UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Alpine Lakes of Washington State : a case study of bureaucratic decision-making Hyde, Brian Reed 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A6_7 H93_4.pdf [ 93.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093402.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093402-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093402-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093402-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093402-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093402-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093402-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093402-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093402.ris

Full Text

THE ALPINE LAKES OF WASHINGTON STATE A CASE STUDY OF BUREAUCRATIC DECISION-MAKING by BRIAN REED HYDE B.A., Dartmouth C o l l e g e , 1 9 7 0 B.Eng., Dartmouth C o l l e g e , 1 9 7 1 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n the Schoo l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1 9 7 5 In present ing th is thes is in par t ia l fu l f i lment o f the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representa t ives . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. Department of COtvXrVyv 10 1T j A hJ i) f l t\\0O A t l-HJ^'L The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Abstract This thesis has been a study of the planning and decision-making process i n a highly structured bureaucracy charged with managing natural resources. The intent was to learn how decisions are made by such a bureaucracy i n a con t r o v e r s i a l s i t u a t i o n with a high degree of involvement by i n t e r e s t groups. The U. S. Forest Service has managed a large portion of the Alpine Lakes area of the Washington Cascades as a Limited Area since 19^6, Since t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , which precludes timber harvesting and other development, i s administrative and not statutory, the r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Limited Area and some of the adjacent lands has been a source of controversy f o r many years. In J u l y of 1972 a s p e c i a l study team was formed by the Forest Service to study the area, develop a public involvement program, and prepare a l e g i s l a t i v e proposal f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the area or part of i t as a Wilder-ness Area. The thesis assessed the factors that determined the nature of the study team's recommendations f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and management of the area. The model used to f a c i l i t a t e t h i s analysis was that o f an information processing system. Information received from outside the organization and information generated within i t i s processed and fed into the deci s i o n . A review o f the l i t e r a t u r e on t h i s subject l e d to the formulation of the following basic propositions which guided the a n a l y s i s : Abstract (cont'd) Proposition 1 ; The study team',s output, its recommendation concerning the Alpine Lakes area, was determined by the objectives of the study team and the influence of the information re-ceived and considered by the study team. Proposition 2: The study team's objectives were determined by the rules constraining i t and the attitudes and perceptions of the mem-bers of the study team. Proposition 3? The information which affected the output of the study team consisted of a) information which was received from outside and screened and interpreted by the study team in accord with the values of the study team members and b) information generated by the study team. Proposition hi The information generated by the study team and the screening and interpretation of information from outside were determined by a) the rules constraining the study team, b) the attitudes and perceptions of study team members, and c) the resources available to the study team. The criteria for a Wilderness prescribed by,the Wilder-ness Act together with Forest Service policy limited in important respects the area the study team could include in a proposed Wilderness. Similarly Forest Service policy with regard to National Recreation Areas precluded the team from recommending that a portion of the region be made into a National Recreation Area. Within these constraints the study team had a great deal of f lexibi l i ty and its conclu-sions were the result of its interpretation of information in accord with i t s attitudes and perceptions. In this connection two attitudes and perceptions were of paramount importance, namely: 1 . The desires of conservation groups must be sufficiently well satisfied that there would not be a repetition of the North Cascades episode in which the Forest Service lost several hundred thousand acres to the National Park Service. i v A b s t r a c t (cont'd) 2, As much l a n d as p o s s i b l e s h o u l d be r e t a i n e d i n a m u l t i p l e use s t a t u s f o r timber h a r v e s t -i n g , m o t o r i z e d r e c r e a t i o n , and o t h e r non-Wil d e r n e s s uses. The f o r e g o i n g c o n s t r a i n t s , a t t i t u d e s , and p e r c e p t i o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r s examined i n the t h e s i s caused the stud y team t o generate and i n t e r p r e t i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from b o t h i n s i d e and o u t s i d e o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e so as t o produce a recommendation which d i d not go q u i t e as f a r as the c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s wished but which went much f u r t h e r than those who sought to minimize the s i z e o f the a r e a a l l o c a t e d t o Wild e r n e s s wanted. The t h e s i s demonstrates the importance o f p o l i t i c a l i n p u t s and the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f p l a n n i n g p e r s o n n e l t o the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , and i t p r o v i d e s a framework f o r examining the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s . V CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t i i L i s t o f T a b l e s i x L i s t o f Maps x Acknowledgement x i P a r t I . I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 A. H i s t o r y 1 B. Area o f Study 3 C. S i g n i f i c a n c e f o r P l a n n i n g 6 P a r t I I , I n s t i t u t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c a l S e t t i n g 8 A, Terms o f Reference o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e 8 1) G e n e r a l O r i e n t a t i o n and L e g i s l a t i v e Mandate 8 2) Wilderness and the F o r e s t S e r v i c e 10 3 ) N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas 13 h) R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Other F e d e r a l Land Management Agencies 15 5) The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f F e d e r a l l y -Owned P u b l i c Land 20 B, The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Beh a v i o r o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e 2 5 1) A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 2 5 2) B e h a v i o r o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e 29 C, H i s t o r y o f the A l p i n e Lakes kk 1) P r i o r t o the North Cascades Study o f 1965 **k 2) The North Cascades Study 47 3 ) A f t e r the North Cascades Study 56 v i Page D. The Problem i n Summary 63 P a r t I I I . A n a l y t i c a l Model, L i t e r a t u r e Review, and Methodology 6 5 A. The A n a l y t i c a l Model 65 1) The Model D e f i n e d i n G e n e r a l Terms 65 a) The Model A b s t r a c t l y Expressed 65 b) The A b s t r a c t Model R e l a t e d to the A l p i n e Lakes S i t u a t i o n 67 2) E l a b o r a t i o n o f the Model 70 B. The Methodology Used to Apply the Model 9k 1) Documents 9h 2) I n t e r v i e w s w i t h Informed Ind i v i d u a l s 95 3) Data A n a l y s i s 101 P a r t IV. F i n d i n g s 103 A. I n t r o d u c t i o n 103 B. P r o p o s i t i o n 2 10^ 1) The Rules 104 a) Laws 105 b) General P o l i c y and R e g u l a t i o n s 110 c) S p e c i f i c P o l i c y and R e g u l a t i o n s 121 d) Understandings 12^ 2) A t t i t u d e s and P e r c e p t i o n s 131 3) O b j e c t i v e s 1^0 v i i Page P r o p o s i t i o n 3 1^7 1) Sources o f and Channels f o r I n f o r m a t i o n 147 2) S u b s t a n t i v e I n f o r m a t i o n 152 a) The ALPS P r o p o s a l 152 b) The A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n -CWCST P r o p o s a l 156 c) The F o r e s t S e r v i c e A l t e r n a t i v e s 158 d) R e a c t i o n t o the F o r e s t S e r v i c e A l t e r n a t i v e s l 6 l e) The C o a l i t i o n o f C o n s e r v a t i o n Groups P r o p o s a l l6k f ) The F o r e s t S e r v i c e P r o p o s a l 166 3) I n f o r m a t i o n E x p r e s s i n g P r e f e r e n c e s 170 a) A l t e r n a t i v e s D i s c u s s e d 170 b) P r e f e r e n c e s Expressed 175 c) E x p r e s s i o n s o f P r e f e r e n c e Which Had L i t t l e E f f e c t 182 P r o p o s i t i o n k 186 1) Resources A v a i l a b l e and E f f e c t s Upon I n f o r m a t i o n Generated 186 2) P e r c e p t i o n s L i m i t i n g I n f o r m a t i o n Generated 192 3) E f f e c t s o f Rules on R e c e p t i o n of. I n f o r m a t i o n 19^ h) E f f e c t s o f A t t i t u d e s and P e r c e p t i o n s on R e c e p t i o n o f I n f o r m a t i o n 198 a) R e j e c t i o n and Acceptance o f S u b s t a n t i v e I n f o r m a t i o n 198 b) P r o c e s s i n g o f E x p r e s s i o n s o f P r e f e r e n c e 202 v i i i E. P r o p o s i t i o n 1 P a r t V. C o n c l u s i o n Bibliography-Appendix I Appendix I I The Wilderness Act A l l o c a t i o n s and A u t h o r i z a t i o n s f o r the P a c i f i c Northwest Region, U.S.F.S., F i s c a l Year 197^ Appendix I I I 22 Management O b j e c t i v e s from " A l p i n e Lakes Land Use A l t e r n a t i v e s " Appendix IV Appendix V Appendix VI 22 Management O b j e c t i v e s from " A l p i n e Lakes Management U n i t D i r e c t i o n and Wilderness P r o p o s a l " Correspondence R e l a t i n g t o the Ja c k Creek-Van Epps Pass Road Maps o f the I n t e r e s t Group and F o r e s t S e r v i c e P r o p o s a l s Page 205 215 227 233 2kh 251 256 261 267 i x LIST OF TABLES Ta b l e 1 Approximate Acreages f o r A l t e r n a t i v e s T a b l e 2 C e n t r a l Washington Cascades Study Team (CWCST) E s t i m a t e s o f Economic Impacts o f Three A l t e r n a t i v e s J u l y 3 0 , 1973 T a b l e 3 U.S.F.S. Es t i m a t e s o f Economic Impacts o f Three F o r e s t S e r v i c e A l t e r n a t i v e s T a b l e 4 U.S.F.S. E s t i m a t e s o f Economic Impacts f o r U.S.F.S. P r o p o s a l T a b l e 5 S u b s t a n t i v e I n f o r m a t i o n R e c e i v e d by the Study Team Ta b l e 6 E x p r e s s i o n s o f P r e f e r e n c e A d d i t i o n a l T a b l e i n Appendix I I Page 171 172 173 173 174 184 244 LIST OF MAPS Page Map 1 The P a c i f i c Northwest Regions h$ Map 2 The N a t i o n a l Park S e r v i c e P r o p o s a l , North Cascades Study 50 Map 3 The F o r e s t S e r v i c e P r o p o s a l , N o r t h Cascades Study 52 Map k The Study Team P r o p o s a l , North Cascades Study 53 Map 5 The L e g i s l a t i o n Passed f o r the North Cascades A r e a 55 Map 6 The A l p i n e Lakes Area 57 A d d i t i o n a l Maps i n c l u d e d i n feefe-P-w^cet ehvfi'opt ALPS P r o p o s a l A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n P r o p o s a l C o a l i t i o n o f C o n s e r v a t i o n Groups P r o p o s a l F o r e s t S e r v i c e A l t e r n a t i v e s A, B, and C F o r e s t S e r v i c e P r o p o s a l xi Acknowledgement I would l i k e t o thank P r o f e s s o r s I r v i n g Fox and Gordon Stead f o r t h e i r h e l p i n the w r i t i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s . I want to thank J e r r y P a r k e r f o r g e t t i n g me s t a r t e d on t h i s t o p i c and Ken P e t e r s o n f o r h e l p i n g me o r g a n i z e my thoughts i n the b e g i n n i n g . I want t o thank a l l the people who gave me so much time d u r i n g the p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s . I'd a l s o l i k e t o thank R i k Haugen f o r h i s sugg e s t i o n s and Ina G i l l i s f o r h e r work on the maps. B . R. H e x i i J o r y and Morgan: A l p i n e Lakes i s f o r you and your p e o p l e . T h i s i s w r i t t e n i n the hope t h a t you w i l l always have the o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n d e c i s i o n s l i k e the A l p i n e Lakes d e c i s i o n . PART I INTRODUCTION A. History Since at least 1946 there has been i n t e r e s t i n preserving the Alpine Lakes area of the central Washington Cascades as Wilderness. In 1946 the Forest Service designated an Alpine Lakes Limited Area. Since that time various proposals have been made for protection of the area. The North Cascades Study Team, made up of Forest Service and Park Service personnel, recommended that the Alpine Lakes area and the Enchantment area be included i n the Wilderness system. This system was started i n 1964 under the federal Wilderness Act. The North Cascades Study Team recommendation was made i n 1965, but i t was several years before the Forest Service became a c t i v e l y involved i n planning f o r the Alpine Lakes area. In 1970 the Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS) pro-posed a National Recreation Area with a Wilderness core. This Wilderness core included the two separate areas proposed by the Forest Service i n a single Wilderness Area. As a re s u l t of requests from ALPS and other groups, members of the Washington Congressional delegation asked that the Forest Service proceed with planning f o r the Alpine Lakes area. In 1971 the Chief of the Forest Service promised to st a r t a study and develop a proposal f o r Wilderness c l a s s i f i -c ation f o r the area. A study team was formed i n July of 1972. By December of 1972 three land use alter n a t i v e s had been developed. In January of 1973 public meetings were held at seven locations around the Forest Service study area. At these meetings and i n written submissions members of the public commented on the three a l t e r n a t i v e s . By June of 1973 a single proposal had been developed along with a draft environmental statement. The Regional Forester i n Portland, Oregon, sent these to the Chief of the Forest Service i n Washington, D. C. In October 1973, two public hearings were held ato get public response to the single Forest Service proposal. Based on these hearings and on further written submissions a f i n a l proposal was developed. Congress i s expected to act some time i n 1975 on the Forest Service's proposed l e g i s l a t i o n and on three other proposed b i l l s . The Alpine Lakes Protection Society, the Alpine Lakes C o a l i t i o n , a c o a l i t i o n of forest products i n -dustry and recreation groups, and the C o a l i t i o n of Conserva-t i o n Groups, made up of groups l i k e the S i e r r a Club, the > Wilderness Society, and the Friends of the Earth, have a l l drafted b i l l s . At the moment, Congress has been busy with other matters and has not acted on the Alpine Lakes area. This study deals with the ro l e of the sp e c i a l Forest Service study team i n the development of the Forest Service's pro-posed l e g i s l a t i o n . B. Area of Study During the process of developing a plan f o r the creation of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area the Forest Service re-ceived public input from a v a r i e t y of sources through several channels. The formal public hearings were only the most v i s i b l e means of c o l l e c t i n g public reactions. Other means included formal written input, input written on an informal or more s p e c i a l basis than that accompanying the hearings, meetings with groups or i n d i v i d u a l s , informal contacts. This thesis w i l l focus on the process by which the plan fo r Alpine Lakes was developed. