buffer zone to attempt to stop the SPBs from further advances. 

Additional SPB advances were predicted for the Spring of 1984.  The FS estimated 8 to 12 RCW colonies had been lost to the SPBs.  It was not a pleasant introduction to the way the FS treated proposed Wilderness when SPBs were involved. 

The Houston Sierra Club sent the FS a letter on October 28, 1983 and thanked the FS for the helicopter logging tour.  The letter requested information about the EA that was being prepared for fire control in SPB areas and supported research in the proposed Four Notch Wilderness Area about recovery from SPBs and the effects this has on forest ecosystems.

The Houston Sierra Club sent Senator Lloyd Bentsen a letter on November 11, 1983 which said, “We urge you to sponsor legislation in the Senate equivalent to that of Congressman Bryant so that this year Texans can have Wilderness within 1-5 hours driving time and not the 15 hours or so it takes to get to Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas only Wilderness area at present.”

The Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club also sent a letter on January 6, 1984 to William Lannan, Forest Supervisor of the National Forests in Texas.  The letter stated that the Sierra Club sent Williams Forest Products and Henry Smith letters about timber sales they had bid on and won in the proposed Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area.  The Sierra Club stated, “… we are willing to work with you and the timber owners on ways to forgo cutting in the Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area.  We urge you to do whatever you can to encourage the individuals to resist cutting in this area.”

The Sierra Club letter also asked Forest Supervisor Lannan about his letter of November 9, 1983, which talked about plans to set-up a tour of helicopter logging operations in the proposed Four Notch Wilderness Area.

Further FWS involvement in the Proposed Wilderness and Further Planning Areas for control of SPB and the effects on RCW, resulted in FWS expressing concerns about FS actions.  A December 2, 1983 FWS letter stated, “… we were initially surprised at the receipt of your October 6, 1983 Amended Decision Notice which contained significant changes for SPB control work in the Four Notch Further Planning Area.  The amended notice was issued because previously planned control procedures proved ineffective and the SPB was out of control in the area.”

“SPB control … is justified on two bases:  1) the prevention of damage to adjacent privately owned and Forest Service timber lands; and 2) the protection of Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat.  These two goals should always be kept in mind when planning SPB control in the Four Notch and other “wilderness” areas.  Any control not directed at these purposes should not be performed.”

“However, we found several items that we feel could be improved upon in your program.  In a July 26, 1983 letter, our Ft. Worth office commented on several aspects of your proposed program, including a recommendation that SPB control buffers be cut on Forest Service land adjacent to RARE II areas rather than logging throughout the RARE II areas.  Although it may not be possible to follow this recommendation in all cases, it is certainly a feasible idea where the SPB infestation approaches the border of a RARE II parcel.  In the Four Notch area, a large SPB infestation occurs along FR Road 206, which is also the boundary of the area.  Along this road the control effort has, in some areas, cut pines form both sides of the road or only cut pines from the Four Notch side.  Although operational difficulties may account for this, on the surface it does appear to be a violation of the spirit of the RARE II process and contrary to our July 26, 1983 recommendation.  Control efforts have and will continue to adversely impact the wilderness characteristics of the Four Notch area and should, therefore, be minimized to the greatest extent possible.  It is our opinion that “wilderness” areas should be impacted only as a last resort.”

“The status of streams in the control areas is another matter of concern … Many trees have been felled across and debris thrown into the streams. … the removal of downed logs from across the streams is sure to cause significant bank erosion and sedimentation no matter how carefully done.  In light of the special RARE II status of the Four Notch area, efforts should be made to reduce stream impacts to an absolute minimum.”

“This SPB control effort presents an opportunity to learn of the affects of various control strategies … Under both strategies the hardwood understory remains, but in the non-control area there has been none of the disturbance associated with salvage operations.  A study of the reforestation patterns resulting from these two treatments would provide valuable information for use in the planning of future SPB control operations.”

“However, the short term value of the isolated cavity trees is great … This is mentioned because we noticed cavity trees that had been damaged by the felling of adjacent trees.”

It became obvious to conservationists that the proposed Four Notch Wilderness Area was not being accorded care as the FS logged SPB advanced areas.

The January 6, 1984, Sierra Club letters to Williams Forest Products and Henry Smith stated, “As a result we would be very supportive of any movement on your part which would prevent the cutting of this area.  Two such possibilities would be if you contacted the Forest Service in Lufkin and requested:

1) That you would like to trade the Little Lake Creek acreage for other, equivalent acreage in the National Forest so that you can retain your cutting rights.

