the alpine lakes wilderness conflict: a study of politics and land use

THE ALPINE LAKES WILDERNESS CONFLICT: A STUDY OF POLITICS AND LAND USE

Mark Stern

Introduction

This paper between groups issues relative

explores the conflict that developed, over land use and environmental

to the designation of Washington State's Alpine Lakes region as a lrwilderness area." Urban versus rural conflict over ecologyand environmental land use demands and related issues are a relatively new phenomena on the domestic policy agenda,l but these conflicts will become more prev- alent as llnaturallf land becomes scarcer and urbanites press for additional "natural" recfeational facilities. The complexity of demands within urban and rural constituencies for a multitude of differing uses for a given area will increase.

From Bentley's Process of Government to the revived interest that was generated by works like Truman's The Government Process, groups as opera- tors, definers, h d movers within the American political process have long been studied.2ftobert Dahl defines "the normal American political process as one in which . . . an active and legitimate group in the population can make itself heard effectively at some crucial stage in the process of decision."? Yet, there is a continuing __ controversy - - about the role and importance of groups - __ -_ . in - the national political 'se;ting." For example, V.O. Key states that: "At bottom, group interests are the animating forces in the political However, Lester Milbrath in The Washington Lobbyists states: "Most careful observers

179

of governmental decision-making have concluded that the over-all impact of [group] lobbying is relatively minor,t15 and "perhaps the most difficult question about lobbying is that of [gauging] the extent of its influence on government a1 dec is ions."6 While 0 1 ive r Garceau and Corinne Silverman state, "The organized interest group does not make the laws of the land,"? E.E. Schattshneider's The Semi-Sovereign People ana- lyzes interest groups as t h e lawmakers of the land.8 And, Theodore Lowi's The End of Liberalism sees interest .-. groups as co-lawmakers in recent legislative his t 0ry.Y

Recent scholarship in this area, following Lowi, sees the group battle as a "complex" of "experts" from the bureaucracy, congressional committees and subcommittees, and the concerned interest groups coming 'Ycgether to determine who gets what from the government larder."lO As Carol S . Greenwald put it in-a recent study of Group Power, "The curnulafive effect of [ the C ong ress ional-g r oup interact ion] pr 0- cess presumes that-all group< individuals and in te r ests considered relevant by t h e official decision- makers will have had input in the process.cfll

This study examines the extent t o which all interested groups were involved in a highly symbolic and competitive arena. Through t h e use of file material from participant organizations, as well as The Congressional Record and local newspaper files, this paper assesses the extent of group activity; the relationship of the competing groups wi th the Con- gress and the bureaucracy; t h e extent to which all "relevant" interests are heard; and, by comparing the bills initially propcsed by t h e major interest groups with t h e final bill passed by t h e House, t h e extent of interest group influence as "lawmakers" is examined.

The Area

The Central Cascades of Washington State have

180

been called “more beautiful than the European Alps.Tt12 The area lies between Seattle and Wenatchee, bounded by Stevens Pass on the north and by Snoqualmie Pass to the south. Three major highways put the area within an hour’s drive for almost 2,000,000 urbanites.13 On an annual basis, all three national parks in the state combined are less used by hikers and campers than the Alpine Lakes region alone.14

But the region is not just important from a recreational standpoint. It has an abundance of both ” rene w able and n on- rene w a ble” resources includ ing origination of four major river drainage systems, highly productive timberland, commercial minerals, forage for sheep, and wildlife habitat. Competing uses of this domain are thus the- basis for conflict between wilderness preservationists, recreationalists lcgging companies, mining companies, and farmers.15’ This takes on a compounded nature when it is realized that although the Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National Forests comprise a major portion of the area, thirty percent is controlled by private interests and non- forest service related governmental entitites.