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t w i l l t r y to determine the r e l a t i v e roles that public input, Forest Service p o l i c y and guidelines, and the analyses and i n s i g h t s of l o c a l Forest Service personnel played i n the recommenda-tions of the s p e c i a l study team to the Regional Forester i n Portland, Oregon, and to the Chief i n Washington, D. C. Public input provided some of the information on which a d e c i s i o n could be based. Other sources of information were past studies of the Alpine Lakes area conducted by the Forest Service and other organizations, studies of other public land areas i n the country, and supply and demand information f o r the use of resources i n the area i n c l u d i n g water, timber, forage, and recreation. National and regional p o l i c y and the i n s i g h t s of l o c a l personnel determined how t h i s information was processed to a r r i v e at a decision. The objective of t h i s thesis can be described more s p e c i f i c a l l y . The Forest Service personnel who worked on Alpine Lakes study i n Washington state at the l o c a l l e v e l developed a proposal f o r the area. This proposal, i n f i n a l form, w i l l represent the Administration's proposal to Congres Some of the factors which le d to the development of t h i s pro-posal are the subject of t h i s t h e s i s . The sources of information were mentioned above. The r e l a t i v e importance of these sources, p a r t i c u l a r l y public input, w i l l be assessed. In evaluating the r o l e of public input, the impact of input from various groups w i l l be studied to determine why some groups might have more impact than others. Part of t h i s evaluation w i l l include looking at the communication process through which c e r t a i n informa-t i o n was transmitted more c l e a r l y than other information. What obstacles l i m i t e d the t ransmittal of some information, what channels eased the transmittal of some? Another set of factors to be evaluated are the con-s t r a i n t s imposed on the l o c a l personnel by national regional p o l i c y . The guidelines and rules within which the planners had to work w i l l be studied. Did they l i m i t the kind of information which was c o l l e c t e d , and did they predetermine how information was weighed? Did the Forest Service have p a r t i c u l a r objectives i n i t s dealings with the public and i n the importance i t attached to public input? A t h i r d set of factors are the i n s i g h t s of the planners themselves. They processed the information and attempted to f i t into the constraints of p o l i c y . How d i d t h e i r i n s i g h t s a f f e c t the r o l e of d i f f e r e n t sources of information? How important were t h e i r own experience and feelings i n r e l a t i o n to public input and other information i n planning the land use pattern and management p o l i c i e s best suited to the Alpine Lakes area? These are the three p r i n c i p a l sets of factors which t h i s thesis w i l l study. The r e s u l t should be an explanation of how these factors l e d to the proposal which has been sent to Washington, D. C. To a r r i v e at the roles of Forest Ser-vice p o l i c y , the insi g h t s of l o c a l Forest Service planners, and public input interviews were conducted. Members of i n t e r e s t groups and Forest Service personnel were i n t e r -viewed. A . l i s t of basic questions was prepared from which s p e c i f i c questions more approrpriate to the persons being interviewed were developed. The general areas of questioning were the events pre-ceding Forest Service study of the Alpine Lakes area, the r o l e of Forest Service p o l i c y , the r o l e of l o c a l planners, and the r o l e of public input and other information. In studying the ro l e of l o c a l planners three areas were exam-ined. They are the general land use management philosophy of the planners, the recreation i n t e r e s t s of the personnel, and t h e i r ideas on land and water management research. To study the ro l e of public input several agreas were pursued. They are the reasons and motivations f o r the public involve-ment program, the means of making input, the methods f o r handling the information presented i n the public input, the roles of formal and informal channels of communication. S p e c i f i c questions were asked of members of the i n t e r e s t groups and of Forest Service personnel to provide information i n the general areas l i s t e d above. The intent was to see how the planners handled the information they received and how the view the public had of the planners affected the way of the public input was made. C. Significance f o r Planning Planners often face demands from segments of the public f o r a voice i n planning decisions. Questions which always ar i s e are, "How should public inputs be included i n the decision process?" and "How should various kinds of public input be weighed against each other and against other i n -formation and i n s i g h t s that the planners have?" Views i n t h i s area range from a p o l i c y of depending p r i m a r i l y on the expertise of planners to one of having planners co-ordinate and inform segments of the public as they plan f o r them-selves. This thesis w i l l study one agency's methods of handling these questions. The U. S. Forest Service i s charged with the management of one kind of f e d e r a l l y owned land, National Forests. The management of these lands involves an attempt to meet na-t i o n a l goals i n providing needed lumber, grazing lands, watershed areas, recreation land, habitat f o r various w i l d species, and areas for s c i e n t i f i c study. Against these needs the needs of the people within each of the Forest Service regions must be weighed. In t h i s case the needs of the people i n the P a c i f i c Northwest Region must be weighed. Needs can be l o c a l i z e d even more by looking at the state l e v e l and at the i n d i v i d u a l National Forest l e v e l . In developing proposals f o r the Alpine Lakes area Forest Service planners must look at these l e v e l s of demands and at the c o n f l i c t i n g kinds of demands. At the same time they have to face the questions stated above about the ro l e of public input i n planning decisions. This thesis w i l l look at one large agency, charged with meeting needs ranging from the national l e v e l to the l o c a l l e v e l , charged with the management of public resources, and charged with i n t e r p r e t i n g and meeting public demands. It w i l l examine how the planners made decisions i n one p a r t i c -u l a r case. Some r e s u l t s of t h i s study should be applicable to t h i s agency i n other s i t u a t i o n s and to other agencies i n other s i t u a t i o n s . The questions of r e l a t i v e roles of various components of a decision are questions most planners have to ask. 8 PART I I INSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORICAL SETTING The U 0 S. Forest Service administers the Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National Forests within which any Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area created would l i e . The Forest Service under-took study of and planning f o r the area and managed the public involvement program as part of i t s decision process. The way that the Forest Service managed t h i s public involvement pro-gram and the factors that affected the way i t handled the program are the focus of t h i s t h e s i s . The administrative s e t t i n g of the Forest Service and the h i s t o r y of the Alpine Lakes area and the proposals f o r the creation of a Wilderness Area w i l l prepare the reader for the study i t s e l f . A, Terms of Reference of the Forest Service 1) General Orientation and L e g i s l a t i v e Mandate The Forest Service has been a bureau of the Department of Agriculture since 1905. I t administers National Forests i n nine regions which cover the entire country i n c l u d i n g Alaska. Since the s t a r t multiple-use and long-term public benefit have been goals of the Forest Service's p o l i c y . In 1906 Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson wrote to the Chief Forester, G i f f o r d Pinchot: '.,,In the administration of the National Forests i t must be c l e a r l y borne i n mind that a l l land i s to be devoted to i t s most productive use f o r the permanent good of a l l the whole people, and not f o r the temporary benefit of i n d i v i d u a l s or 9 companies,, A l l resources of the National Forests are for use . . . and where confl ict ing interests must be reconciled the question w i l l always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number i n the long r u n , , , ' ^ Logging, mining, construction of water projects, highways, intensive and extensive recreation, and grazing are a l l forms of land use in National Forests. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of i 9 6 0 gave leg i s la t ive status to Forest Service pol icy . It set as goals the development and administration of renewable sur-face resources for multiple use and sustained y i e l d . •It i s the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shal l be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wi ld l i fe and f i sh purposes. 1^ Further i n the act "multiple use" i s defined, •Multiple use' means the management of a l l the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are u t i l i z e d i n the combination that w i l l best meet the needs of the American people, making the most judi-cious use of the land for some or a l l of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient lat itutde for periodic adjustments i n use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land w i l l be used for less than a l l of the resources; and harmonious and co-ordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the values of various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that w i l l give the greatest dol lar return or the greatest unit output.3 Wilson in Brockman, Recreational Use of Wildlands. p. 1^9. U . S . D . A . , The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of I960, ' ib id . 10 Recreation and wilderness are just part of what the Forest Service provides i n managing i t s lands. The Multiple Use-Sustained Y i e l d Act does state that the establishment and maintenance of wilderness i s consistent with the aims of the act. Wilderness has been part of Forest Service management since 1924, when Aldo Leopold, working f o r the Forest Service i n the Southwest, encouraged the w r i t i n g of an administrative order creating the G i l a Primitive Area i n New Mexico, More recently, i n 1964, the Wilderness Preservation Act created the National Wilderness Preservation System which included wilderness land from both the National Forest system and the National Park system. More d e t a i l s w i l l be provided further on, but i t should be made cl e a r that there i s a long t r a d i -t i o n i n the Forest Service of providing outdoor recreation i n f o r e s t s . Recreational p o l i c i e s originate i n the national o f f i c e . Within the basic p o l i c i e s Regional Foresters prepare recrea-t i o n a l plans f o r t h e i r region. Detailed planning i s done by Forest Supervisors and t h e i r s t a f f i n consultation with D i s t r i c t Rangers, These plans l i s t objectives and p o l i c i e s . Physical planning, when needed, i s done by landscape a r c h i -tects i n the Regional Forester's o f f i c e or i n the Super-v i s o r ' s o f f i c e , 2) Wilderness and the Forest Service Planning f o r Wilderness Areas passes through the hierarchy. Plans drawn up at the Supervisor l e v e l are sent to the Regional Forester and then to the Chief Forester, 11 They are then sent to Congress, because Wilderness Areas can only be created through an Act of Congress, When the Wilderness Act was passed i n 1964, there already were areas designated f o r wilderness purposes. Regulation L-20 established p r i m i t i v e areas i n 1930, The Chief of the Forest Service s h a l l determine, define, and permanently record,,, a series of areas to be known as pri m i t i v e areas, and within which, to the extent of the Department's authority w i l l be maintained p r i m i t i v e conditions of environ-ment, transportation, habitation, and subsistence, with a view to conserving the value of such areas f o r purposes of^public education, i n s p i r a t i o n , and recreation. There was no mention of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y with logging, grazing, or water development f o r i n d u s t r i a l purposes. At the same time regulation U-3 established canoe areas, s i m i l a r to pr i m i t i v e areas, but based on lake and stream resources. In 1939 regulations U-l and U-2 established wilderness areas and wild areas. No logging, s p e c i a l use permits, planes, boats, or roads were allowed i n these areas. Wilderness areas were single t r a c t s greater than 100,000 acres, while wild areas ranged from 5000 to 100,000 acres* Recreation areas, a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that was less rigorous than wild or wilderness areas, were also established. These regulations were passed as amendments to regulation L -20 . The r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of pr i m i t i v e areas started but never f i n i s h e d . During the period between the end of World War I I and 1964 many conservationists devoted t h e i r energy to seeking ^McCabe, "A Wilderness Primer", p, 26. 12 l e g i s l a t i o n which would protect wilderness land. The Forest Service regulations only gave wilderness land administrative protection. The National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com-mission was established i n 1958 to study and plan f o r public r e c r e a t i o n a l needs, A study done f o r ORRRC by the Wildland Research Center at Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a attempted to define wilderness t r a c t s . C r i t e r i a were 1) size greater than 100,000 acres, 2) no public roads, 3) u n i f i e d boundaries, 4) no s i g n i f i c a n t e c o l o g i c a l disturbances except f o r grazing 5 i n the West and early day logging i n the East, The term "early day" was not defined i n terms of exact time, but would appear to mean the 18th or early 19th century. Be-cause there had been much grazing i n the West and much "early day logging" i n the East, the two exceptions had to be made, or there would have been very l i t t l e land a v a i l a b l e . The lack of further d e t a i l s i n the d e f i n i t i o n was a r e s u l t of compromise. The report represented a major e f f o r t to face the problem of s e l e c t i n g and managing wilderness areas. F i n a l l y i n 1964, a f t e r 8 years of bargaining, the Wilderness Act was passed. A l l the canoe areas, wild areas, and wilderness areas i n National Forests were automatically part of the Wilderness Preservation System. Primitive areas were to be studied f o r t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the system. The chief c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i n g areas r e l a t e McCabe, op_ c i t , . p, 28, 13 to man's impact on the l a n d . The c r i t e r i a were s i m i l a r t o c r i t e r i o n k) above, emphasizing the l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t e vidence o f man's i n f l u e n c e . However, as a r e s u l t o f com-p r o m i s i n g over e i g h t y e a r s , more p e r m i s s i b l e uses were i n c l u d e d . These were: 1) temporary roads needed f o r manage-ment, 2) p r o s p e c t i n g a f t e r 1983, i f compatible w i t h w i l d e r n e s s p r e s e r v a t i o n , 3) working o f c l a i m s u n t i l 1983 s u b j e c t to con-t r o l by the S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e , h) development o f water p r o j e c t s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , w i t h P r e s i d e n t i a l a u t h o r i z a -t i o n , 5) g r a z i n g , when i t e x i s t e d b e f o r e 1964, 6) f i s h i n g and h u n t i n g under s t a t e laws. Rather than b e i n g c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n , these c r i t e r i a c o n c e r n i n g p e r m i s s i b l e uses are management c r i t e r i a t o be used a f t e r the s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a have been used i n c h o o s i n g an a r e a , 3) N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas One s u b j e c t which s h o u l d be d i s c u s s e d b r i e f l y i s the concept o f N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas. The c r e a t i o n o f an A l p i n e Lakes N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A rea i s one demand b e i n g 7 p r e s e n t e d t o the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , David Knibb has reviewed N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A rea l e g i s l a t i o n . N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas began as a way t o i n c l u d e seacoast areas i n the N a t i o n a l Park system. L a t e r the concept was used f o r mass r e c r e a t i o n r e l a t e d t o water r e s o u r c e s . Then some N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas were c r e a t e d i n mountain a r e a s , sometimes i n N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s , Brockman, OJD c i t . . pp, 159-160, 7 K n i b b , "NRA-Land Use C o n f l i c t s " - 1 4 Because National Recreation Areas are created by Congress to meet recreation needs, they generally receive better fund-ing than normal Forest Service recreation areas. National Recreation Area l e g i s l a t i o n i s more f l e x i b l e than the Wilder-ness Act i n providing f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of private land, and there are more land use controls available f o r private land. Some object to these land use controls, because they can involve the Federal government i n zoning, rather than leaving that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to l o c a l government. The i n -tent i s to manage private lands within the National Recrea-t i o n Area as well as public lands f o r recreation purposes, which may e n t a i l Federal zoning. More money i s avail a b l e than under the Wilderness Act i f private land i s to be purchased. P r o h i b i t i o n of timber harvesting i s d i s c r e t i o n -ary. National Recreation Area l e g i s l a t i o n can withdraw lands from mineral entry. There are no basic statutory guidelines f o r National Recreation Areas. They can be whatever Congress creates. Each National Recreation Area i s created by a separate b i l l . Congress creates the National Recreation Area without s p e c i -f y i n g a l l the d e t a i l s of the boundaries. The boundaries are drawn at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the I n t e r i o r , depending on who has j u r i s d i c -t i o n over the p a r t i c u l a r area. Usually the Department of Agri c u l t u r e has j u r i s d i c t i o n over areas i n National Forests, and the Department of the I n t e r i o r has j u r i s d i c t i o n e l s e -where, but there have been exceptions. Presumably an 15 A l p i n e Lakes N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a would be managed by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Some o f the c o n t r o l s t h a t are p o s s i b l e under N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a management are p o s s i b l e under Wilderness and m u l t i p l e use management. However, they would be a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e c o n t r o l s r a t h e r than l e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l s . I n s t e a d o f b e i n g c o n t r o l s e s t a b l i s h e d by Congress, they would be con-t r o l s used at the d i s c r e t i o n o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e managers. 