2) That you are no longer willing to cut the area and would like to relinquish control back to the US Forest Service.”

The letter also said, “In addition we would be willing to explore the possibility of supporting you if you chose number 1, on an extension of time for cutting the traded forest area in order to ease any economic burdens that would be placed on you by such a trade.”

In this timeframe, the Sierra Club sent a letter to members urging them, their families, and friends to contact their U.S. Congressmen and Congressman Bill Patman and Abraham Kazan of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to support HR 3788.

On January 12, 1984, George Russell, Forest Practices Chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, sent Brandt Mannchen, Conservation Committee, Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club, a list of “Dirty Tricks” that the FS had carried out and which showed its’ anti-wilderness bias.  Some of these “Dirty Tricks” included:

“During RARE II Period

1) FS arbitrarily threw out hundreds of pro-wilderness letters because they referred to “clear-cutting”.

2) FS double counted approximately 300 out-of-state anti-wilderness form letters without return addresses which arrived after the cut-off date for input.

3) FS refused to count over 2,800 wilderness cards asking for the Briar Creek extension at Four-Notch and for the pro-wilderness alternative for 16 areas.

4) Forest Supervisor actively worked against wilderness as Board Member of TFA (Timber Industry Lobby).

5) District Ranger, Raven District actively worked against pro-wilderness groups to include making false and inflammatory statements to Walker County Commissioner’s Court.

6) Forest Supervisor let a contract to bulldoze over 40 acres in 4-Notch Area against direct orders of Asst. Chief of Forest Service.

7) Bulldozing took place before a group of 40 Sierrans and other environmentalists as well as News media on a Saturday.  FS Supervisor later bragged at TFA meeting about letting the illegal bulldozing contract.

8) FS put out press release accusing environmentalists of sending in forged pro-wilderness letters.  When an investigation revealed that all letters were legitimate they refused to make corrections to media or apologize for false accusations.

9) FS refused to follow own guidelines by denying areas receiving a mandate for wilderness the category of Wilderness.”

“Eckhardt Bill Period and After

1) Refused protection to areas in the boundary of the Eckhardt Bill.  Intensified efforts to damage areas unprotected by RARE II but in E. Bill.

2) Sped up timber sales in wilderness areas up to several years ahead of schedule by delaying sales outside area at Indian Mounds.

3) District Ranger at Indian Mounds during Seiberling tour stated that Big White Oak tree would be gone soon.  Later made a timber sale in the heart of this same sensitive area.

4) Did nothing to stop the destruction of rare orchids and other species during oil drilling activities, when kindly asked to do so by Sierra and other groups.

5) Denied Mill Creek Cove protection as a Scientific Area and sold about half of the acreage for clear-cutting.  Mill Creek Cove is the largest virgin Beech-Magnolia forest in the World.

6) Under cover of secrecy changed route for FS Road 269 from the approved route outside our 4-Notch wilderness boundaries to inside the wilderness boundaries.  Sierra appealed decision which ruled timely by Chief of Forest Service, but Supervisor had refused to halt construction in meantime and road was built.

7) FS intensified burning and other activities in sensitive areas within wilderness boundaries.”

“Bryant Bill Period to Present

1) Attempted to sell a tract of hardwood timber at Upland Island 28 years ahead of schedule.  This particular tract had almost zero market value but would gut the heart out of one of the most ecologically sensitive areas.

2) Have recently advertised a 400 acre thinning sale at Upland Island against the requests of Sierra, the House Interior Subcommittee and members of Congress.  This sale would split the Upland Island area almost in half.  Interior states that they will issue a Bumper’s Agreement letter to delay sale for six months.

3) Forest Supervisor stated in no uncertain terms that he was personally opposed to wilderness areas in Bryant Bill.  He further admitted that FS plans were to clear-cut all commercial acreage in National Forests of Texas and convert to pine farms.

4) Launched intensive program against SPB within wilderness boundaries while ignoring problem outside boundaries.

5) Launched PR campaign to make public believe that SPB problems in Texas originated in wilderness areas.

6) Refused to listen to requests of Sierra, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and others to cut buffers outside boundaries of wilderness.  Intentionally cut buffers just inside boundaries along FS 206 while protecting areas on other side of road which would eventually be clear-cut anyway.