In 1946 the federal government gave the Forest Service responsibility for managing the area. In 1965 a multi-agency government team published the first comprehensive report on the use of this region, This study found that the area was so complex that only the northern half could become an immediate legislative matter. This led to the creation of the North Cascades National Park.16 Environmentalists began to form groups to protect the area. The major local group, the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, was formed in 1968; its sole purpose was to preserve the area as close to its natural state as possible.17

In 1971 the Forest Service initiated a comprehensive study of the Alpine Lakes region. This resulted in “The Alpine Lakes . Land -use Study,”

181

released in 1973.18 It analyzed 1,000,000 acres to determine the suitability of the land to support various recreational activities. The report was to be used 'for classification purposes rather than management. Land use suitability was determined by general environment; landscape and scenery; and experience level. Weighted values were assigned each factor. These criteria were influenced by the degree of man's influence in the area, wildlife, local ecolcgy, land use conflicts, the potential for adventure and excitement, climate, water uses, land forms, and economics. One hundred twenty units of land were thus classified.

Using this classification study, and a follow-up analysis, the Forest Service presented an - Alpine Lakes Management Unit and Wilderness Proposal in 1973. Initial Action

By October 23, 1973, the f i rs t proposed Con- gressional legislation dealing with the Alpine Lakes region was introduced. Each bill had the Washington state delegation as its sponsor as well as various interest groups (see Table 1). All of the bills were referred to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and then to the House Sub-Committee on Parks and Recreation.

On the same day Senator Jackson introduced parallel bills in the Senate commenting: "I am introducing all of these measures because of their timeliness, not because I support any particular proposal," and that there would be extensive field hearings. He also indicated his willingness to go along with a House devised bill, if the Washington House delegation would come to agreement.20 Jackson's remarks indicated he saw this as a matter of within-state adjustments of local interests.

During the initial proposal formulation stage, the Forest Service reviewed 4,690 written commu-

182

E . R . 11060 Sierra Club, fK. SC3 F:ienas of the Earen'

-- Z:,OOO acres scenic Area. ( 2 ) 633.864 a c r e s xUlcip1e Lice !'arugemenr 'hit

H . R . :X61 U.S. forest Service lii , X I

Sour:e: Cansrcsilonal Record. 93ra imp. . is: Sess., 0::cber 23, 1973. 119. p . S3&,361

'UDine lakes Prorec:lon S a c i e w - h l o c i : ? i i s e i r,:~aniracion o f con*~p,a:iosiszs

establ ished in 196s for che so le p ~ l r p c r ci acvau:ins the prcremacion ml

?rorcccion c f che N p l n e Lakes zegioz.

2Sierrr Club. Erieadr cf cbe Eatrt - A ;oil:::== c i a-Jira-Rrai hreresr grou;tr

w i t h national c i e s .

'2ilp:ne Lakes codzlicion - A F o U F repreaerzks ;kc isrcs: pzoduccs *dust? and

che ArsJcjztlon of :'ashinrcon BurFnerr. ourdoor and mocor ciubr h c i u d i n p :

:he Zashington Farm Foreszrv Indusc?, lior~besr ?ILninp Associaclon. the a i g

&me Colmcil. Oucdoor5 Cnlimlced, :be ?acc - i c SOT-NISC L-Uhre; Drive

Assochcion, chr Trai ler Coach bcoc la : i cc , ;he ;~shizgcox Scace S n - b l l i

Association, che i iashiqcon Traii Riders A s s a c k c i o ~ , and Ehc Pack River

Lossfng CTM!,. This group was form& 5: land ~ n a g e r s from che iorese

Producrr I n d u s t v .

nications signed by 5,380 people. About half were generated by individual action, in the form of personal letters and tearout forms from a Forest Service handout. The other half were generated by organized action (predominantly . . .. . . .. ... . - ..- fo rm letters). Forty percent could be identified as coming from urban areas, 26% from rural areas. Of the personal letters, 60% were from the south Puget Sound region, while- 60% of the form letters came from the more rural north and south central Washington. Most of the form letters were initiated by the Pack River