4) R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Other F e d e r a l Land Management  Agencies The F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s one o f s e v e r a l agencies which manage f e d e r a l p u b l i c l a n d s . The N a t i o n a l Park S e r v i c e manages n a t i o n a l p a r k s , monuments, and h i s t o r i c s i t e s . The F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e manages w i l d l i f e r e f u g e s and f i s h e r i e s . The Department o f Defense manages m i l i t a r y bases and o t h e r m i l i t a r y l a n d s . The Bureau o f Land Management manages a l l p u b l i c lands not s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e d f o r •y o t h e r uses. The r o l e s o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , the N a t i o n a l Park S e r v i c e , and the Bureau o f Land Management w i l l be com-pa r e d t o put the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n p e r s p e c t i v e as a f e d e r a l l a n d management agency. Since 1905 the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has been a p a r t o f the Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , P r i o r t o t h a t time the Bureau o f F o r e s t r y was a p a r t o f the Department o f the I n t e r i o r , T ogether w i t h C h i e f G i f f o r d P i n c h o t P r e s i d e n t Theodore R o o s e v e l t c r e a t e d the m a j o r i t y o f the present N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s , Under P i n c h o t ' s d i r e c t i o n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e set 16 a t r a d i t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t r a t h e r than p r e s e r v a t i o n i s t management o f the f o r e s t s f o r the use o f a l l r e s o u r c e s . B e i n g i n the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e saw i t s m i s s i o n as p r o v i d i n g c r o p s , o f water, g r a z i n g , out-door r e c r e a t i o n , w i l d l i f e , and most i m p o r t a n t l y , o f timber. Over the years the m u l t i p l e - u s e p h i l o s o p h y e v o l v e d as the way to manage N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s . Today Wilderness Areas are e s s e n t i a l l y the o n l y areas c l a s s i f i e d f o r s i n g l e use i n the f o r e s t s . Other areas such as campgrounds, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a d q u a r t e r s , or roads are b a s i c a l l y s i n g l e use areas, but they are g e n e r a l l y i n m u l t i p l e use l a n d s . Under the m u l t i p l e use p h i l o s o p h y the most f a v o r a b l e combination o f uses f o r an a r e a i s the management o b j e c t i v e . I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o do e v e r y t h i n g i n one are a , so g e n e r a l l y one use, perhaps two, i s emphasized i n a g i v e n a r e a . Wher-ever s e v e r a l uses are compatible, they go on t o g e t h e r . The o b j e c t i v e i s t o p r o v i d e as many o f the r e s o u r c e s needed by the American people as p o s s i b l e . Under p u b l i c p r e s s u r e t h e r e has been some change i n r e c e n t years toward l e s s emphasis on timber p r o d u c t i o n and more emphasis on outdoor r e c r e a t i o n and w i l d e r n e s s . I n a d d i t i o n t o managing N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s the F o r e s t S e r v i c e manages N a t i o n a l G r a s s l a n d s , which are u n f o r e s t e d a r e a s . Yellowstone N a t i o n a l Park, the f i r s t n a t i o n a l park i n the world, was c r e a t e d i n 1872. I n 1880 the O f f i c e o f N a t i o n a l Parks was e s t a b l i s h e d under the Department o f the I n t e r i o r , Between 1890 and 1916, when t h i s o f f i c e 17 became the N a t i o n a l Park S e r v i c e , s e v e r a l parks were c r e a t e d i n c l u d i n g Yosemite, Sequoia, Mount R a i n i e r , C r a t e r Lake, Mes Verde, G l a c i e r , and Rocky Mountain N a t i o n a l Parks. As w e l l , the f i r s t N a t i o n a l Monuments were e s t a b l i s h e d . N a t i o n a l Parks were seen as areas o f o u t s t a n d i n g s c e n i c r e c r e a t i o n a l , h i s t o r i c , and s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r e s t . The Park S e r v i c e was g i v e n the t a s k o f managing these areas and N a t i o n a l Monuments f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n f o r f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s and f o r p u b l i c use by p r e s e n t g e n e r a t i o n s . These o b j e c t i v e s c o n f l i c t e d , and the r e s u l t was a compromise w i t h l a r g e h o t e l and paved highways next to areas l e f t untouched. No uses o f r e s o u r c e s were t o be made beyond o b s e r v a t i o n , e x t e n s i v e r e -c r e a t i o n , and s c i e n t i f i c study. There has never been any need f o r a m u l t i p l e use p h i l o s o p h y as i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Beyond the v i l l a g e s and roads p r o v i d e d to make p u b l i c use e a s i e r , the o r i e n t a t i o n o f the Park S e r v i c e has been p r e s e r v a t i o n . I n o r d e r t o c r e a t e a new N a t i o n a l Park or Monument the Park S e r v i c e would study an a r e a and recommend t h a t i t be i n c l u d e d i n the N a t i o n a l Park System, An Act o f Congress would c r e a t e a new N a t i o n a l Park and a P r e s i d e n t i a l p r o c l a -mation c o u l d c r e a t e a new N a t i o n a l Monument, L i k e w i s e an Act o f Congress c o u l d c r e a t e a new N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether the Park S e r v i c e , the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , o r the Bureau o f Land Management were to manage i t . I n the p a s t t h e r e have been c o n f l i c t s between the Park S e r v i c e and the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Many parks were 18 c r e a t e d from N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s . Some o f these were Rocky-Mountain, Olympic, p o r t i o n s o f Grand Teton, and more r e -c e n t l y , North Cascades N a t i o n a l Parks, Each agency has a p r i d e o f management and "ownership", and t h e r e i s some sense o f l o s s o r g a i n when l a n d i s t r a n s f e r r e d . The p h i l o s o p h i e s are d i f f e r e n t , one b e i n g m u l t i p l e use and c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t and the o t h e r b e i n g r e c r e a t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n i s t . P er-sons i n t e r v i e w e d s a i d t h a t r e c e n t l y these c o n f l i c t s have d i m i n i s h e d and t h a t at the f i e l d l e v e l t h e r e i s a s p i r i t o f c o o p e r a t i o n . There seems t o be mutual r e s p e c t , but at the same time each agency i s proud o f the work i t does and would l i k e t o continue t o manage a l l the areas i t manages how. The Bureau o f Land Management i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r approx-m i n a t e l y 450 m i l l i o n acres o f the p u b l i c domain. T h i s com-pares t o about 160 m i l l i o n a c r e s f o r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and about 25 m i l l i o n acres f o r the Park S e r v i c e , The Bureau o f Land Management was c r e a t e d i n 1946 from the' G e n e r a l Land O f f i c e and the G r a z i n g S e r v i c e . L i k e the Park S e r v i c e i t i s p a r t o f the Department o f the I n t e r i o r , Much o f the l a n d managed by BLM i s l a n d which was not wanted by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e f o r watershed and timber manage-ment or by the p u b l i c f o r v a r i o u s u s e s . Much o f i t i s s u i t a b l e l a r g e l y f o r g r a z i n g o r mining a c t i v i t y . There are a r e a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a , where s u b s t a n t i a l timber h a r v e s t i n g goes on. I n the l a s t few y e a r s BLM has attempted t o p r o v i d e more outdoor r e c r e a t i o n . 19 BLM f a c e s two major problems i n managing i t s l a n d s . I t has no o r g a n i c act l i k e the Park S e r v i c e and F o r e s t S e r v i c e do, so i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and powers are not c l e a r l y -s t a t e d . E f f o r t s are b e i n g made now t o have an o r g a n i c a c t passed. Second, the s t a f f i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , 3000 n a t i o n -a l l y v e r s u s 25,000 f o r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F r e q u e n t l y the l o c a l o f f i c e s don't have the e x p e r t i s e they need. They may l e a s e l a n d t o s t a t e r e c r e a t i o n agencies o r f e d e r a l agencies who are b e t t e r funded and s t a f f e d . Beyond managing these lands BLM has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s u r v e y i n g a l l f e d e r a l l a n d s , k e e p i n g r e c o r d s o f l a n d owner-s h i p and o f f i c i a l l y a c q u i r i n g and l i q u i d a t i n g f e d e r a l l a n d , h a n d l i n g r i g h t s o f way on f e d e r a l l a n d s , and h a n d l i n g m i n e r a l l e a s e s i n c l u d i n g those on o f f s h o r e l a n d s . The s u r -v e y i n g and ownership powers would b r i n g BLM i n cont a c t w i t h b o t h the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and the Park S e r v i c e , and the ot h e r powers would b r i n g them i n co n t a c t w i t h the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Where c o n f l i c t s a r i s e about the best use, the two S e c r e t a r i e s may be c a l l e d on to f i n d a s o l u t i o n . B a s i c a l l y BLM's o r i e n t a t i o n i n managing i t s r e s o u r c e s i s l i k e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s , m u l t i p l e use. There i s more m i n i n g on BLM l a n d , but the p h i l o s o p h y o f p r o v i d i n g r e s o u r c e s i s s i m i l a r . With l e s s s t a f f management i s l e s s i n t e n s i v e . An example i s g r a z i n g . Ranchers w i l l graze on t h e i r own lowlan d range i n the w i n t e r . I n the summer they w i l l graze on h i g h e r F o r e s t S e r v i c e range. I n between i s BLM l a n d through which the s t o c k must move. Because i t has no o r g a n i c 20 a c t and because o f the n a t u r e o f i t s l a n d BLM's g r a z i n g management i s not what the agency would l i k e . T h i s i s j u s t s t a r t i n g t o change, the change from custody t o management. Because BLM i s not a u t h o r i z e d to c r e a t e Wilderness A r e a s , i t c r e a t e s P r i m i t i v e Areas, They are almost i d e n t i -c a l , but have a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r a t h e r than l e g i s l a t i v e p r o -t e c t i o n . Because they are not under the Wilderness A c t , these areas can be withdrawn from mining. One hope o f some people i n BLM i s t h a t they w i l l be a b l e t o p r o v i d e more out-door r e c r e a t i o n o f t h i s s o r t and r e l i e v e the p r e s s u r e on F o r e s t S e r v i c e and Park S e r v i c e l a n d s . L i k e w i s e where BLM l a n d l i e s near e x i s t i n g or p o t e n t i a l Wilderness Areas managed by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e or Park S e r v i c e , attempts are made not to develop BLM l a n d so i t would d e t r a c t from the W i l d e r n e s s Areas, One major t a s k these t h r e e agencies w i l l f a c e soon w i l l be the d i s p o s i t i o n and management o f p u b l i c lands i n A l a s k a , A l l t h r e e o f them w i l l be a b l e to p r o v i d e e x p e r t i s e and ex-p e r i e n c e i n v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of l a n d management. I f the i m p r e s s i o n s o f members o f each o f these agencies are any g u i d e , t h i s f u t u r e work w i l l be performed w i t h l e s s c o n f l i c t than t h e r e has been i n the p a s t , 5) The CI a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Federally-Owned P u b l i c Land S e v e r a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f f e d e r a l l y - o w n e d l a n d have been and w i l l be mentioned i n t h i s t h e s i s . The d i f f e r e n c e s between these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are important, because these d i f f e r e n c e s were i n p a r t what the v a r i o u s p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d 21 i n the A l p i n e Lakes p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s were t a l k i n g about. The most important c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are Wilderness Areas, N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas, N a t i o n a l Parks, and m u l t i p l e use a r e a s . Wilderness Areas are c r e a t e d under the Wilderness A c t . They are r o a d l e s s areas over 5000 a c r e s w i t h no v i s i b l e e v i -dence o f man's impact. The o t h e r c r i t e r i a f o r Wilderness Areas are d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n the t h e s i s or i n the appendix, where the Wilderness Act i s c o p i e d . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e and the Park S e r v i c e can b o t h recommend Wilderness Areas and Congress c r e a t e s them. A c c o r d i n g t o one Park S e r v i c e o f f i c i a l c r e a t i o n o f a Park S e r v i c e Wilderness a f f o r d s l i t t l e e x t r a p r o t e c t i o n , because Park S e r v i c e management i s a l r e a d y o r i e n t e d toward p r e s e r v a t i o n . Most F o r e s t Ser-v i c e Wilderness Areas were c r e a t e d from P r i m i t i v e A r e a s . These areas were a l l c r e a t e d by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r i o r t o the Wilderness A c t . They were d i v i d e d i n t o w i l d a r e a s , 5000 a c r e s t o 100,000 a c r e s , and w i l d e r n e s s a r e a s , over 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 a c r e s , but the process o f c l a s s i f y i n g P r i m i t i v e Areas i n t o t hese two c a t e g o r i e s was never completed. A l l P r i m i t i v e Areas were to be s t u d i e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the Wilderness P r e s e r v a t i o n System. I n a d d i t i o n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e under-took review o f a l l i t s r o a d l e s s areas over 5000 a c r e s f o r p o s s i b l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as W i l d e r n e s s . The Park S e r v i c e was r e q u i r e d t o review a l l i t s r o a d l e s s a r e a s . So at p r e s e n t t h e r e are bot h P r i m i t i v e Areas and Wilderness Areas, but at some time t h e r e w i l l be o n l y Wilderness Areas except 22 f o r BLM P r i m i t i v e A r e a s . Those F o r e s t S e r v i c e P r i m i t i v e Areas not r e c l a s s i f i e d as Wilderness Areas would r e v e r t t o m u l t i p l e use management. W i t h i n Wilderness Areas many uses are p r o h i b i t e d . Re-so u r c e s cannot be removed, except i n cases such as r o c k -hounding, m o t o r i z e d v e h i c l e s cannot be used, roads and s t r u c t u r e s cannot be b u i l t , and so on. These are the most p r o t e c t e d k i n d o f areas o f any f e d e r a l l a n d . N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas have a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d . B a s i c a l l y these have been areas managed f o r i n t e n s i v e r e -c r e a t i o n , w i t h the p r o v i s i o n o f f a c i l i t i e s f o r m o t o r i z e d v e h i c l e s , b o a t s , and o t h e r i n t e n s i v e uses, They are not managed l i k e Wilderness Areas or even N a t i o n a l Parks where enjoyment o f f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s i s kept i n mind. They are managed f o r presen t use by the p u b l i c . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e manages s e v e r a l N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a s , the Park S e r v i c e manages more o f them, i n c l u d i n g the f i r s t ones, and the Bureau o f Land Management manages one. Each N a t i o n a l Re-c r e a t i o n A r e a i s c r e a t e d by a s e p a r a t e A c t o f Congress, so t h e r e can be d i f f e r e n c e s between the way each agency manages i t s N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas and between the way each a r e a i s managed. N a t i o n a l Parks make up p a r t o f the N a t i o n a l Park System. They were d e s c r i b e d by one - r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the Park S e r v i c e as the s u p e r l a t i v e u n i t s o f the system. They are g e n e r a l l y b i g g e r than N a t i o n a l Monuments, but the l a r g e s t u n i t i n the system i s Katmai N a t i o n a l Monument i n A l a s k a . Both k i n d s 23 o f areas are managed f o r the same purpose, t o p r o v i d e the American people o f pr e s e n t and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s w i t h areas o f h i g h s c e n i c , r e c r e a t i o n a l , h i s t o r i c , and s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r e s t , . Because t h e y are managed f o r pr e s e n t use, N a t i o n a l Parks i n c l u d e such t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s as h o t e l s , r e s t a u r a n t s , shops, and roads which would not be p e r m i t t e d i n Wilderness A r e a s . However, i n g e n e r a l l a r g e areas i n parks are l e f t undeveloped except f o r t r a i l s . I f such areas were t o be c l a s s i f i e d as Wilderness Areas, t h e i r management would change v e r y l i t t l e . Lands i n N a t i o n a l Parks are withdrawn from a l l uses such as mining, timber h a r v e s t i n g , domestic g r a z i n g , water p r o -j e c t s , and u t i l i t y r i g h t s o f way. A l l those uses are p r o -h i b i t e d . T h i s meant t h a t parks which were c r e a t e d from N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s c o u l d undergo a d r a s t i c change i n a l l o w -a b l e forms o f management, s i n c e these uses are g e n e r a l l y p e r m i t t e d i n F o r e s t S e r v i c e l a n d s . G e n e r a l l y the uses men-t i o n e d e a r l i e r f o r t o u r i s t convenience are l i m i t e d t o s m a l l p o r t i o n s o f the p a r k s . The r e s t i s managed f o r e x t e n s i v e ' r e c r e a t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n . There i s no need f o r the k i n d o f p l a n n i n g which t r i e s t o f i n d the bes t combination o f s e v e r a l uses f o r an a r e a . Over much o f i t s l a n d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e a p p l i e s mul-t i p l e use management. Under t h i s p h i l o s o p h y timber, g r a z i n g , water, w i l d l i f e , and r e c r e a t i o n are a l l o b j e c t i v e s . The r e -sources i n an a r e a are s t u d i e d t o see how many d i f f e r e n t needs they can meet. I f uses such as timber h a r v e s t i n g and 2h watershed management or g r a z i n g and r e c r e a t i o n can complement each o t h e r , they may go on i n the same ar e a . G e n e r a l l y one or two uses are dominant s i n c e t h e r e are o f t e n c o n f l i c t s between u s e s . M u l t i p l e use does not mean t h a t every a r e a i s managed f o r every use, but t h a t w i t h i n a l a r g e p l a n n i n g a r e a a combination o f a l l o r some uses i s c a r r i e d out to produce r e s o u r c e s needed by the American p e o p l e . Some areas may produce timber, o t h e r s may p r o v i d e w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t , but o v e r a l l the most f a v o r a b l e combination o f r e s o u r c e s i s p r o v i d e d . M u l t i p l e use management means ro a d s , p a r k i n g l o t s , developed campgrounds, and b u i l d i n g s are p a r t o f the l a n d -scape. There are not the s t r i c t p r o h i b i t i o n s t h a t e x i s t i n Wilderness Areas and N a t i o n a l Parks. There i s a l s o not the p r i m a r y emphasis on r e c r e a t i o n t h a t e x i s t s i n N a t i o n a l Re-c r e a t i o n A r e a s . C e r t a i n areas may be managed f o r r e c r e a -t i o n , but t h e r e i s not the o v e r r i d i n g g o a l o f p r o v i d i n g r e c r e a t i o n . Because m u l t i p l e use i s the keystone o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e management, there i s some o p p o s i t i o n among some F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l t o s i n g l e use management such as i s i m p l i e d by Wild e r n e s s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The f e e l i n g o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p r o v i d i n g n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s f o r America i s at the h e a r t o f m u l t i p l e use management. I n the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a t h e r e d i d not appear t o be much q u e s t i o n o f a N a t i o n a l Park b e i n g c r e a t e d . However, t h i s i s s u e was c r u c i a l i n the North Cascades. The t h r e e o t h e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f l a n d are important i n the A l p i n e 25 Lakes p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . E v e r y p r o p o s a l i n c l u d e d some l a n d t o be c l a s s i f i e d a W i l d e r n e s s . One o f the i s s u e s to be r e -s o l v e d was which l a n d s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d and how l a r g e the W i l d e r n e s s A r e a ( s ) s h o u l d be. The A l p i n e Lakes P r o t e c t i o n S o c i e t y and the C o a l i t i o n o f C o n s e r v a t i o n Groups each p r o -posed a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a w i t h a Wilderness c o r e . The p r o v i s i o n o f areas f o r non-Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n and the management o f lands s u r r o u n d i n g the Wilderness Area were b o t h i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a . M u l t i p l e use was the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the l a n d s u r r o u n d i n g the e x i s t i n g L i m i t e d A r e a and would be the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f any l a n d s u r r o u n d i n g the Wilderness A r e a ( s ) c r e a t e d and/or any N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a c r e a t e d . How much l a n d s h o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d f o r m u l t i p l e use so t h a t o t h e r r e s o u r c e s than Wilderness c o u l d be used was an important i s s u e . Choosing among these p o s s i b l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s was a major p a r t o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team's work. B. The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Behavior o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e 1) A d m i n i s t r a t i o n The headquarters o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e are the n a t i o n a l o f f i c e i n Washington, D. C. w i t h the C h i e f o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and h i s s t a f f . F o r e s t r e s e a r c h and f o r e s t manage-ment are separate a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y at t h i s l e v e l . Manage-ment i s i n the hands o f n i n e R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r s and t h e i r s t a f f s . The r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s a p p l y n a t i o n a l p o l i c y t o t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n without g e t t i n g i n t o the day to day problems o f r e s o u r c e management. They i n i t i a t e p o l i c y f o r 26 t h e i r r e g i o n and p r o v i d e e x p e r t i s e i n c e r t a i n f i e l d s when the f o r e s t o f f i c e s o r the rangers cannot p r o v i d e i t . Under the R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r s are N a t i o n a l F o r e s t Super-v i s o r s , one f o r each N a t i o n a l F o r e s t . They and t h e i r s t a f f manage t h e i r f o r e s t . The F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r ' s o f f i c e makes major d e c i s i o n s , such as whether or not to have a timber s a l e o r what f i n a n c i a l arrangements sh o u l d be made f o r c e r t a i n r e -source u s e s . P l a n n i n g g e n e r a l l y o r i g i n a t e s from the F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r ' s o f f i c e . Each f o r e s t i s d i v i d e d i n t o d i s t r i c t s , and the D i s t r i c t Ranger and h i s s t a f f take care o f a l l f u n c -t i o n s i n the d i s t r i c t . There i s a w e l l - d e f i n e d h i e r a r c h y , w i t h each person knowing c l e a r l y who i s h i s s u p e r v i s o r . The r a n g e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r day to day management o f the d i s -t r i c t and f o r p l a n n i n g under the d i r e c t i o n o f the d i r e c t i o n o f the f o r e s t o f f i c e . The f o r e s t o f f i c e i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o the r e g i o n a l o f f i c e and through i t t o the n a t i o n a l o f f i c e . T h i s i s c l e a r l y an attempt to i n t e g r a t e the g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d i v e r s e a c t i v i t i e s o f the agency w h i l e s t i l l p e r m i t t i n g p e r -s o n n e l freedom to adapt t o t h e i r l o c a l s i t u a t i o n . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e Manual s p e l l s out procedures f o r a l l f u n c t i o n s o f the agency, but rangers s t i l l have freedom to adapt these procedures to t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t . H erbert Kaufman has s t u d i e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e to see how w e l l i t f u n c t i o n s as an o r g a n i z a t i o n and t o b e t t e r under-s t a n d what happens i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . He d i s c u s s e s the cen-t r i f u g a l f o r c e s i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and the p o l i c i e s used by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t o c o u n t e r a c t these f o r c e s . By spending 27 time w i t h D i s t r i c t Rangers i n f i v e d i s t r i c t s , Kaufman got an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what th e y d i d and o f what f a c t o r s a f f e c t e d what th e y d i d . He s t a t e s t h a t h a v i n g o p e r a t i o n s throughout the c o u n t r y under v a r i e d g e o g r a p h i c a l c o n d i t i o n s and h a v i n g had a r e l a -t i v e l y s h o r t time t o do i t s job p r e s e n t c h a l l e n g e s t o the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . He p o i n t s to the l a r g e l a n d a r e a managed and to the many f u n c t i o n s i t performs. F i g h t i n g f o r e s t f i r e s i s j u s t one job which demands a l o t from the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Rangers have a l o t o f d i s c r e t i o n i n the management and s a l e o f timber, and Kaufman shows some d i f f e r e n t ways o f perform-i n g t h i s f u n c t i o n . L i k e w i s e f o r r e c r e a t i o n , range management, w i l d l i f e management, and even p e r s o n n e l and o f f i c e f u n c t i o n s . R e g i o n a l o f f i c e s and the n a t i o n a l o f f i c e have to depend h e a v i l y on F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r s and D i s t r i c t Rangers. I n s t r u c t i o n s from above, sent to D i s t r i c t Rangers, are o f t e n g e n e r a l and sometimes c o n t r a d i c t o r y . The Rangers must develop p o l i c y t o f i t the g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s and t h e i r spe-c i f i c s i t u a t i o n at the same time. S o c i a l d i s t a n c e due to-d i f f e r e n c e s i n background, e x p e r i e n c e , and a t t i t u d e s , and p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e are c h a l l e n g e s t o u n i t y . Rangers may f e e l c l o s e t o t h e i r community and p l a c e i t s needs above n a t i o n a l g o a l s . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e i t s e l f has s t r e s s e d d e c e n t r a l i z a -t i o n t o p r o v i d e f l e x i b i l i t y i n d e a l i n g w i t h l o c a l problems. The Kaufman d i s c u s s e s the t e c h n i q u e s used to keep the F o r e s t S e r v i c e u n i f i e d . By u s i n g a u t h o r i z a t i o n s , d i r e c t i o n s , and p r o h i b i t i o n s o f f i c e r s predetermine what l i n e p e r s o n n e l 28 w i l l do. D e t a i l e d manuals and p l a n s p r o v i d e i n s t r u c t i o n s and g u i d e l i n e s on how t h i n g s are t o be done. Because some a c t i o n s r e q u i r e c l e a r a n c e from above, and because d i s p u t e s are s e t -t l e d by s u p e r v i s o r s , p e r s o n n e l lower down f e e l some c o n t r o l . Budgets are p r e p a r e d at the D i s t r i c t l e v e l , put t o g e t h e r a t the F o r e s t , R e g i o n a l , and N a t i o n a l l e v e l s , and approved by Congress, then d i s t r i b u t e d down the l i n e . D i s t r i c t s have t o f i t i n t o the l a r g e r p a t t e r n . R e p o r t s , o f f i c i a l d i a r i e s , performance o f c e r t a i n o f f i c e work by the o f f i c e s o f s u p e r v i s o r s , r e g u l a r i n s p e c t i o n s de-s i g n e d t o f i n d f a u l t s , appeals by the p u b l i c over the Rangers' heads, r e g u l a r t r a n s f e r s o f p e r s o n n e l , s a n c t i o n s f o r m i s b e h a v i o r are means o f d e t e c t i n g t e n d e n c i e s t o d i f f e r from normal p o l i c y . S e l e c t i o n o f c a n d i d a t e s , t r a i n i n g , t r a n s f e r and promotion, the use o f uniforms and badges, s o l i c i t i n g o f o p i n i o n s from f i e l d o f f i c e r s , the image the p u b l i c has o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e c o n t r i b u t e t o the f o r m a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s among the p e r s o n n e l t h a t c o i n c i d e w i t h agency g o a l s . Kaufman concludes t h a t 1) performance comes c l o s e t o g o a l s , 2) t h e r e are few symptoms o f f i e l d o f f i c e r s c e a s i n g t o respond t o u n i f i e d p o l i c y a c t i o n , 3) l e a d e r s f e e l f i e l d men are r e s p o n d i n g to l e a d e r s h i p , k) r a n g e r s are g e n e r a l l y u p h e l d by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s i n a p p e a l s , 5) the t r a n s f e r p o l i c y works, 6) the t e c h n i q u e s o f i n t e g r a t i o n work. He f e e l s i t has p r e s e r v e d f l e x i b i l i t y w i t h i n i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n without h a v i n g t o b r i n g i n people from o u t s i d e t o f i l l h i g h o f f i c e s . 29 The F o r e s t S e r v i c e has managed t o r e s i s t the c e n t r i f u g a l f o r c e s . From Kaufman's p o i n t o f view i t o f f e r s a f a v o r a b l e model f o r o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s to copy* 2) B e h a v i o r o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e Some have c r i t i c i z e d the Wilderness Act f o r vagueness. 8 McCloskey f e l t t h e r e was vagueness i n the q u a l i f y i n g d e f i -n i t i o n s o f W i l d e r n e s s . I t i s u n c l e a r whether they a p p l y t o an a r e a as a whole or to p a r t s o f an a r e a . F o r i n s t a n c e , i f p a r t o f an a r e a i s roaded or has been logged, s h o u l d the e n t i r e a r e a be d i s q u a l i f i e d ? There i s a l s o vagueness about the p r o h i b i t i o n of i n c o m p a t i b l e uses. McCloskey f e e l s i t i s an open q u e s t i o n whether i n c o m p a t i b l e uses always d i s q u a l i f y 9 areas from c o n s i d e r a t i o n . L i k e w i s e McCabe f e e l s the c l a u s e s r e l a t i n g to p e r m i s s i b l e uses make i t c o n f u s i n g which uses are compatible and which a r e n ' t . A copy o f the Wilderness Act i s i n c l u d e d i n the appendix. The purpose o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s was to determine what p a r t s o f the A l p i n e Lakes r e g i o n met the c r i t e r i a o f the Wilderness A c t and t o determine how much of the s u i t a b l e l a n d was not needed f o r o t h e r purposes. A l l l a n d which i s s u i t a b l e f o r Wilderness c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s not n e c e s s a r i l y c l a s s i f i e d as W i l d e r n e s s . Wilderness has to compete w i t h o t h e r uses o f r e s o u r c e s whenever the F o r e s t S e r v i c e makes a d e c i s i o n l i k e i t s d e c i s i o n i n the A l p i n e Lakes. o McCloskey, "The Wilderness Act o f 1964: I t s Background and Meaning" 9 ^McCabe, op_ c i t . 