7) Clear-cut almost entire Briar Creek area under guise of SPB control.

8) Devastated area along Lone Star Trail at FS 206.  This devastation did not follow guidelines for Forest Service for SPB control.

9) Launched late Fall SPB control campaign in direct violation of own guidelines which state that activities after October cause “new spot proliferation”.

10) FS used excuse that winter had been mild, that there had been no hard freeze to kill SPB.  After hard freeze Sierra and others sent Mail-Gram to Chief asking that SPB control activities be halted.  No reply.

11) As of January 10, 1984 heli-logging at 4-Notch going on.

12) FS asked at Interior Sub-committee hearings in Washington to place landing pads and roads outside wilderness boundaries.  FS built roads and landing pads inside wilderness boundaries.  Further, landing pad along FS 206 is just inside boundary whereas it could just as easily been built on other side of road outside boundary.”

As discussions occurred about HR 3788 in early 1984, including which Wilderness Areas would be kept in the bill and how large they would be, George Smith, a Houston Sierra Club and Lone Star Chapter leader sent a letter to Howard Saxion, Chair, Lone Star Chapter Executive Committee, on January 15, 1984 about HR 3788 and what compromises should be made.

The Houston Sierra Club was concerned that the Lone Star Chapter was not in support of Wilderness in Sam Houston National Forest and would accept all changes that TCONR wanted without fighting for those that Sierra Club members wanted.  The letter stated:

“Enclosed is a real rough sketch (in green outlines) of the areas our group proposed last week.  John Glover, Hubert Davis and I met to discuss wilderness and came to some consensus … Some land acquisition was thought advisable to eliminate inholdings and protect major boundaries and ecosystems.”

“So these are the original areas of strong interest to the Houston Group.  As time went along we sought out other areas of high potential.  These areas have since proven to be worthy of preservation and have gained high ratings even by the Forest Service.”

“If you accept that the proposals over the years, and the list of 10 areas we now support have had any thought, study, and validity for wilderness value and management, a proposal of 3 expanded areas would not have credibility.  It is important that several areas be included with differing terrain, vegetation and geographic distribution.  These factors are key for scientific study, wildlife enhancement, and recreation value to different population groups.  It is important that our proposal be sound and defensible before both congress and local voters as well as address the concerns of the principal people and groups concerned.”

“All of us really much prefer the boundaries we proposed in the 10 areas of the Bryant bill.  These are soundly based on a lot of thought, natural, and man-made boundaries.  If however, it is strongly felt that fewer areas of larger acreage would be desirable, we would proposed:

Big Slough                             5,000 a

Turkey Hill                            10,000 a

Upland Island – Graham Cr 10-15,000a

Indian Mounds                      12-15,000a

Little Like Cr                          12,000a

Big Cr.                                     5,000a

approx.                                   60,000a”

“Chambers Ferry @5,000a could be added back if 5,000a were deleted from some other area.  Chambers ferry has a high wilderness rating by both S.C. and F.S. – hilly terrain, Maples and beeches (see notes).”

We all agreed that the areas deleted – Jordans Cr., Alabama Cr, and 4 Notch, all had problems of inholdings, excessive roads, and duplication of ecosystems.”

We are not really aware of the limitations placed by Seiberling but we feel that since minerals are outstanding in the entire forest, and oil development comes and goes, that oil should not be a limiting factor.  Timber sales come and go also – especially thinnings, but wilderness is permanent, harvested areas will regenerate as will the oil well sites – if care is taken.  So we do not understand concern for these activities when considering wilderness.”

“We are still working on Leland and Andrews to co-sponsor.”

As can be seen in this letter, the stress of working for Wilderness for over 14 years created conditions where different people in the Sierra Club and allied groups like the TCONR, pulled in different directions, all still headed for Wilderness in the National Forests in Texas, but with friction between them.

I remember this time because I was personally involved with the Houston Sierra Club and Lone Star Chapter on the Wilderness bill.  A contingent from the Houston Group drove to the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club’s Executive Committee meeting in Bryan – College Station (at the time home of the Brazos Valley Regional Group of the Sierra Club).

We had the express mission to ensure that Sam Houston National Forest had at least one Wilderness Area in HR 3788 as it moved through Congress.  The people I remember who car-pooled together to that meeting were John Glover, Hubert Davis, Jerry Akers, George Smith, and myself.