183

Company, the major logging company with operations underway in the Alpine Lakes area. Only 439 letter writers gave blanket endorsement t o a Forest Service proposal of the smaller wilderness area of 238,000 acres; 532 favored t h e largest land area proposal of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society.21

While the Forest Service in 1973 placed a moratorium on the 285,000 acres which its proposal designated as "wilderness area," the Pack River Company built a 2.6 mile road over Forest Service land to company-owned forest land within the previously untouched Coulter Creek section of the Alpine Lakes area. Devastation resulted.22

An exchange of letters from May to July, 1974 between Congressman Brock Adams and Forest Ser- vice Chief John McGuire, frankly discussed the issue of access road permits and subsequent damage to t h e area.23 As Adams noted in May: "Now, the Pack River Company is nearing another watershed which the Washington state delegation felt was worthy of statutory protection. . . . This is land that the Forest Service itself wanted to be managed in a 'near natural condition. Chief McGuire responded that under existing statutes '(8 reasonable interpretation of adequate access to these private lands [of the Pack River Company] would be a logging rmd." He further argued that he felt bound to issue the permit for these roads until the federal government acquired the private lands. Adams responded that he was "concerned that the Forest Service is too hastily granting permits for access roads across potential wilderness land for logging purposes.'1 The Congressman also proposed that the Forest-Service place a moratorium on such road building "to provide Congress the opportunity t o fully evaluate t h e need for protection and preservation of this valuable land."

Battle lines were being drawn, and they ex- tended beyond Congress. David Knibb, a Seattle

184

lawyer and president of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, complained of the slowness with which Congress was dealing with the problem. With bitterness he commented: "We wouldn't have had this problem of damage t o [Coulter Creek] if Congress had moved earlier. . . . Our bill has been in Congress nine months with no visible acti0n."~4 Wilderness interests gained support from The Seattle Post- Intell' encer. On July 8, 1974 the paper editoria- +

. . . while Congress ponders ponderously over the 4 bills before it, the Pack River Company wants to build more roads (in the Coulter Creek drainage). . . and log out dead, diseased and over mature trees. To do so Pack River Company needs to build roads acrass Forest Service lands in adjacent sections. The Alpine Lakes Protection Society and other conservation groups say . . . it wil l be 'legislation by chain-saw' since Congress has never put roaded. . . properties into wilderness classification. The real laser will be the public if more land is roaded . . . . We still feel the wilderness area propmed by the Alpine Lakes Protection Society is not just necessary and reasonable but small enough a t the rate wild country is d isappea ring.

Indicative of the sentiment of the rural, east side of the mountains were the editorials of t h e Wenatchee World, which began to accentuate the Pack River Company and industry arguments.26 In an editorial dated July 17, 1975, the World began what was to become an emotional campaign opposing the bigger wilderness proposals. They saw the National Recreation Area as a "great area" beyond the wilderness core, where other multiple uses, particu- larly logging, would only be "nominally permitted."

185

Emphasis was placed on job losses that would result from the designation of a wilderness area or a recreation area. The World also began an assault on Representative Lloyd Meeds, the only Washington State member of the subcommittee that would be conducting the public hearings, calling him an "avowed advocate for t h e Sierra Clubbers." It sug- gested that the Alpine Lakes Protection Society people were elitists, and that they would determine controls in the National Recreation Area. The World had clearly become the transmitter of t h e concerns of t h e rural interests directly affected by the proposed wilderness designation.

The first public Congressional hearing was held in Seattle. Representatives Lloyd Meeds and Mike McCormack, whose districts contained a portion of the Alpine Lakes area, were present. A majority of the more than 1200 people attending favored the largest wilderness proposal. Governor Dan Evans and Seattle Mayor Wes Uhlman were a t this meeting; they also favored the largest wilderness proposal. The size of the wilderness core was not the only substantive issue. The peripheral area was of major importance. The alternatives were: to keep t h e present management set-up (the Forest Services), or to create a National Recreation Area. The latter position was supported by the Alpine Lakes Protection Society and other environmental groups. The former position was pressed b the forest industry-supported Alpine Lakes