30 S e v e r a l people have s t u d i e d and a n a l y z e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , M i c h a e l Frome t r a c e d the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s h i s t o r y and e v a l u a t e d i t s management o f f o r e s t l a n d . He s t a t e d t h a t v e r y e a r l y , when G i f f o r d P i n c h o t moved h i s bureau from the Department o f the I n t e r i o r t o the Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , a s t r o n g a t t i t u d e toward the use o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s e x i s t e d . The T r a n s f e r Act o f 1905 e f f e c t e d the s w i t c h t h a t R o o s e v e l t had recommended and opened a new e r a i n government f o r e s t r y . The s m a l l bureau t h a t P i n c h o t headed bloomed as the U,S, F o r e s t S e r v i c e , Use r a t h e r than mere custody was now c l e a r l y the d o c t r i n e t o govern the f o r e s t r e s e r v e s (soon to be d e s i g n a t e d • n a t i o n a l f o r e s t s ' ) . I n a c e l e b r a t e d l e t t e r t o the C h i e f F o r e s t e r , S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e James Wilson d e c l a r e d t h a t ' c o n s e r v a t i v e use i n no way c o n f l i c t s w i t h (the r e s e r v e s ' ) permanent v a l u e , * Thus, s a l e and c u t t i n g o f timber were i n s t i t u t e d and r e g u l a t e d , and f e e s were charged,1 0 Frome f e e l s the a t t i t u d e o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has changed w i t h time. B a s i c a l l y the modus operandi o f the agency has e v o l v e d i n t o the f o l l o w i n g sequence: Resource c u s t o d i a n s h i p Casual management o f r e s o u r c e s A p p l i c a t i o n o f m u l t i p l e - u s e p r i n c i p l e s I n t e n s i v e management o f r e s o u r c e s E nvironmental awareness and e c o l o g i c 11 r e s p o n s i b x l i t y . 1 1 However, change i s slow, because the agency does not c a t e r t o people w i t h new i d e a s . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s not single-minded; y e t t h e r e are few e x p r e s s i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l i s m . I n n o v a t i v e t h i n k i n g l i k e t h a t o f such f i g u r e s Frome, The F o r e s t S e r v i c e , p, 14, I b i d . , p. hk. 31 12 as A l d o L e o p o l d , A r t h u r C a r h a r t , and Robert M a r s h a l l i s not encouraged,, D e s p i t e the i d e o l o g y o f decen-t r a l i z a t i o n , the o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s p e r s o n n e l move down the same p a t h , ' 3 I t was from these i n n o v a t i v e people t h a t much o f the impetus f o r p r o v i d i n g outdoor r e c r e a t i o n came. At the same time t h e r e were gre a t p r e s s u r e s f o r r e s o u r c e development. Duri n g "World War I I t h e r e was heavy demand f o r timber from v i r g i n f o r e s t s i n the P a c i f i c Northwest, i n c l u d i n g those o f Olympic N a t i o n a l Park, I t r e q u i r e d g r e a t e f f o r t t o combat these p r e s s u r e s . When the M u l t i p l e Use-Sustained Y i e l d A c t of i 9 6 0 was passed, the timber i n d u s t r y p r o t e s t e d s t r o n g l y . The i n d u s t r y t r i e d t o get a N a t i o n a l Timber Supply A c t passed t o i n c r e a s e a l l o w a b l e c u t s c o n s i d e r a b l y t o meet h o u s i n g needs. I n s p e a k i n g a g a i n s t t h i s b i l l the C h i e f o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e spoke o f the need t o keep areas unlogged, even non-wilderness a r e a s . He s a i d a b e t t e r way to i n c r e a s e the s u p p l y o f timber would be t o improve the p r o d u c t i v i t y o f u n d e r p r o d u c t i v e l a n d . Changes i n F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o l i c y may be slowed by Congress, A t e n y e a r Development Program f o r the p e r i o d 1963 to 1972 was submitted t o Congress. The p o r t i o n o f the program f o r "timber s a l e s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and management" was funded up t o 95$ o f the r e q u e s t e d l e v e l from 19^3 * ° 1970. The p o r t i o n f o r " r e f o r e s t a t i o n and s t a n d management" Leopol d , C a r h a r t , and M a r s h a l l were t h r e e o f the people work-i n g i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e who a p p l i e d the g r e a t e s t p r e s s u r e on the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o p r o v i d e w i l d e r n e s s on i t s l a n d s . l 3 I b i d . . p. 4 2 . 3 2 was funded up to k0$> f o r the same period; "recreation-public use" up to 4 5 $ » " w i l d l i f e habitat management" up to 6 2 $ ; and " s o i l and water management" up to 5 2 $ . In 1 9 7 1 the proposed administration budget included a $ 5 m i l l i o n increase to $ 5 2 m i l l i o n f o r "timber sales administration and management," while the appropriation f o r a l l other management was kept at ? 2 5 m i l l i o n . A summary of appropriations i n the P a c i f i c Northwest Region f o r f i s c a l year 1 9 7 ^ i s included i n the appendix along with a b r i e f commentary. I t gives an idea of the a l l o c a t i o n process on a forest by forest basis and on a regional b a s i s . In 1 9 7 0 President Nixon released the findings and recom-mendations of h i s Task Force on Softwood Lumber and Plywood. I t recommended that determination of timber f o r sale should provide, "...reasonable f l e x i b i l i t y to take account of anticipated swings i n demand0" Frome f e e l s t h i s represents scrapping of sustained y i e l d and caving i n to the timber industry. However, the Forest Service d i d l i t t l e to im-plement these proposals. A Forest Service report, Management Practices on the B i t t e r r o o t National Forest A Task Force Appraisal May 1969-A p r i l 1970. states that the pressure to grow more timber w i l l not go away e a s i l y . A recent study of timber supply s i t u a t i o n s i n western Washington and Oregon indicates that the timber output from the National Forests w i l l I b i d . , pp. 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 . 33 drop at l e a s t o n e - t h i r d once the b a c k l o g o f v i r g i n old-growth timber i s gone. (USDA F o r e s t S e r v i c e 1969c) The p i n c h i s a l r e a d y b e g i n n i n g to develop. Inadequate timber s u p p l i e s are b e i n g blamed f o r a r e c e n t upward s p i r a l o f p r i c e s . Present concern i s great enough t h a t Congress i s c o n s i d e r i n g l e g i s l a t i o n t o a c c e l e r a t e the timber growing e f f o r t on the N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s .^ 5 D e s p i t e the demands from w i t h i n and without the F o r e s t S e r v i c e to use n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s b e f o r e w o r r y i n g about r e -c r e a t i o n , t h e r e have been people i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e who were concerned about r e c r e a t i o n and about W i l d e r n e s s . Robert M a r s h a l l was one o f t h e s e . He urged g e t t i n g away from s t r i c t l y u t i l i t a r i a n v a l u e s which view even r e c r e a t i o n as a crop to be measured q u a n t i t a t i v e l y . The most important f a c t o r t h a t tends to break down the w i l d e r n e s s i s the mistaken a p p l i c a t i o n o f the good o l d u t i l i t a r i a n d o c t r i n e of the g r e a t e s t number i n the l o n g r u n . I t might be s a i d , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t the t o t a l amount o f p l e a s u r e which c o u l d be d e r i v e d from a highway a l o n g the S i e r r a S k y l i n e would exceed t h a t which c o u l d be g o t t e n from a t r a i l 0 When one c o n s i d e r s , however, t h a t t h e r e are m i l l i o n s o f m i l e s o f highway i n the country, many o f them e x c e p t i o n a l l y s c e n i c , and not another a r e a l e f t i n which one can t r a v e l f o r s e v e r a l weeks a l o n g the c r e s t o f a mountain range without encounter-i n g the d i s t u r b a n c e s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n , i t at once becomes apparent t h a t , from a n a t i o n a l l a n d s t a n d p o i n t , t h i s a r e a would be more v a l u a b l e as a w i l d e r n e s s . 1 ° There are many who f e e l t h a t h a r v e s t i n g o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s s e r v e s the many, w h i l e p r o v i s i o n o f Wilderness s e r v e s o n l y the e l i t e few. U.S.D.A., Management P r a c t i c e s on the B i t t e r r o o t N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , p. 13. Frome, oj>. c i t • , pp. 6 8 - 6 9 . 3h M a r s h a l l argued, however, t h a t a t r u l y democratic s o c i e t y proves i t s e l f w i t h r e s p e c t f o r the r i g h t s o f the few, How many w i l d e r n e s s a r e a s , he was asked, d i d the c o u n t r y need? 'How many Brahms* symphonies 1, he r e p l i e d , 'do we need?'^? These same arguments a r i s e today when areas l i k e the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a are d i s c u s s e d . One argument which i s f r e q u e n t l y r a i s e d i s whether areas which show the e f f e c t s o f man's work can be r e h a b i l i -t a t e d t o become a p a r t o f the Wilderness P r e s e r v a t i o n System, One June 1, 1966 S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e O r v i l l e Freeman showed t h a t he f e l t t h e y c o u l d , ' N a t i o n a l f o r e s t w i l d e r n e s s r e s o u r c e s s h a l l be managed t o promote, p e r p e t u a t e , and where neces-s a r y , r e s t o r e , the w i l d e r n e s s c h a r a c t e r o f the l a n d and i t s s p e c i f i c v a l u e s o f s o l i t u d e , p h y s i c a l and mental c h a l l e n g e , s c i e n t i f i c study, i n s p i r a t i o n and p r i m i t i v e r e c r e a t i o n , 1 ^ Another argument concerns who s h o u l d draw boundaries f o r W i lderness Areas, Frome d i s c u s s e s the case o f the San R a f a e l Wilderness i n C a l i f o r n i a . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e ob-j e c t e d t o the a d d i t i o n o f 2200 a c r e s proposed by c o n s e r v a -t i o n i s t s , because the a d d i t i o n would s e t a precedent f o r o u t s i d e r s drawing b o u n d a r i e s . They were s u c c e s s f u l i n c o n v i n c i n g the House I n t e r i o r Committee t o abandon the 19 the i d e a . Frome f e l t a l l the c o n f l i c t about which use o f f o r e s t l a n d s h o u l d take precedence i s u n f o r t u n a t e . 1 7 I b i d . , p. 97. 18 Freeman i n Frome, o p . c i t . . p. 100. 19 Frome, op. c i t . . pp. 161-162. 35 There s h o u l d be no c o n t e s t between w i l d e r n e s s p r o t e c t i o n and timber p r o d u c t i o n ; b o t h are important f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s , and s c a r c i t y o f one can be as c r i t i c a l t o the n a t i o n as s c a r -c i t y o f the o t h e r , 2 0 McCloskey touches on the p r e s s u r e from the timber i n d u s t r y t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e f a c e s . He s t a t e s t h a t the M u l t i p l e U s e - S u s t a i n e d Y i e l d Act o f 1 9 ^ 0 was o r i g i n a l l y a s u b s t i t u e b i l l t o the Wilderness B i l l , The timber i n d u s t r y would have l i k e d t o see a compromise b i l l l i k e the M u l t i p l e Use-Sustained Y i e l d Act c o m p l e t e l y r e p l a c e the W i l d e r n e s s B i l l , McCabe i s s t r o n g l y c r i t i c a l o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the W i l d e r n e s s A c t , He f e e l s t h a t economic f a c t o r s weigh too h e a v i l y i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the s u i t a b i l i t y o f an a r e a f o r w i l d e r n e s s . Men use the M i s s i o n s o n l y as v i s i t o r s , and t h e r e are the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s o l i t u d e as r e q u i r e d by the A c t , However, much o f the p r o p o s a l i s con-cerned, not w i t h the s u i t a b i l i t y o f the a r e a f o r W i l d e r n e s s , but w i t h r e s o u r c e i n v e n t o r y . Other than some merchantable timber, the p r o p o s a l con-cl u d e s t h a t the r e s o u r c e v a l u e o f the a r e a i s r e l a t i v e l y low. Such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n appears of m a t e r i a l importance i n the recommendation o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t h a t the a r e a be d e c l a r e d W i l d e r n e s s , Some review o f o t h e r w i l d e r n e s s p r o p o s a l s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s i s a u n i f o r m aspect o f them. I f t h e r e are p o t e n t i a l o t h e r uses f o r p a r t s o f p r i m i t i v e a r e a s , the agency w i l l l i k e l y recommend e x c l u s i o n o f these p a r t s from w i l d e r n e s s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I n a s i m i l a r r e p o r t c o n c e r n i n g the Mount J e f f e r s o n W i l d e r n e s s i n Washington ( s i c ) , f o r example, the agency recommended e x c l u s i o n o f p a r t s o f the p r i m i t i v e a r e a deemed s u i t a b l e f o r the p r o d u c t i o n o f saw timber, • • • I b i d . . p. 1 0 7 . 36 Nowhere i n the d e f i n i t i o n of wilderness or elsewhere i s there a statement that an area i s not sui t a b l e f o r wilderness i f i t has resources valuable f o r commercial uses, The Forest Service has taken the stand, nonetheless, that the value of the land f o r commercial uses i s a f a c t o r i n consider-in g the ' s u i t a b i l i t y ' f o r wilderness c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n . 2 1 / He c r i t i c i z e s the d i s i n c l i n a t i o n of the Forest Service to be l i b e r a l i n seeing the temporary q u a l i t y of some human disturbances. When logging has been done, even with no per-manent improvements or hab i t a t i o n on the land and with sub-s t a n t i a l natural recovery, an area cannot q u a l i f y f o r wilderness. In the Mission Mountains of Montana areas i n -fested with spruce bark beetles were logged i n 1954 and 1955» In 1970 these areas were omitted from a wilderness proposal. Even though the proposal states that the logged areas are healing w e l l , and that roads were immediately closed a f t e r logging, these areas are not recommended f o r Wilderness because the imprint of man i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y noticeable. The Forest Service demonstrates i n these recommenda-tions that i t i s not going to consider p r i m i t i v e areas as a whole i n applying the standards established i n the d e f i n i t i o n . I t w i l l pick and choose the parts of a p r i m i t i v e area which i t fe e l s do not meet the d e f i n i t i o n a l standards. I t w i l l recommend exclusion from wilderness, although the imprint of man that exists i s the r e s u l t of administrative decisions to remedy a natural d i s o r d e r . 2 2 Wilderness advocates f e e l that minor defects i n parts of a la r g e r area are overridden by the need to manage the areas near the boundary so the boundary can be protected. Leav-ing out areas with minor defects makes i t harder to manage McCabe, op. c i t . . pp. 33-34. I b i d . . p. 34. 37 the r e m a i n i n g a r e a f o r W i l d e r n e s s , McCabe p o i n t s t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Wilderness Act o f the Department o f the I n t e r i o r , He f e e l s they don't have the narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has, •These lands are o f h i g h w i l d e r n e s s q u a l i t y w i t h the e x c e p t i o n s o f a few o l d , impassable m i l i t a r y roads which are r a p i d l y d i s a p p e a r i n g , A few quonset huts a l s o remain, but these w i l l be r e -moved. E x c e l l e n t s c e n i c , s c i e n t i f i c , and w i l d -l i f e r e s o u r c e s would be i n c l u d e d i n the proposed w i l d e r n e s s area,* There i s not the e f f o r t i n i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the A c t , on the p a r t o f I n t e r i o r , t o r e s t r i c t the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Act.2 3 As he d e s c r i b e s the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , "They continue t o view the 24 p u b l i c domain s o l e l y as a source o f commercial development," McCabe sees the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s t y p i c a l d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s f o r s e l e c t i n g Wilderness Areas as a c o n t e s t o f groups com-p e t i n g f o r a p o l i t i c a l response from the a d m i n i s t e r i n g agency. He says t h a t t o date these c o n t e s t s have not l e d t o much r e s o r t to the c o u r t s . However, he does c i t e one example where c o u r t a c t i o n was sought. An a r e a next t o the Gore Range-Eagle Nest P r i m i t i v e A rea i n Colorado was b e i n g excluded from c o n s i d e r a t i o n as Wilderness by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , C o n s e r v a t i o n s t s f e l t the a r e a s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n the study, even though t h e r e was a r o a d b u i l t f o r i n -s e c t c o n t r o l g o i n g through i t . The c o u r t agreed t h a t the ad j a c e n t a r e a s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d . 23 I b i d P. 37 . 