I remember we talked and debated what we should do and at the January 21, 1984 Chapter Executive Committee meeting in the car.  We arrived at that meeting and made a strong presentation and it was accepted by the Chapter that a Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area, Sam Houston National Forest, would remain in HR 3788.

HR 3788 was worked through Congress after its’ August 4, 1983 introduction by Congressmen John Bryant, Steve Bartlett, Martin Frost, Charles Wilson, and others.  May 2, 1984, HR 3788 was amended by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and May 4, 1984 the House Committee on Agriculture discharged HR 3788 by motion.  The House passed HR 3788 on May 8, 1984.

HR 3788 then went to the U.S. Senate where John Tower and Lloyd Bentsen worked to see it move forward.  The bill was reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture on September 18, 1984 and was passed by the Senate on October 2, 1984.  On October 4, 1984, the House and Senate resolved differences in the bills by the House accepting Senate Amendments via Unanimous Consent.  The Texas Wilderness Act of 1984 was presented to President Reagan on October 18, 1984.

The attitude between the FS and the Sierra Club worsened and was based on dislike and disgust.  The Sierra Club kept fighting the degradation and destruction of proposed Wilderness, Further Planning Areas, and soon to be Wilderness Areas. 

October 19, 1984, George Russell, Chair, East Texas Wilderness and Forest Practices for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, sent the Executive Committee of the Chapter a proposed “Emergency adoption of policy in strong opposition of current Forest Service sell and cut program in Texas National Forest Wildernesses”.

This proposal was a direct result of the SPB cut and remove and cut and leave methods that the FS used on 3,000 acres in the Four Notch and other proposed Wilderness and Further Planning Areas.  Now the FS was implementing damaging actions just before the signing of the Texas Wilderness Act by President Reagan, in the proposed Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area via timber sales.

In addition, the FS sent out letters on October 22, 1984 to members of the Sierra Club that it would amend its EA for SPB control in RARE II Further Planning and Recommended Wilderness Areas because the FS “considers control criteria necessary to contain SPB infestations within the designated areas, as well as protection of Red-cockaded Woodpecker colonies within them.”  The FS only gave the public 7 days, until October 29, 1984, to provide input about the proposed EA amendments.

October 25, 1984, George Russell sent the Executive Committee a request for a resolution on wilderness management policy against FS prescribed burning and control of SPBs in the five Texas National Forest Wilderness Areas.

Brandt Mannchen, Lone Star Chapter, Wildlife Committee Chair, sent a letter on October 27, 1984 to the FS that requested a two-week extension of the October 29, 1984 deadline for comments on the EA and stated that the FS letter was dated October 22, 1984 but that the Sierra Club did not receive it until October 24, 1984.  This gave the Sierra Club only 5 days to prepare and send comments.

October 30, 1984 was a day of celebration for Texas conservationists when President Ronald Reagan signed the Texas Wilderness Act, Public Law No:  98-574.

Besides designating Turkey Hill, Upland Island, Indian Mounds, Big Slough, and Little Lake Creek Wilderness Areas, the bill also allowed acquisition of Temple-Eastex intermingled lands by exchange which then would become Wilderness.

The bill also allowed any timber sale purchaser with a contract within the boundaries of Indian Mounds, Upland Island, or Little Lake Creek Wilderness Areas, within 90-day of when the bill became law, to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture to cancel the timber contract without payment of damages by the purchaser.

Finally, the bill closed the RARE II program and set out the parameters of how and when National Forests in Texas would again be considered for Wilderness Area designation.

The passage and signing of HR 3788 ended an over 14-year fight to obtain Wilderness for the “People of Texas”, East Texans specifically, and United States citizens everywhere, by the Sierra Club and others.  But the Sierra Club had to prepare for many years of additional sorrows and fights that lay ahead and would cloud Wilderness protection in East Texas.

 

References

1) “National Forests and Grassland in Texas fingertip Facts”, U.S. Forest Service, February 2019.

2) “The Idea of Wilderness:  From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology”, Max Oelschlaeger, Yale University Press, 1991.

3) “Wilderness and the American Mind”, Roderick Frazier Nash, 5^th Edition, Yale University Press, 2014.

4) “The Enduring Wilderness:  Protecting Our Natural Heritage Through the Wilderness Act”, Doug Scott, Campaign for America’s Wilderness, Fulcrum Publishing, 2004.