On July 19, 1975, the House Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation convened a second public hearing. This was held in the eastern rural area in Wenatchee before more than 1500 people. Again, Representatives Meeds and McCormack were present. Here the tenor was different. Chelan County Commissioner Dave Davis stated "we can't afford any federal control or federal ownership" in this area and received a standing ovation. Wenatchee Mayor Jack

186

c oali t ion. 87

Grover talked of the smaller wilderness area plan as the "most practical and . . . economically sound", asking that "the wi l l of the local people be given top priority.fI28

The Pack River Company began a public campaign emphasizing the impact of a wilderness area on job losses and mill closures. One spokesman stated: "As best we can determine, if the . . . [Alpine Lakes Protection Society] proposal is adopted, two mills wil l have to be closed, along with 1222 jobs . . . the same will occur with . . . the Forest Service Others talked of the lass of thousands of jobs and the destruction of the economy.

For the first time, the Forest Service propasal got support from other public agencies within Washington State. The Kittitas County Commk- sioners and State Representative Earl TiUy both publicly supported the Forest Service propasal.30 There was speculation, however, that instead of the original bills a compromise bill developed with the entire Washington State delegation's approval would be reported to the ful l House.31

The Congressional Compromises

On September 24, 1975, Representative Mike McCormack publicly stated his pasition on the issue for the first time. compromise proposal," one which he said was '!between t h e extremes. . . considered the economy and would also provide recreation for everyone, not just tiny minorities . . . . I ' This bill compromised "on geo- graphic lines as well as management principles . . . I have a much greater responsibility than pleasing the Sierra Club. My responsibility is to t h e people of my dis t rict."32 McC ormack continually asserted that only the Sierra Club supported the largest wilderness area. But clearly the support for the latter position had broadened. Some groups that had formerly

187

H e presented what be called

opposed the Alpine Lakes Protection Society proposal, especially some 4-wheeler groups, fishing clubs and hunters had now begun to favor a national recreation and wilderness area in the region.33

While the supporters of the largest wilderness bill argued that the money spent in the long run by people from outside the area would be money lost locally if there were not a wilderness area attraction for them, the proponents of t h e smaller wilderness area argued that the loss of school revenues from I%ging tax=, 1~3% of jobs, closure of mills, and of "lock@ UP" too much land from economically productive development would all impact the area heavily. The Pack River Company enclased an "Alpine Lakes Alert" with paychecks, which stated that job losses could result with the passage of any bill except the one they supported: "Never will one

Both sides traded figures on the impact of the alternative proposals on the timber logged. Estimates from each side ranged from a loss of 2 million to 18 million board feet, with over 56 million board feet still being available in the area outside the Alpine Lakes region. The year before the Alpine Lakes region produced only 7% of Chelan County's produc- tion. The Forest Service's projections agreed with those of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society.

The Pack River Company owns 68,000 acres in the area in checkerboard fashion. It campaigned relentlessly with petitions given to employees with their paychecks, presentations to school boards, presentations to chambers of commerce, and helicopter tours of logging operations for state and federal officials. The Pack River backed coalition hired the former administrative assistant to Senator Magnuson, Gerald Grinstein, as a lobbyist.35 Forest Industries Magazine reported that the Chelan County Pack River mills were in financial trouble before the

issue affect you and your family more. . . . tr34

188

wilderness area proposal ever received serious Con- gressional c~ns ide ra t ion .~~ Debt had risen to $60,000,000, employees were to be cut by a third, and operations were to be cut from 27 divisions to 7. Pack River may have, in part, been using the Alpine Lakes proposal as a way to explain jobcutting which was inevitable even if there were no Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. The Weyerhauser Company and the Burlington Northern Railroad also owned commercial timber in the area, but they were not waging an aggressive public campaign against any of the Wil- derness area bills.