24 I b i d p. 3 7 . s 38 The court found that there was sufficient evidence that the Meadow Creek area met the standards of primitivity as established in the Act, despite the existence of the road. The court stated that only the President by the Act has the power to consider whether a land area would be included as Wilderness, The Forest Service must report on the primitive area and upon any contiguous areas which would be •suitable* for inclusion according to the defini-tional standards of the Act, The court exercised no authority over the Forest Service with respect to the recommendations i t might make. It pro-hibited management for other uses in the interim between the study and report, and final action of Congress,25 McCabe also mentions the Forest Service practice of pretesting several alternative proposals for Wilderness through public meetings and then drawing up a single pro-posal, based on public response to the several alternatives. The Act i t se l f , i t should be noted, requires only notice and hearing after a proposal has been pre-pared. Such pretesting of public opinion is not contemplated. The Forest Service does not deem public comment quite so essential under its other statutory mandates. Timber sales, for example, are made without elaborate efforts to determine the public reaction. The agency singles out wilderness for such special treatment.2^ Some of the criticism comes from within the Forest Service. Several reports have been published following studies of management in particular forests or regions. Management Practices on the Bitterroot National Forest A Task Force Appraisal May 1969 - April 1970 was one of these. The ut i l i tar ian attitude of Forest Service management was crit ic ized, but the Forest Service was not alone in taking the blame. 39 The d e s i r e to keep the l a n d p r o d u c t i v e has always been an i m p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e i n F o r e s t S e r v i c e managemento Anyone who says otherwise has a f a u l t y sense o f history,, N e v e r t h e l e s s , a change o f emphasis i s n e c e s s a r y . The emphasis on r e s o u r c e p r o d u c t i o n g o a l s i s not unique to the B i t t e r r o o t N a t i o n a l F o r e s t and does not o r i g i n a t e at the N a t i o n a l F o r e s t l e v e l . I t i s the r e s u l t o f r a t h e r s u b t l e p r e s s u r e s and a t t i t u d e s coming from above. While the go a l s o f management on the N a t i o n a l F o r e s t are broad and sound, the most i n s i s t e n t p r e s s u r e r e c e n t l y has been t o i n -crease the timber cut on these N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s i n o r d e r t o make more timber a v a i l a b l e t o ease the shortage o f h o u s i n g m a t e r i a l s . The i n s i s t e n c e o f t h i s p r e s s u r e i s i n d i c a t e d by the f a c t t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s r e q u i r e d , once a week, to r e p o r t accomplishments i n meeting planned timber s a l e o b j e c t i v e s t o i t s Washington o f f i c e i n or d e r t o keep the S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e , Congress and o u t s i d e groups informed o f pr o g r e s s i n meeting timber cut commitments. I t seems c l e a r t h a t u n t i l sound l a n d management r e c e i v e s top p r i o r i t y i n f a c t as w e l l as i n p r i n c i p l e from the l e a d e r s o f the N a t i o n on down, the h a n d l i n g o f the p u b l i c lands w i l l always l e a v e something t o be d e s i r e d . 2 ? Mixed i n w i t h c r i t i c i s m o f the management o f the N a t i o n a l F o r e s t i s a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the e x i s t e n c e o f some o f t h i s k i n d o f management. L a t e r i n the r e p o r t b o l d t y p e - f a c e i s used t o emphasize the important c o n c l u s i o n s . OF ALL THE POINTS TOUCHED UPON IN THIS TASK FORCE REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT ON THE BITTERROOT NATIONAL FOREST, WE FEEL OBLIGED TO RESTATE FOUR WITH ALL THE EMPHASIS AT OUR COMMAND •ANY LINGERING THOUGHT THAT PRODUCTION GOALS HOLD PRIORITY OVER QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT MUST BE ERASED •MULTIPLE USE PLANNING MUST BE DEVELOPED INTO A DEFINITIVE, SPECIFIC, AND CURRENT DECISIONMAKING PROCESS THAT I T IS NOT TODAY. 2^U.S.D.A., Management P r a c t i c e s on the B i t t e r r o o t N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , p. 9» 40 •QUALITY CONTROL MUST BE EMPHASIZED AND REEMPHASIZED UNTIL IT BECOMES THE BYWORD OF MANAGEMENT. . »THE PUBLIC MUST BE INVOLVED MORE DEEPLY THAN EVER BEFORE IN DEVELOPING GOALS AND CRITERIA FOR MANAGEMENT.28 Forest Management i n Wyoming was another study. I t stated that there were some cases where logging companies didn't consider recreation at a l l , and where planners didn't e i t h e r . One suggestion f o r improved management was the p r o v i s i o n ofrresource information as a basis f o r public involvement. In the Mountaineers p u b l i c a t i o n , The Alpine Lakes. Brock Evans discusses the changes he f e e l s have taken place i n the Forest Service over time. When the Forest Service began, there were many crusaders who f e l t i t should protect National Forests from e x p l o i t a t i o n . Much of the land which i s i n the National Wilderness Preservation System was set aside i n the 1920's and the 1930's. However, i n the 1940's the emphasis changed to repl a c i n g old trees with young ones to make better use of the land, and the Forest Service became more c l o s e l y t i e d with the timber industry. 20 Limited Areas were established i n the P a c i f i c Northwest i n 1946. These were established by the Regional Forester, not by the Chief Forester. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was used only i n Region 6 , which includes Washington and Oregon. A Limited Area was a temporary c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , used to set an area aside f o r study p r i o r to permanent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 41 The phrase, "stop, l o o k , and l i s t e n " has been used i n de-s c r i b i n g L i m i t e d Areas, The areas were chosen because t h e r e was a good p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y might be b e s t managed s t r i c t l y f o r Wilderness use r a t h e r than f o r normal m u l t i p l e use which would i n c l u d e l o g g i n g . C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s were h o p e f u l t h a t much of t h i s l a n d would be c l a s s i f i e d as W i l d e r n e s s , However, i n the 1950*s l a r g e p a r t s o f some o f these areas i n Washington and Oregon were r e c l a s s i f i e d f o r l o g g i n g . Because the R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r e s t a b l i s h e d these a r e a s , he c o u l d r e c l a s s i f y them without a p p r o v a l by the C h i e f F o r e s t e r or the S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e , P r i m i t i v e Areas were a permanent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , u n t i l the passage i n 1964 o f the Wilderness A c t , To r e c l a s s i f y P r i m i t i v e Areas r e q u i r e d a p p r o v a l o f the S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e . These areas were to be s t u d i e d , d i s c u s s e d i n h e a r i n g s , and r e c l a s s i f i e d as W i l d e r -ness Areas where s u i t a b l e . I n 1955» d e s p i t e s t r o n g p r o t e s t , p a r t o f the Three S i s t e r s P r i m i t i v e A rea i n Oregon was r e -c l a s s i f i e d f o r l o g g i n g . I n 1963 p a r t o f the S e l w a y - B i t t e r -r o o t P r i m i t i v e A rea i n Idaho and Montana was r e c l a s s i f i e d f o r l o g g i n g . Disappointment o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s w i t h the s i z e o f the G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness A r e a i n Washington, c r e a t e d i n i 9 6 0 , l e d t o e f f o r t s t o c r e a t e a N o r t h Cascades N a t i o n a l Park, Because t h i s l a s t has a d i r e c t b e a r i n g on the A l p i n e Lakes d e c i s i o n , i t w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l l a t e r i n P a r t I I . Evans f e l t t h a t many areas i n the Northwest which had been "de f a c t o w i l d e r n e s s " f o r a l o n g time were t u r n e d over t o l o g g i n g companies i n the 1950*s and 1960's. These areas were managed as W i l d e r n e s s , a l t h o u g h they weren't c l a s s i f i e d as such. Because they were managed as Wi l d e r n e s s f o r a l o n g time, c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s f e l t t h e r e was j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r b e i n g permanently c l a s s i f i e d as Wilderness f a t h e r than b e i n g t u r n e d over t o timber companies. However, i n the 1950's and e a r l y 1960's t h e r e wasn't s u f f i c i e n t p r e s -sure or l e g i s l a t i o n to prevent the F o r e s t S e r v i c e from s e l l i n g timber i n "de f a c t o w i l d e r n e s s " . No p u b l i c h e a r -i n g s were h e l d , and p u b l i c o b j e c t i o n s had l i t t l e e f f e c t . The above comments from v a r i o u s sources r e l a t e t o the way the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has managed i t s l a n d s and the way i t has r e l a t e d management o f i t s lands t o the Wilderness A c t , The f a c t t h a t most o f them are c r i t i c a l o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s p o l i c i e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s a l o t o f d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n , but i t s h o u l d be remembered t h a t people who are s a t i s f i e d w i t h the management o f N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s may not w r i t e books or a r t i c l e s about i t . A l s o , i t s h o u l d be remembered t h a t o t h e r s may be as d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o l i c i e s as the c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s d i s c u s s e d above; the y may be d i s s a t i s f i e d because they don't f e e l the F o r e s t S e r v i c e c a t e r s enough to timber or o t h e r r e s o u r c e e x t r a c t i o n i n t e r e s t s . L i t t l e w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l e x p r e s s i n g t h a t p o i n t o f view was found. These comments p r o v i d e an i d e a o f how some people f e e l the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has conducted i t s b u s i n e s s i n the p a s t . 43 One source was found which r e p r e s e n t e d a d i f f e r e n t p o i n t o f view. I n h i s a r t i c l e " F o s t e r i n g I n t e n s i v e F o r e s t r y On P u b l i c Lands" Con S c h a l l a u d i s c u s s e s the need f o r more i n -t e n s i v e management o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s timber p r o d u c i n g l a n d s . He p o i n t s t o the l i k e l i h o o d o f a s i g n i f i c a n t gap between timber s u p p l y and timber demand by the y e a r 2000 , i f p r e s e n t management p o l i c i e s are c o n t i n u e d . He says t h a t i n the West p r i v a t e lands are b e i n g managed f a i r l y i n t e n s i v e -l y , and t h a t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n c r e a s i n g softwood timber s u p p l i e s are m o s t l y i n p u b l i c l a n d s . S e v e r a l r e c e n t r e p o r t s have suggested ways to i n c r e a s e timber p r o d u c t i o n on p u b l i c lands through i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n ; i f o p p o r t u n i t i e s e x i s t , then why aren't funds a p p r o p r i a t e d ? I b e l i e v e p o l a r i z a t i o n i n the ranks o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e u s e r s i s the major reason. The r h e t o r i c and i n v e c t i v e generated have so e n e r g i z e d the p o l i t i c a l forum t h a t i t i s sim-p l y more expedient f o r C o n g r e s s i o n a l l e a d e r s to i g n o r e any and a l l p r o p o s a l s f o r i n t e n s i v e f o r e s t management. The demise o f H a t f i e l d ' s (S . 3 5 0 ) and M e t c a l f ' s (S . 1 7 3 4 ) timber s u p p l y b i l l s i s evidence o f t h i s d e a d l o c k , 2 ^ He f e e l s the debate over p o t e n t i a l Wilderness Areas o r N a t i o n a l Parks i s o f t e n u n f o r t u n a t e , ' ,,,timber i n t e r e s t s at one extreme, and p r e s e r v a -t i o n i s t s at the o t h e r , have been promoting t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e forms o f 'more i s b e t t e r ' o b j e c t i v e s . As a r e s u l t , these groups have become p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h the l e s s d e s i r a b l e s i t e s f o r b o t h timber p r o d u c t i o n and w i l d e r n e s s use. C o n t r o v e r s i e s r e g a r d i n g the e x t e n s i o n o f the no-cut zone i n the Boundary Waters Canoe A r e a o f n o r t h e r n Minnesota, the es t a b l i s h m e n t o f the North Cascades N a t i o n a l Park, timber h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s on the B i t t e r r o o t N a t i o n a l F o r e s t and the French Pete 29 ^ S c h a l l a u , " F o s t e r i n g I n t e n s i v e F o r e s t r y on P u b l i c Lands," p. 659. hh Creek area, are examples of situations where considerable public debate was generated by-proposals to modify or eliminate timber production on economically in fer ior timber-growing s i t e s . 30 By concentrating on the areas where timber can be grown e f f i c ient ly and managing them more intensively the Forest Service could provide the increased supply of timber needed i n the future and i t could avoid some of these conf l ic t s . In the future, we must avoid the longstanding preoccupation for what's to be done with poor-s i te timber-producing lands. This makes good sense from an economic efficiency standpoint. Besides, the low-site timber-growing lands often are the locus of competing uses.3 1 Discussion of this a r t i c le should be seen as a start i n understanding the viewpoint of industry and of those concerned about future timber supplies, and i n seeing how these concerns relate to the creation of Wilderness Areas. Hopefully this balances at least in a small way the discus-sion of material which preceded i t and which represented a different set of viewpoints. C, History of the Alpine Lakes The Forest Service has operated within this general background in managing and studying the Alpine Lakes region, l ) Prior to the North Cascades Study of 1 9 6 5 In 1908 the Snoqualmie and Wenatchee Forests were established in part of the former Washington National Forest. As early as 1920 a proposal was made to include I b i d . . p. 6 5 9 . mm NATIONAL FORESTS ex i s r iNo \VILDEKHCSS| 75 100 Map 1 46 the e n t i r e Cascade range i n a N a t i o n a l Park. I n 1937 a N a t i o n a l Park S e r v i c e study suggested some areas between Snoqualmie and Stevens Passes be i n c l u d e d i n an I c e Peaks Park, a 3»000,000 acre park t o extend from the Canadian b o r -der t o Mt. Adams and Mt. S t . Helens i n southern Washington. I n 19^6 the R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r e s t a b l i s h e d a 2 5 6 , 0 0 0 a c r e A l p i n e Lakes L i m i t e d Area, one o f 20 i n the P a c i f i c Northwest, " f o r f u r t h e r study o f r e c r e a t i o n p o t e n t i a l . " I n 1957 the n e w l y formed North Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l asked t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e d e l a y s development o f the Salmon La Sac ar e a and study i t and the n e i g h b o r i n g L i m i t e d Area f o r w i l d e r n e s s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I n 1958 the Wilderness S o c i e t y and the S i e r r a Club l e n t t h e i r support and suggested a d d i t i o n a l areas t o be i n c l u d e d . I n 1959 the F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e l e a s e d p l a n s f o r m u l t i p l e use z o n i n g i n the 33 a r e a / I n 1961 John Warth p r e s e n t e d a p r o p o s a l t o the Nort h Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l f o r an A l p i n e Lakes W i l d e r n e s s Area, and i n 1962 the Wilderness S o c i e t y supported a s i m i l a r p r o p o s a l . I n 1963 s e v e r a l c o n s e r v a t i o n groups j o i n e d to support a p r o p o s a l f o r a 2 7 8 , 0 0 0 t o 3 3 4 , 0 0 0 acre Wilderness Area t o r e p l a c e the L i m i t e d A r e a . The exact s i z e was to depend on the amount o f p r i v a t e l a n d i n c l u d e d . However, i n 1962 the f i r s t timber s a l e i n the proposed Wilderness Area had taken p l a c e . The North Cascades A l p i n e Lakes P r o t e c t i o n S o c i e t y , A l p i n e Lakes Primer, p.2. k7 C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l opposed the s a l e o f the timber f o r l o g -g i n g and re q u e s t e d d e f e r r a l , but the timber was s o l d . Brock Evans f e e l s t h i s s a l e and oth e r s made about the same time 2k were examples o f "wilde r n e s s p r e v e n t a t i v e l o g g i n g . " A s a l e i s h e l d at the upper end o f a v a l l e y i n s t e a d o f the lower end, a r o a d i s q u i c k l y b u i l t t o the s a l e a r e a , and when the a r e a i s c o n s i d e r e d f o r Wi l d e r n e s s , i t i s no l o n g e r s u i t a b l e . So the l a n d f a r t h e r down the v a l l e y i s logged l a t e r on without much o b j e c t i o n from c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s p o s s i b l e . 2) The North Cascades Study From i t s f o r m a t i o n i n 1957 the North Cascades Conserva-t i o n C o u n c i l c o n c e n t r a t e d on the a r e a o f the Cascades from G l a c i e r Peak to the Canadian b o r d e r , f u r t h e r n o r t h than the A l p i n e Lakes. I t was i n 1957 t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r e s e n t e d p r e l i m i n a r y p r o p o s a l s f o r a G l a c i e r Peak W i l d e r -ness A r e a . P a r t o f the a r e a i n c l u d e d i n the p r o p o s a l s was i n the G l a c i e r Peak L i m i t e d A r e a . From 1958 t o i960 c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g the N o r t h Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l proposed a N a t i o n a l Park be e s t a b l i s h e d i n the G l a c i e r Peak Ar e a . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e s i s t e d e f f o r t s by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Thomas P e l l y t o have the Park S e r v i c e make a r e c r e a t i o n e v a l u a t i o n o f the ar e a . I n i960 a F o r e s t S e r v i c e G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness A r e a was e s t a b l i s h e d . J The Mountaineers, The A l p i n e Lakes, p. 111. 48 Conservationists were angered that some areas had been l e f t out of the Wilderness Area. In p a r t i c u l a r two h e a v i l y forested v a l l e y s were omitted. Buck Creek and Downey Creek each have a confluence with the S u i a t t l e River, and the portions of t h e i r v a l l e y s near the confluences were kept i n multiple use. The Forest Service maintained that the trees i n these v a l l e y s and other areas could not be taken away from the timber industry. I r o n i c a l l y , these areas are being studied 15 years l a t e r f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the Wilderness Area, under the Forest Service's Roadless Area Review. The conservationists banded together. They feared more of the same kind of decisions might a f f e c t areas north of Gl a c i e r Peak. Because of t h e i r experience with the Forest Service and t h e i r apprehension, they contacted the National Park Service. There were several requests f o r a j o i n t study of the North Cascades by the Departments of Agr i c u l t u r e and the I n t e r i o r , supported to some extent by congressional pres-sure f o r the same. In 19^3 NCCC proposed a North Cascades National Park to include the Gl a c i e r Wilderness Area and the area to the north toward the Skagit River V a l l e y , but not to the Canadian border. Included were the downstream portions of the Buck Creek and Downey Creek V a l l e y s . Adjacent to the park to the east and south was to be a Chelan National Mountain Recreation Area. The proposal also included an Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. Later i n 1963 a j o i n t l e t t e r from Secretary of Agriculture O r v i l l e Freeman and Secretary of the I n t e r i o r h9 Stewart U d a l l to P r e s i d e n t Kennedy pledged "a new e r a o f c o o p e r a t i o n " between the two departments. One recommenda-t i o n was a j o i n t s t u d y o f the North Cascades. P r e s i d e n t Kennedy endorsed the study, and l a t e r i n the y e a r the mem-be r s o f the study team, 2 from each department, and a chairman were s e l e c t e d . The a r e a s t u d i e d i n c l u d e d F e d e r a l l y owned l a n d i n the Cascades from the White Pass highway, a l i t t l e s outh o f Mount R a i n i e r N a t i o n a l Park, to the Canadian b o r d e r . The s t u d y took 2 y y e a r s . The r e p o r t was p r e p a r e d i n 1965 and. r e l e a s e d i n 19660 Because t h e r e was disagreement a t the end o f the study, t h e r e were two m i n o r i t y r e p o r t s i n a d d i -t i o n t o the s t u d y team r e p o r t . The Park S e r v i c e recommended a N a t i o n a l Park n o r t h o f the S k a g i t V a l l e y t o i n c l u d e Mount Baker and the a r e a east toward Ross Lake, a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area to the south i n c l u d i n g p a r t o f Lake Chelan, the changing o f the G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness A r e a t o a N a t i o n a l Park, and an A l p i n e Lakes-Mt. S t u a r t W i l d e r n e s s , and an Okanogan Wilderness i n the e a s t e r n p o r t i o n o f the e x i s t i n g North Cascades P r i m i t i v e A r e a . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e proposed changing the North Cascades P r i m i t i v e A r e a t o a Wilderness Area, adding a l i t t l e t o G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness Area, c r e a t i n g a "High Country" i n the r e g i o n between these two W i l d e r n e s s e s , c r e a t i n g a Mt. A i x Wilderness i n the Cougar Lakes r e g i o n east o f Mount R a i n i e r , and c r e a t i n g two W i l d e r n e s s e s s e p a r a t e d by a 50 jS? - A X A ; NATIONAL PARK-'[ \ V ^ > J ' / ' ! ^ JJTJSHCOLUMBIA ? WASHINGTON 4-" :• r ) / / S V l - PARK . RECREATION J AM ^BELLINGHAM ' \ \ SKAGIT CO. " " II™ O 1 i r f cv l " ^ * l > i Concrete Mtn :AS.CADE{ • ML L a g o ^ f <£>iab_ «r«halem '< ~"-;i4»MT. VERNON \ )/ 1 I I \ J i K A G I T O ) ^ CANADA UNITEDSTAYE , Robinson '. \ ' )KANDGAN<; it I^ ATIONALYJ ^^ELDORADOiQ-IFl feNAI,Q^ ^ / { \ - r KINGSTON, CO N Q Q U A L M l E s NATIONAL, F O R E S T " I., t>'; V B r i d g e p o r t ! V \ \ ;tSi T C H E E GRANT CO. S f " r * - - D 0 U G t A S _ C 0 . _ , ! R R A N T C O . K o 5 m o s ^ / G | F F O R D p | N C H 0 T ~ \ / NATIONAL FOREST--NORTH CASCADES STUDY M A N A G E M E N T AREAS RECOMMENDED BY NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1 NATIONAL PARKS I NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA WILDERNESS AREAS OTHER NATIONAL FORESTS LANDS SCALE OF MILES 5 0 5 10 15 20 Map 2 51' multiple use cor r i d o r i n the Alpine Lakes area. These would be the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, 150,000 acres, and the Enchantment Wilderness Area, 3 0 , 0 0 0 acres. The Park Service proposal resembled the NCCC proposal which would have included 2 7 8 , 0 0 0 to 3 3 ^ , 0 0 0 acres depending on how much private land could be acquired. The Park Service also suggested that the Wilderness Area "... could be the core of lar g e r surrounding 35 region." Following the preliminary version of the study team recommendations, the Park Service withdrew i t s proposal f o r a G l a c i e r Park National Park, and i t suggested that most of the area i n proposed Eldorado-Chelan National Recreation Area be included i n the North Cascades Park. The study team, recommendations, p r i m a r i l y representative of the views of the chairman, proposed a North Cascades National Park, omitting Mount Baker, but inc l u d i n g the area from the Canadian border to the Northern part of Lake Chelan. They also proposed an Okanogan Wilderness to the east of the park, two separate Wilderness Areas i n the Alpine Lakes area, small additions to the G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness Area, and a Mt. Aix Wilderness. When Senators Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson, and Representative Lloyd Meeds pushed l e g i s l a t i o n f o r the area there were some changes. Their l e g i s l a t i o n concerned the area from G l a c i e r Peak north. They included a Ross Lake U.S.D.I. and U.S.D.A., The North Cascades, p. 77. 52 •. W ^ & C A ~ l f i X A '.'•<•)• / . )C /v _ . 7NV\ MANNINGy^T^sfL ,. ^ -:C?^ 5A AA , rr A ^ - ^ A A V - 1 f BRITISH COLUMBIA < ; \ N V\ /''/•'•> r "I WASHINGTON JflMMMfllSHB6 „ iRECREATION, , y * S S A K E X A X-^BEL-LINGHAM AA & " \ " , \ SKAGIT O R T f - A _ A CASCADE t -fOSS^x k ^ # S S ; AREA' nson ( LAK. 7 \v7cA A W / / 0 %A v S \ - i A — - — ? — M i S t i . 0< t { V www M A:.,A.:rA-:. ^ /'/ { t) 'A SEAULE^#A / "'/.©A -AFA) -A :AJA f N'T JIWENATCHEE / j " r 1 JRSJOh CC Bridgeport A w V^CheJan o>.' CHEVV^ ""5A6V /A " GRANT CO. MS"- CHELANCcTj )' '• A i TACOMA A : . ^ 4 ^ N - . • J Q S l J A L M l ' b . ^ ~p3=s5Js^- i mu M A I l O N ^ ^ o s , . ^ AIPFORD PINCHOT ^ | -FOREST . x ^ ^ r n ^ i ^ - p ^ f r o T i M ^ : I JWhite-i Pass > ! MT. AiX A / WILDERNESS y ' '"^WftoNAL>ORESTA^?o / o )9 . • NORTH CASCADES STUDY M A N A G E M E N T A R E A S RECOMMENDED BY FOREST SERVICE N A T I O N A L PARK S E R V I C E ADMIN ISTRAT ION • • » NATIONAL PARK rOREST S E R V I C E A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Wll PI RN! SS AREAS OTHER SPECIAL AREAS OTHER NATIONAL FOREST LANDS SCALE OF MILES 5 0 5 10 15 20 Map 3 NORTHl CASCADESv-T—/ MAT / i nv /AV n * ni> ! 7—r^r »_ y v , MANNING RECREATION, -'I.-^ELLING HAM -] _ \ _ V \ ' H A T C O M C a _ " \ r \ SKAGIT CO. ••• 0 • ( | ; [ Concret^ - p K A N O G A N WILDERNESS - CANADA "T»aaa— nSCADE t . <• • Mtn. s I R ^PRIMITIVE \ \ • *• -~»>:» .'^.^Wl.'V-t .Robmson S^S^'j^ S K A G J T . C O . _ _ • ' \ S N O H O M 1 S H C O , "jU**" 1 ' L ^ f 3 o s ^ ) EVERETT ^ . ' KINGSTON Cp . 0 / ; ;A -dh / x ALP/NELAT ' ) ' ' SEATTLE >!; ! ' / ) Q U A L M I E I ] 0 ^ ' ' ^ " ^ 3 ' ' ~ ^ > ? S , | 1 D \ \ ' p^DOUGLAS_ WENATCHEE J \ GRANT C CHSLAN poT^jK ! ^ SjOfe^GIFFORD PINCHOT A NATIONAL FOREST ^ . c . v < o MT. A/X W/LDEKNESS * if N O R T H C A S C A D E S S T U D Y R E C O M M E N D E D M A N A G E M E N T AREAS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ADMINISTRATION mm N A T I O N A L P A R K S FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATION ! M M W I L D E R N E S S A R E A S O T H E R S P E C I A L A R E A S mm O T H E R N A T I O N A L F O R E S T L A N D S " S K A G I T W I L D R I V E R S C A L E O F M I L E S cxmrmmm 5 0 5 1 0 Map h 15 20 5k National Recreation Area which separated the renamed Pasayten Wilderness to the east from the park and which separated the north and south portions of the park,, They added part of the Skagit V a l l e y i n the west to the park and the National Recreation Area. They included a Lake Chelan National Recrea-t i o n Area south of the park, thereby making the park smaller. They l e f t the portion of the highway corridor f o r the new cross state highway from Ross Lake east under Forest Service control instead of i n c l u d i n g i t i n the Park, Some small additions to G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness were included. The b i l l passed along with b i l l s f o r Redwoods National Park, Biscayne National Monument, a d d i t i o n a l Wilderness Areas, a Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and a National Scenic T r a i l s System i n October, 1Q68. The b i l l which included the North Cascades National Park represented a serious defeat f o r the Forest Service, because about 67^,000 acres of Forest land were turned over to the Park Service i n the park and the two National Recreation Areas. Several observers f e e l that the Study Team f e l t a need y to make up to the Forest Service f o r the Study Team recommen-dation of a National Park. The proposal f o r two separate Wildernesses i n the Alpine Lakes area was a way of softening the blow to the Forest Service. From the time of the Study Report on, the Forest Service sa i d only that portion of the "de facto wilderness" which the Study Team recommended f o r Wilderness would be treated as such. Other areas were to be managed f o r multiple use. Conservationists f e l t that ' 55 THE WILD CASCADES The new North Cascades National Park is bisected by the Ross Lake Recreation Area through part of which will run the North Cross-State Highway. Contiguous to the Ross Lake area is the Pasayten Wilderness area, with the Che-lan National Recreation area abutting the southern sector of the national park. Numbers indicate the points shown in the accompanying photographs. I—Forbidden Peak. 2— Mount Shuksan. 3—Mount Redoubt. A—Mount Challen-ger. 5—Diablo Lake 6—Cascade Pass. 7—Eldorado Peak 6—Colonial Peak. 9—Washington Pass. 10—Lake Chelan. Map 5 Seattle Times October 27, 1968 56 the two areas were s e l e c t e d l a r g e l y because they d i d n ' t i n c l u d e much commercial timber. I n the areas o u t s i d e which d i d i n c l u d e s u b s t a n t i a l commercial timber, l o g g i n g began. 3) A f t e r the North Cascades Study Evans s t a t e s t h a t o f f i c i a l s o f the Snoqualmie N a t i o n a l F o r e s t on the west s i d e o f the Cascades announced no p l a n s to l o g i n the c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t - p r o p o s e d a r e a through 1974 0 However, on the east s i d e Wenatchee N a t i o n a l F o r e s t o f f i c i a l s s o l d o r made p l a n s t o s e l l s e v e r a l t r a c t s o f timber f o r l o g -g i n g . T r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n s i n 1966 and 1968 showed planned roads i n the c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t - p r o p o s e d a r e a . I n 1968 the Snoqualmie and Wenatchee N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s p r e p a r e d a p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t on the two Wilderness A r e a s . I n the same y e a r the A l p i n e Lakes P r o t e c t i o n S o c i e t y (ALPS), a Washington group, was founded. I n 1970 ALPS proposed a 926,400 acre N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area, w i t h a Wilderness core o f 3 6 4 , 4 8 0 a c r e s . The sep a r a t e areas recommended by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e were i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the ALPS p r o p o s a l . I n 1970 ALPS and o t h e r c o n s e r v a t i o n groups r e q u e s t e d a 5 y e a r d e f e r r a l o f timber s a l e s w i t h i n the proposed N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a . They noted the tendency o f Congress t o c r e a t e Wilderness Areas l a r g e r than those proposed by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . The Wenatchee N a t i o n a l F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r r e f u s e d the d e f e r r a l . At the same time c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s were f i g h t i n g o t h e r p r o p o s a l s i n the a r e a . M i n i n g i n t e r e s t s wanted a t r a i l f o r 57 Map 6 58 m o t o r i z e d ore c a r r i e r s , s e v e r a l agencies wanted t o b u i l d dams on r i v e r s i n the a r e a , a c o a l b u r n i n g power p l a n t was proposed, and r e c r e a t i o n a l s u b d i v i s i o n s were planned, ALPS took the m i n i n g t r a i l p r o p o s a l to c o u r t . The case was d i s m i s s e d w i t h no t r a i l to be b u i l t . However, t h e r e are a p p a r e n t l y new p l a n s f o r the mining o p e r a t i o n s . Another problem f o r con-s e r v a t i o n i s t s was the checkerboard p a t t e r n o f ownership i n some a r e a s . R a i l r o a d s were gran t e d a l t e r n a t e s e c t i o n s i n a 2 0-mile wide s t r i p a l o n g the proposed r i g h t - o f - w a y i n s t a t e s and i n a 4 0-mile wide s t r i p i n t e r r i t o r i e s . At the time o f the g r a n t s Washington was a t e r r i t o r y . Some o f these s e c -t i o n s were l a t e r s o l d t o l o g g i n g companies. I n o r d e r to l o g these areas companies need roads w i t h the p u b l i c p a y i n g up to 90$ or more o f the c o s t . When p r i v a t e s e c t i o n s are logged, the F o r e s t S e r v i c e may s e l l some o f i t s l a n d f o r l o g g i n g at the same time. O f t e n the owners o f the p r i v a t e l a n d are the s u c c e s s f u l b i d d e r s at the timber s a l e s . C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s proposed t h a t the checkerboard l a n d r e v e r t t o the p u b l i c w i t h f a i r compensation. The Wilderness Act r e q u i r e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e to review a l l i t s P r i m i t i v e Areas i n the e n t i r e c o u n t r y by 1974 f o r p o s s i b l e i n c l u s i o n i n the Wilderness P r o t e c t i o n System. A l p i n e Lakes was scheduled f o r review a f t e r these p r i o r i t y areas were s t u d i e d , s t a r t i n g i n 1974. A l p i n e Lakes was a L i m i t e d A r e a , which meant i t d i d n ' t f a l l i n t o the P r i m i t i v e A r e a review. J The Mountaineers, op_, c i t . , p. 117* 59 C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s asked the F o r e s t S e r v i c e f o r a c t i o n on the A l p i n e Lakes, People from ALPS s a i d t h a t the P a c i f i c Northwest Region was f i n i s h e d r e v i e w i n g P r i m i t i v e Areas then. One o f the F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r s confirmed t h a t the review was completed 2 or 3 years ago i n 1971 or 1972. The Washington, D, C. o f f i c e was busy r e v i e w i n g s t u d i e s from o t h e r r e g i o n s ; i n f a c t , at the time o f the i n t e r v i e w s some r e g i o n s were s t i l l f i n i s h i n g s t u d i e s o f P r i m i t i v e A r e a s . When the F o r e s t S e r v i c e responded t h a t A l p i n e Lakes was scheduled f o r 197^ i n the n a t i o n a l schedule o f p r i o r i t i e s , c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s t u r n e d t o Congress. S i n c e L i m i t e d Areas c o u l d be r e c l a s s i -f i e d t o m u l t i p l e - u s e by the R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r , c o n s e r v a t i o n -i s t s f e a r e d timbered areas o f the A l p i n e Lakes might be l o s t t o l o g g i n g i f the whole a r e a wasn't c o n s i d e r e d f o r Wilderness as soon as p o s s i b l e . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e had made known i t s i n t e n t t o t r e a t as Wilderness o n l y those areas mentioned as such i n the North Cascades Study. As i t t u r n e d out, some o f the o t h e r areas were logged subsequent t o the study r e p o r t . Spokesmen f o r the f o r e s t p roducts i n d u s t r y and f o r l a n d -owners s a i d t h e y were a l s o f o r c e d t o t u r n to Congress. Be-cause ALPS had a b i l l ready to submit i n 1970, t h e y f e a r e d Congress might pass i t q u i c k l y . I n the Pasayten Wilderness Congress waived i t s own requirement t h a t t h e r e be a m i n e r a l s u r v e y . I n d u s t r y f e a r e d a b i l l might be passed f o r the A l p i n e Lakes without F o r e s t S e r v i c e study o f the a r e a . They a l s o f e a r e d a r e p e t i t i o n o f the North Cascades s i t u a t i o n where t h e y s a i d agencies were c o l l e c t i n g d a t a d u r i n g the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s i n s t e a d o f b e f o r e i t . 