5) “The Promise of Wilderness:  American Environmental Politics Since 1964”, James Morton Turner, University of Washington Press, 2012.

6) “Wilderness Forever”, Howard Zahniser and the Path to The Wilderness Act”, Mark Harvey, University of Washington Press, 2005.

7) “Wilderness Watch Presents:  Foundations of American Wilderness, The 1964 Wilderness Act and 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act”, Wilderness Watch, undated.

8) May 15, 1972 letter from E.O. Kindschy, Chair, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, to Mr. T.A. Schlapfer, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, about potential candidates for Wilderness/Wild Area system.

9) “The Eastern Wilderness Act”, Public Law 93-622 (S. 3433), 93^rd Congress, January 3, 1975.

10) “Texas Wilderness Act of 1984”, Public Law 98-574 (H.R. 3788), 98^th Congress, October 30, 1984.

11) March 25, 1976, Letter from Lorraine Bonney to Mr. Gordon Robinson, Sierra Club, about Wilderness and charettes in Texas.

12) April 17, 1976, Letter from Paul Conn to Robert Deshyes, President, Houston Audubon Society, about the San Jacinto Charette in Sam Houston National Forest.

13) May 29, 1976, Letter from Lorraine Bonney to Paul Conn, about charettes, Four Notch, Wilderness, and Chapter Wilderness policy.

14) “Wilderness Position Paper”, Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club, undated, probably 1976 or early 1977.

15) “Sierra Club Forestry and Wilderness Alert”, John Glover, Lone Star Chapter Forestry Chair, 1977.

16) “Wilderness in Texas:  Comments to the Forest Service”, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, undated, probably 1977.

17) “RARE II:  A Citizen’s Handbook for the National Forest Roadless Area Review and Evaluation Program:  1977-1978”, Sierra Club National News Report, Number 3, November 21, 1977.

18) “Texas: Sam Houston National Forest Four Notch Wilderness Briar Creek – Brandy Creek Extension”, Texas Committee on Natural Resources, undated, probably September 1977.

19) “Club Proposes Forest Wilderness Areas”, John Glover, Lone Star Sierran, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Pages 5, 6, 11, and 12, July/August 1978.

20) “Texas Wilderness Alert”, Sierra Club, Texas Committee on Natural Resources, Houston Audubon Society, and Dallas Audubon Society, August 1978.

21) August 16, 1978 letter from John Glover, Chair, Forest Practices Committee, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, to John Courtenay, Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, about RARE II WARS ratings issues.

22) “Forest Service axes wilderness”, John Glover, Lone Star Sierran, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Volume 14, Number 1, Pages 1 and 5, February – March 1979.

23) November 25, 1980 Open Letter to certain Sierra Club members to write U.S. Congressman Bill Archer to sponsor an East Texas Wilderness bill.

24) “Houston Wilderness Headquarters”, Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club, undated, probably early 1980’s.

25) “Before it’s too late”, Editorial, The Houston Post, Page 10B, June 13, 1981.

26) “Texas Wilderness”, Education Committee, Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club, undated, probably 1981.

27) “Clearcut action needed”, Editorial, Fort Worth Star-Telegram Page 10A, July 31, 1981.

28) “Save wilderness areas”, Editorial, Dallas Times Herald, Page 20A, August 12, 1981.

29) “Wilderness areas urged”, Editorial, The East Texas Light, Page 4, Section A, January 29, 1982.

30) “Clearcutting called waste”, Booth Gunter, Kaleidoscope Column, Staff Writer, Huntsville Item, February 12, 1982.

31) “Sterile Forest:  The Case Against Clearcutting”, Edward C. Fritz, Eakin Press, 1983.

32) May 31, 1983, Letter from Brandt Mannchen, Forestry Committee, Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club to William M. Lannan, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, about southern pine beetle control in RARE II Wilderness and Further Planning Areas.

33) “Basic Facts on East Texas Wilderness Proposal”, Forest Section, author unknown, June 23, 1983.

34) “June 25, 1983 “News Release”, Chair Fred J. Agnich, House of Representatives Committee on Environmental Affairs, about 65,000-acre East Texas Citizens Wilderness Proposal.

35) “H.R. 3788, To designate various areas as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System in the national forests in the State of Texas,” U.S. Congressman, John Bryant, August 4, 1983.