By 1975, Congressman Lloyd Meeds had taken the lead to push legislation through Congress. Sena- tor Jackson, on the Senate Interior Committee, was eager to get some type of Alpine Lakes legislation passed, but he had previously decided to support whatever came from the House. Representatives Adams and Pritchard were both strongly in favor of a big wilderness area, many of their constituents being recreational users of the area. Representative Mike McCormack's support for a smaller wilderness was also becoming more voca1.37

In September 1975 Meeds was charged by the Washington State delegation to work out a compromise bill. H e had remained neutral prior to this time. In prior years the League of Conservation Voters gave Meeds ratings ranging from 57% to 81% on environmental issues: "this rating is not bet ter . . . because he is often trying to mediate between the interests of industry . . . and the concerns of environmentalists . . . .I1 Meeds clearly saw himself as a man in the middle: ''I've voted against both environmentalists and business on occasion. Both interests can go too far. . . . My job involves trying to help.f138 Meeds' district is mainly small towns wi th twenty-nine percent being federally owned land. Unemployment in recent years has ranged from 8.75% to 17%. The

189

unem loyment issue was highly visible in the dis- t r i ~ t . ! ~ Meeds' initial proposals were opposed by the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, Pack River Com- pany, Weyerhauser Company and Burlington North- ern.40

The state delegation m e t f ive times to work out a On October 30, six of the seven members of the Washington House delegation presented a new compromise bill (H.R. 77921, with a 308,000 acre wilderness. The Forest Service was given five years to acquire private lands in the area, to a total of 383,600 acres. McCormack was the lone dissenter, still concerned about job lasses in his district. The bill also called for 575,000 acres of preserve, wi th the Forest Service to develop a land use plan. There were no guidelines for control over the 175,000 acres of private land within the preserve. This would be governed only by state and local zoning.42

This bill passed the Parks and Recreation Sub- Committee by a vote of 11-10. On February 17 , 1976, the House Interior Committee passed t h e bill by a vote of 16-3. Both the Sierra Club and Congress- man Meeds expressed approval of t h e comprornise.43 With the opposition of the Department of Agriculture to the bill, Republican House support, recruited by Representative Joel Pritchard became vita1.44 Meeds stated that he had "never been personally subjected such lobbyin my colleagues say they never have

timber interests. One Interior Committee member remarked that "the issue is more than a few valleys they want to log. . . these people sense the opportunity to defeat a big wilderness plan. It would be a dramatic way of showing that t h e environmental tide is ebbing.T146

been either." $- 5 The issue had become symbolic for

The Department of Agriculture addressed a January 28 letter to the Interior Committee, ob-

190

jecting to the casts of the bill. They maintained acquisition costs were too high , and objected to management guidelines, preferring to leave th i s to the discretion of the Forest Service. Meeds retorted: '!It's a case of inflation, the Department blew up its cost estimate because it doesn't want Congress (in the form of management guidelines) locking over its shoulder.'! The Department was trying to maintain its own independen~e.!'~~

Formulating the Final Bill

In early February, Meeds' attempt to get a delegation consensus seemed to be slipping away as a result of the Department of Agriculture's letter and t h e pressure of timber lobbyists. Congressmen "Bizz'! Johnson of California, on the Interior Committee, pushed for the adoption of Representative McCormack's smaller wilderness bill.

Two committee members, Joseph Vigorito of Pennsylvania and Antonio Won Pat of Guam, withdrew pledges t o back the Meeds bill. Political pressures . . . influenced the situation as much as the merits of t h e bill itself . . . . One Committee member pointed out that both Johnson of California and McCormack are on the House Public Works Commit- tee . . . , They've used their position t o advantage. For instance, Guam has a lot of government projects in the hcpper. That's why Won Pat is going t o take a walk [and not vote] when decision time c omes.48

The vote on Johnson's smaller proposal was 17- 23. The pressure almost paid off but Meeds' bill passed, with many Congressmen taking '!walks."