36) “Citizens’ Groups Laud Introduction of 65,000-Acre Texas Wilderness Bill”, Beth Johnson, Texas Committee on Natural Resources, undated, probably August 4 or 5, 1983.

37) “H.R. 7599 – A bill to designate various areas as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, in the National Forests in the State of Texas”, https://congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/7599.

38) News Release, “Statement of Congressman John Bryant on Introduction of the Texas Wilderness Bill”, John Bryant, August 5, 1983.

39) “Texas Wilderness”, unknown author, undated.

40) “Forest Service Spreads Damaging Insect”, Media Release, George Russell, Chair Forestry Committee, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and Ned fritz, Chair, Texas Committee on Natural Resources, October 14, 1983.

41) January 6, 1984, Letter from Brandt Mannchen, Conservation Committee, Houston Sierra Club, to William Lannan, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, about timber sales in proposed Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area.

42) January 6, 1984, Letter from Brandt Mannchen, Houston Executive Committee, Houston Sierra Club, to Henry Smith, about timber sales in proposed Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area.

43) January 6, 1984, Letter from Brandt Mannchen, Houston Executive Committee, Houston Sierra Club, to Williams Forest Products, about timber sales in proposed Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area.

44) Undated Open Letter from Howard Saxion, Chair, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Jerry Akers, Chair, Southern Plains Regional Conservation Committee, and George Russell, Lone Star Chapter Forest Practices and East Texas Wilderness Subcommittee to Sierra Club Members about support of HR 3788, Texas Wilderness Act of 1984.

45) January 15, 1984, Letter from George Smith, to Howard Saxion, Chair, Executive Committee, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, about compromises and HR 3788.

46) “Bulldozers in the Piney Woods”, Christopher Swan, Christian Science Monitor, July 3, 1980.

47) July 25, 1983, Letter from Floyd A. Nudi, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Mr. John E. Alcock, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, about Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Proposed and Further Planning Wilderness Areas.

48) October 23, 1983, Notes on “Meeting With U.S. Forest Service About Pine Bark Beetle Control and Four Notch, Brandt Mannchen.

49) October 28, 1983, Letter from Brandt Mannchen, Conservation Committee, Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club, to Mike Lannan, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, about Four Notch helicopter logging tour.

50) “Whirlybirds at Work”, Mahlon Hammetter, Texas Forest News, Texas A&M, Texas Forest Service, Volume 62, Winter 1983.

51) December 2, 1983, Letter from Carolos H. Mendoza, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to John E. Alcock, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia, about SPB logging in Proposed Wilderness and Further Planning Areas in Texas.   

52) January 12, 1984, Letter from George Russell, Forest Practices Chair, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, to Brandt Mannchen, Conservation Committee, Houston Regional Group, about U.S. Forest Service dirty tricks and anti-wilderness activities.

53) “H.R.3788 – Texas Wilderness Act of 1984”, Congress.Gov, March 18, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/3788 and 3788/actions.

54) October 19, 1984, Letter from George Russell, Chair, East Texas Wilderness and Forest Practices, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, to Executive Committee, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, about the need for a policy against southern pine beetle cut/sell program in Texas National Forest Wildernesses.

55) October 22, 1984, Letter from William M. Lannan, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, to Brandt Mannchen, about proposed amendment of Environmental Assessment for control of southern pine beetles in RARE II Further Planning and Recommended Wilderness Areas.

56) October 22, 1984, Letter from William M. Lannan, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, to George Russell, about proposed amendment of Environmental Assessment for control of southern pine beetles in RARE II Further Planning and Recommended Wilderness Areas.

57) October 27, 1984, Letter from Brandt Mannchen, Chair, Wildlife Committee, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, to William M. Lannan, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Texas, about proposed amendment of Environmental Assessment for control of southern pine beetles in RARE II Further Planning and Recommended Wilderness Areas and the request for more time to comment.

58) October 25, 1984, Letter from George Russell, Chair, East Texas Wilderness and Forest Practices, to Executive Committee, Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, about resolution for wilderness management policy to prevent prescribed burning and control of southern pine beetles.

59) “Realms of Beauty:  The Wilderness Areas of East Texas”, Edward C. Fritz, University of Texas Press, 1986.

60) “Realms of Beauty:  A Guide to the Wilderness Areas of East Texas”, Edward C. Fritz, University of Texas Press, 1993.