Meeds may have thought he was fol-

191

lowing a safe course in mediating b e tween the conflicting interests and work- ing our a compromise. But his support . . . provoked, unexpectedly, bitter opposition from the timber interests in his home district . . . (being) attached in a newspaper ad and a group called Com- mittee for a New Congressman . . . (being) formed t o research. . . Meeds' record on the Alpine Lakes issue in an effort t o unseat him in the November elect ion.49

The stage now shifted out of the public process. In April of 1976, after Congressional committees had passed a compromise 383,600 acre wilderness bill, the prime Alpine Lakes antagonists began direct and secret negotiations in face t o face bargaining. R e - presentative Lloyd Meeds, who arranged the negotiations, said he was "fully in support of the various parties reaching a compromise wi th which they can both agree.'f50 Commenting on the negotiations Meeds stated:51

The groups began a series of negotiations. The groups were a coalition of users composed of timber companies, of outdoor recreation enthusiasts, 4- wheel drive enthusiasts, horsemen and others, plus the coalition of conservation groups. They had many meetings. It was a difficult and long negotiation.

I attempted to mediate in some instances, and I know how Henry Kissinger feels . . . . They submitted to us two drafts, from which the Washington State delegation compased a third which was submitted to both groups and accepted by them.

192

The new bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1976. This bill was the result of the interest group bargaining sessions. The Forest Service was asked to develop a broad multiple use plan for the surrounding management unit, but without strict guidelines being manda t ed by Congress. On June 8, 1976, H.R. 7792 passed the House by voice vote.52 No floor fight took place. Passage was. routine under suspension of the rules procedure by consent of the House. The Bill, H.R. 7792 provided for a wilderness area of 393,000 acres; this was about 10,000 acres larger than the original committee bill designated. All of the land was to be acquired in three years rather than the original proposal of five years. In return, t h e "multiple use management unit" which surrounded the wilderness area was reduced from 920,000 t o 527,000 acres in the "interest group" devised compromise bill. New logging restrictions within the managed area were also dropped from the final version of the bill. The Forest Service, seen as sympathetic to the logging industry, was to maintain regulatory control in the management unit. The bill allowed for an appropriation of $57.5 million for the Forest Service to acquire land within the wilderness core.

The Senate Jnterior Committee, chaired by Senator Henry Jackson, held hearings on t h e Alpine Lakes Wilderness bill on June 22, 1976. Only one week later the ful l Senate put the bill on its agenda.53 It passed by voice vote. The Senate had left it up t o the House and they in turn had depended, in the end, on the interest groups. It was irnrne- diately sent to the President and became known as "The Alpine Lakes Wilderness Management Act," Public Law 94-357.

Conclusions

The Alpine Lakes Wilderness controversy fits into the view of groups as an integral part of the

193

legislative and bureaucratic process. The bill which emerged was a product and comproiiiise of the interest groups even more than a product of the Congressional delegation or bureaucracy. The experts from each of these domains did come together to fashion the final bill, but it was the approval of the interest groups, after dealing with bureaucratic opposition, that moved t h e bill t o final passage.

Perhaps this is a harbinger of future instances of urban and rural land use conflict resolution. The single interest groups and other vocal and organized interests wi l l be the bargainers as the legislators serve as the brokers in the situation. The Congress- men whose districts are most directly affected wil l take the most active role in the bargaining process. Finally, Congress as a whole goes along if most of the local interests and interested groups, as well as the state Congressional delegation and the bureaucracy can reach a consensus on the resource allocation problem a t hand.

Localism pervades American politics and the organized do dominate. The role of t h e "single- interest" interest group has received much attention in recent elections. But it is within the workings of the Congress and the bureaucracy, a t a less visible public level, that these types of groups may be major continuous actors in the Dolitical process. Lowi's forceful studies in The End of Liberalism clearly point t o this "interest group pluralism."34 Environ- mental land use politics, this study suggests, may not differ from this norm. The group battle continues, albeit in a new arena of conflict.

194

1Arthur Maas, Muddy Waters (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 19511, is a n early work in th i s area. More recently see: Walter Rosenbaum, The Politics of Environmental Concern (New York: Praeger Publishers, 19731, esp. pp. 14-18.

2Two landmark works are: Arthur Bentley, The Process of Government (Chicago: University- Chicago Press, 1908); David B. Truman, T h e Gov- ernmental Process (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951).

3Robert Dahl, A Preface t o Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19561, p. 145.

4V.O. Key, Jr., Parties, Politics, and Pressure Groups (5th ed., N e w York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1964) ,p . 17.

5(Chicago:

61bid., - p. 328.

Rand McNally, 19631, p. 354.

7rrA Pressure Group and t h e Pressured," American Political Science Review, 48 (September, 19541, 672.

8(rev. ed.; Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press, 19751, p. 68.

912th ed.; New York: W.W. Norton ti Company, 1979.

loDavid J. Vcgley, The Politics of Congress (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 19741, pp. 230-231. See also, Charles- E. Linblom, The Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968).

1 1 ( N e w York:

12U.S., Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 29, 1976, 1 2 2 , S10900-10901. Remarks by Senator Warren Magnuson.

Praeger, 1977), p. 170.

195

13U.S., Forest Service, Alpine Lakes Manage- ment Unit Direction and W ilderness Proposal, Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National Forests (Wash- ington: U.S. Government Printing Off ice , N.D.), p. 2. Hereaf te r c i ted as Alpine Lakes Proposal.

14Ibid., - p. 1. Governor Dan Evans cites this region as: "The largest single block in t h e recre- at ional resources of t h e state." Quoted by Repre- sen ta t ive Lloyd Meeds in U.S., Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., February 4 , 1976, E.449.

I5Alpine Lakes Proposal, pp. 11-14.

16U.S., Congressional Record, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., October 23, 1973, 119, S34863.

l7A1pine Lakes Protect ion Society, The Alpine (N.D.; Mimecgraphed). "Newsletters" and Ynf or- mation Bulletins'' printed by T h e Alpine Lakes Pro- tect ion Society generally have no d a t e or page numbers. T w o addresses are given f o r t h e origins of Alpine Lakes Protect ion Society mater ia l , one in S e a t t l e , Washington (3823 N.E. 95th) and one in Ellensburg, Washington (P.O. Box 761).

18J.A. Wright, T h e Alpine Lakes Land Use Study, U.S. Forest Serv ice (November, 1972). (Mim- eographed) The material in this paragraph is drawn from this mimeographed report by a member of T h e Forest Serv ice Alpine Lakes Study Team. This s tudy is c i ted without re ference t o authorship in t h e Alpine Lakes Propcsal (p. 5).

19Alpine Lakes Proposal, p. 5. T h e Forest Serv ice Bill was to become H.R. 7792; t h e COnSeP- vation groups unified around H.R. 3977 and t h e Coalition Bill was to become H.R. 3978.

2oU.S., Congressional Record, 93rd Cong., lstj Sess., October 23, 1973, 119, S34863.

196

21Alpine Lakes Proposal, pp. 15-16.

22Seattle Times, June 30, 1974, p. C9.

23The correspondence cited in this paragraph is drawn from the following: Letter from Hon. Brock Adams, U.S. House of Representatives, May 13, 1974 to John M. McGuire, Chief, Forest Service; Letter from John hlcGuire, Chief, Forest Service, May 27, 1974 t o Representative Brock Adams; Letter from Hon. Brock Adams, U.S. House of Representatives, July 25, 1974 to John M. McGuire, Chief, Forest Service.

24Seattle Post-htelligencer, July 1, 1974, p. A3.

25Seattle Pat-htelligencer, July 8, 1974, p. A8.

26The Wenatchee World, July 17, 1975, p. 4. The material in the following two paragraphs is drawn from this source.

27Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 28, 1975, pp. Al, A10. See also: U.S., Congress, House, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hear- ing, Alpine Lakes A r e a Management Act, in Seattle, Washington, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., June 28, 1975 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Off ice, 1976). Hereafter cited as Seattle Hearing.

28The Wenatchee World, July 20, 1975, pp. 1-2. See also: U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hearing, Alpine Lakes Area Management Act , in Wenatchee, Washington, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., July 19, 1975 (Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Off ice, 1977).

197

29The Wenatchee World, July 20, 1975, pp. 1-2.

3OAside from individuals tes t i fying on this issue, a n enumeration of t h e groups t h a t were officially supporting members of T h e Alpine Lakes Coalit ion may be found in Seattle Hearing, pp. 76-77.

3 l T h e Wenatchee World, July 20, 1975, pp. 1-2.

32The Wenatchee World, S e p t e m b e r 24 , 1975, p.

The President of The

conditionally support t h e Forest Service proposal. . . i t is now clear, however, t h a t t h e Forest Service is unable to maintain t h e area in a wilderness l ike condition . . . .I1 The Club thus changed its position. See Seattle Hearing, p. 287.

2.

"[The] Club did

3% eat tle P 0s t- Int ell igencer,

35s eat t le P cst- Int ellig encer ,

S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1975. pp. Al, A10.

S e p t e m be r 2 9, 1975, p. A l .

36r'Pack River Report ," -Forest Industries Maga- zine, March 1, 1976, p. 13. -

37Wenatchee World, S e p t e m b e r 24, 1975, p. 2, and "Report" T h e Alpine, December , 1975, pp. 1-2.

38Nacy Gates , "Lloyd Meeds, Democra t ic Re- presentat ive from Washington," in Ralph Nader Con-

39 bid. , p. 7. -

40The Nader Project report indicated in 1972

198

that in Meeds' district "there is a head-on collision bet ween clearly needed federal environmental controls" and consti tuents ' fears of job losses. (p. 1) Meeds noted his concern with t h e unemployment issue as it re la ted t o The Alpine Lakes bill. See: U.S., Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., Febru- ary 24, 1976, 122, E.448-E.449. Meeds won t h e 1976 general election by a margin of less t h a n one percent of t h e vote. In February of 1977 Meeds announced tha t h e would not run f o r reelection. T h e Congres- sional Quarterly Weekly Report of February 25, 1978, p. 504, indicates. t h a t a major reason for Meeds decision not t o seek reelection was the hostility in h is dis t r ic t which resulted from his position in t h e Alpine Lakes bill.

41 Seattle Post-lntelligencer, S e p t e m b e r 29,

1975, pp. Al, A10.

U.S., Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 2nd 42

Sess., February 4, 1976, 1 2 2 , E.448-E.449. 43

1975, p. A10. S eat tle P 0s t- Int elligencer, N ove rn ber 1 1,

44 Seattle Times, February 17 , 1976, p. D9.

45Seattle Post-Intelligencer, February 18, 1976,

4611Report,11 The Alpine, March, 1976, p. 1. '4 7

p. A3.

Ibid. 48

49 Ibid., pp. 1-2.

Ibid., p. 2.

-

- 50

Ibid., p. 3. - "Seattle Times, April 20, 1976, p. A10.

199

S e e

also: "Alpine Lakes Wilderness," Congressional Quar- terly Weekly Report , May 29, 1976, pp. 1344-1345. One representative, S teven D. Symmslr , (R., Idaho), "protested t h e negotiations for a new compromise were conducted outside regular c o m m i t t e e channels." (p. 1345)

52 US., Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 8, 1976, 122, H.45413.

53 "Alpine Lakes Wilderness," Congressional

54t 'The Alpine Lakes Area Management Act , 1976'' was passed in t h e S e n a t e on J u n e 29, 1976 under Senator Jackson's and Senator Magnuson's floor leadership. See US., Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 29, 1976, 122.

quar te r ly Weekly Report , J u n e 19 , 1976, p. 1611.

55 Lowi, passim.

200

the alpine lakes wilderness conflict: a study of politics and land use

Documents