60 The p r e s s u r e from b o t h t h e s e groups l e d t o a l e t t e r from the Washington C o n g r e s s i o n a l d e l e g a t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e b e g i n t o s t u d y the a r e a . ALPS and the o t h e r groups urged members o f the Washington C o n g r e s s i o n a l d e l e g a -t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y U. S, R e p r e s e n t a t i v e L l o y d Meeds, t o r e q u e s t t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e proceed w i t h a study o f the a r e a . I n 1 9 7 1 the C h i e f o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e promised to s t a r t the s t u d y and to develop a p r o p o s a l f o r Wilderness c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I n J u l y o f 1 9 7 2 a three-man study team was formed to s t a r t the study and develop a p r o p o s a l by May o f 1 9 7 3 o The two F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r s s e l e c t e d the members o f the team. The study was made a p r i o r i t y item. T h i s meant t h a t any m a t e r i a l t h a t came t o the C h i e f r e c e i v e d h i s im-mediate a t t e n t i o n i n s t e a d o f w a i t i n g behind o t h e r m a t e r i a l . The r e g i o n a l o f f i c e drew up a c r i t i c a l p a t h t o get the job done i n the s h o r t e s t time p o s s i b l e . The d e c i s i o n to proceed was unusual on two counts at the time. I t was the o n l y w i l -derness study o f an a r e a not c l a s s i f i e d as a P r i m i t i v e Area, and i t was the o n l y case o f an e n t i r e C o n g r e s s i o n a l d e l e g a -t i o n r e q u e s t i n g and e x p e d i t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e review by a government agency. The team d e f i n e d study o b j e c t i v e s and developed a p l a n -n i n g system. E x i s t i n g d a t a were c o l l e c t e d and e v a l u a t e d a l o n g w i t h p u b l i c i n p u t . F i e l d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r d a t a . These t h r e e steps were c a r r i e d out by September 1 9 7 2 , I n October 1 9 7 2 f o r e s t management teams from each o f the two N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s developed management o b j e c t i v e s x 61 f o r the a r e a t o h e l p the study team develop a l t e r n a t i v e s . I n December o f 1972 t h r e e l a n d use a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the a r e a were developed. Each p r o p o s a l i n c l u d e d some l a n d t o be c l a s s i f i e d as W i l d e r n e s s , some as s c e n i c a r e a , and some t o be managed f o r Wilderness u n t i l p r i v a t e l a n d c o u l d be a c q u i r e d to complete the a r e a s . Meanwhile i n 1972 the timber i n d u s t r y completed a s t u d y begun i n 1970* The C e n t r a l Washington Cascades Study Team, made up o f p e r s o n n e l from the timber i n d u s t r y , i n v e n t o r i e d the a r e a t o develop management g o a l s . Business Economics A d v i s o r y and Research, I n c . (BEAR), a c o n s u l t i n g f i r m o f p r o f e s s o r s at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, was h i r e d t o conduct an economic and e c o l o g i c a l study o f the a r e a . The s t u d y and the recommendations were p r e s e n t e d to the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n 1972. At the same time the N o r t h Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l was busy, NCCC asked U.S 0 Congressman Thomas P e l l e y t o i n t r o -duce a b i l l d e s i g n a t i n g a 580,000 ac r e A l p i n e Lakes W i l d e r n e s s . T h i s was the f i r s t l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l f o r p o s s i b l e c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n o f p a r t o f the a r e a . The importance o f t h i s b i l l was t h a t i t s t a r t e d a l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y f o r the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , even though i t was not passed. None o f the o t h e r b i l l s f o r the a r e a have been passed y e t . I n January o f 1973 p u b l i c meetings a t seven l o c a t i o n s around the F o r e s t S e r v i c e s t u d y a r e a were h e l d . These meet-i n g s were i n t e n d e d t o a l l o w the p u b l i c t o comment on the t h r e e l a n d use a l t e r n a t i v e s . Almost 2000 people a t t e n d e d . 62 By the March 1 d e a d l i n e w r i t t e n submissions r e p r e s e n t i n g over 5000 persons had been r e c e i v e d . I n A p r i l 1973 these i n p u t s had been s t u d i e d and the two F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r s made t h e i r recommendations to the R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r i n P o r t l a n d , Oregon, I n June 1973 the R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r sent h i s recom-mendations and a d r a f t environmental statement t o the C h i e f o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Meanwhile i n May o f 1973 a Wenatchee newspaper r e p o r t e d the d i s c o v e r y o f an i l l e g a l r o a d b u i l t by the Pack R i v e r Company p a r t l y through p u b l i c l a n d to some o f i t s p r i v a t e l a n d . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e had announced i t s i n t e n t i o n t o i s s u e a l i m i t e d permit p r i o r t o t h i s d i s c o v e r y , and c o n s e r -v a t i o n i s t s had responded w i t h an appeal to the C h i e f o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . A r e p o r t on the i l l e g a l road sent to the U. S, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y i n P o r t l a n d was sent back to the F o r e s t S e r v i c e f o r out o f c o u r t s e t t l e m e n t , A F e d e r a l Court o r d e r from Spokane or d e r e d Pack R i v e r t o s t o p u n t i l the S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e c o u l d review the matter. T h i s case r e p r e s e n t e d an a c t i o n by a p r i v a t e company which c o u l d poten-t i a l l y d i s q u a l i f y some l a n d from Wilderness c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f the s e t t l e m e n t reached. I n October 1973 two p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , one i n Wenatchee and one i n S e a t t l e , were h e l d t o get p u b l i c response t o the s i n g l e F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r o p o s a l . A d e a d l i n e o f November 20, 1973 was s e t f o r w r i t t e n s ubmissions. Based on these p u b l i c i n p u t s a f i n a l p r o p o s a l was d r a f t e d i n t o b i l l form. The p r o p o s a l and a f i n a l environmental statement were b e i n g 63 prepared i n June 197^ to be sent t o the P r e s i d e n t f o r h i s recommendation t o Congress. Three o t h e r b i l l s have been sent t o Washington, D. C. One was d r a f t e d by ALPS. One was d r a f t e d by the A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n , a c o a l i t i o n o f f o r e s t products i n d u s t r y and r e c r e -a t i o n groups. A t h i r d was d r a f t e d by the C o a l i t i o n o f Conser-v a t i o n Groups, the outgrowth o f the North Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l . A l l f o u r b i l l s were i n t r o d u c e d i n October 1973» i n bo t h the Senate and the House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . Senator Henry Jackson mentioned t h a t the f i n a l F o r e s t S e r v i c e b i l l was not y e t ready, but t h a t the Washington d e l e g a t i o n f e l t a l l f o u r b i l l s s h o u l d be i n t r o d u c e d t o g e t h e r , A p r e l i m i n a r y v e r s i o n o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e b i l l was i n t r o d u c e d :with the ot h e r t h r e e b i l l s . So f a r no r e s u l t has been f o r t h c o m i n g from Congress. D, The Problem i n Summary The above m a t e r i a l has d e s c r i b e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and the atmosphere i n which the study team's p r o p o s a l f o r the A l p i n e Lakes was developed. The job g i v e n t o the F o r e s t S e r v i c e by Congress, as s t a t e d i n and i n t e r p r e t e d from p e r t i n e n t l e g i s l a t i o n was d i s c u s s e d . The h i s t o r i c a l r o l e o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n the p r o v i s i o n o f w i l d e r n e s s l a n d s was d e s c r i b e d . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the concept o f N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas was mentioned. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t o o t h e r f e d e r a l l a n d management agencies and some o f the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f f e d e r a l l a n d s were d e s c r i b e d . The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and 6k some s t u d i e s o f i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n and b e h a v i o r were d i s c u s s e d , A g e n e r a l summary o f t h i s m a t e r i a l i s t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s a h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h a r e c o r d o f p e r f o r m i n g i t s work e f f i c i e n t l y . I n the past i t has been o r i e n t e d toward g r a z i n g and timber p r o d u c t i o n as uses o f i t s r e s o u r c e s . The m a t e r i a l r e l a t i n g t o the h i s t o r y o f the A l p i n e Lakes i n d i c a t e d the p r e s s u r e s the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has f e l t t o change. Demand f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n on f o r e s t l a n d and f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n o f l a n d as w i l d e r n e s s has i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y . I n one case r e l a t e d t o the A l p i n e Lakes the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s f a i l u r e t o l i s t e n t o these demands con-t r i b u t e d t o the l o s s o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e l a n d t o the Park S e r v i c e . T h i s r e c e n t l o s s o f l a n d and the f a c t t h a t v a r i o u s i n t e r e s t groups w i t h d e s i r e s t h a t o f t e n c o n f l i c t e d had made p r o p o s a l s f o r the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a and had p r e s s u r e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t o come to some d e c i s i o n about the a r e a were p a r t o f the atmosphere i n which the s t u d y team worked. The m a t e r i a l p r o v i d e s a s e t t i n g f o r the study o f the work o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team. Because the aim o f t h i s study i s to examine the r o l e s o f p u b l i c i n p u t , F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o l i c y , and the v a l u e s o f the study team members i n the development o f the study team's f i n a l p r o p o s a l , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the environment i n which t h e y worked i s imp o r t a n t . 65 PART I I I ANALYTICAL MODEL, LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY A, The A n a l y t i c a l Model 1) The Model D e f i n e d i n Gener a l Terms a) The Model A b s t r a c t l y Expressed The model which has been used as a b a s i s f o r c o l l e c t -i n g and a n a l y z i n g d a t a f o r t h i s t h e s i s i s b a s i c a l l y a communi-c a t i o n s o r i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g system,, Readings by K a r l Deutsch and David Easton i n p a r t i c u l a r w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o l a t e r t o d e t a i l the model. They compare s o c i e t y o r any segment o f s o c i e t y b e i n g s t u d i e d t o a c l a s s i c a l c y b e r n e t i c system. O r g a n i z a t i o n s which make up s o c i e t y f u n c t i o n by p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , and the b e s t way to study these o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s to t r a c e the flow o f i n f o r m a t i o n and the st e p s taken as a r e s u l t o f the r e c e i p t o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . I n f o r m a t i o n flow depends upon i n p u t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n and out p u t s , which are responses t o the i n p u t s . Each o r g a n i z a -t i o n p r o c e s s e s i n p u t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . These may be generated w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e y may be r e t r i e v e d from i n f o r m a -t i o n s t o r a g e , o r they may be generated by o u t s i d e s o u r c e s . A l l these i n p u t s come to the o r g a n i z a t i o n 1 s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g system v i a e s t a b l i s h e d communication c h a n n e l s . A l o n g these channels may be p l a c e s where i n f o r m a t i o n i s pr e p r o c e s s e d o r screened. T h i s s c r e e n i n g s e r v e s t o r e g u l a t e 66 the f l o w o f i n f o r m a t i o n so the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s not ov e r l o a d e d w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n i t cannot p r o c e s s . The i n f o r m a t i o n which i s e i t h e r generated o r r e t r i e v e d w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n depends on the r e s o u r c e s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n , on the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f i t s mem-b e r s , and on the r u l e s imposed.on i t s members. Resources i n c l u d e p e r s o n n e l , i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e and p r o c e s s i n g equip-ment, and t e c h n i q u e s , such as c a r t o g r a p h i c t e c h n i q u e s o r computer equipment, money, and time. An o r g a n i z a t i o n can work no f a r t h e r than the l i m i t s o f i t s r e s o u r c e s , A t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f members o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n a f f e c t the way they see t h e i r own work and the k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n they f e e l s h o u l d be generated. They form the world-view o f these people as i t r e l a t e s t o the work they do. Rules are imposed on mem-bers o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n by the o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r i n d i v i d u a l s s u p e r i o r t o i t . These r u l e s c o n s t r a i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n by d e f i n i n g procedures f o r some o f i t s a c t i o n s . Many o f these r u l e s are r e q u i r e d f o r the s u c c e s s f u l o p e r a t i o n o f b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s . These b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s are h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d , and t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n flow and b e h a v i o r are s t r u c t u r e d as w e l l . I n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from o u t s i d e i s a l s o a f f e c t e d by a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s and by r u l e s . I n i t i a l l y t h i s i n -f o r m a t i o n i s determined by the go a l s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s g e n e r a t i n g and t r a n s m i t t i n g i t . Once i t has been t r a n s m i t t e d , the communication channels and p r o c e s s i n g system o f the r e c e i v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n determine which i n f o r m a -t i o n i s handled i n which manner. The a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s 67 o f members a f f e c t which i n f o r m a t i o n they p r e f e r t o review more se r i o u s l y , , The r u l e s w i t h i n which the o r g a n i z a t i o n operates a f f e c t the treatment o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d t o o . Once i n p u t s have been made, screened, and p r o c e s s e d , the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s ready to respond w i t h outputs. These may be outputs o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l s o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u t s i d e , o r they may be a c t i o n s . I n e i t h e r case a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s and r u l e s a g a i n determine what the a p p r o p r i -ate output s h o u l d be. These outputs may generate a new s e t o f i n p u t s . The pro c e s s o f r e c e i v i n g i n p u t s and sending a p p r o p r i a t e outputs can be re p e a t e d s e v e r a l times on a p a r -t i c u l a r matter b e f o r e the o r g a n i z a t i o n makes a f i n a l d e c i s i o n . By i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h o u t s i d e r s i n t h i s f a s h i o n the o r g a n i z a t i o n can f i n d i t s p r o p o s a l s and those o f o u t s i d e r s coming c l o s e r t o g e t h e r . B a r g a i n i n g between an o r g a n i z a t i o n and others l e a d s to a narrowing o f the gap between them and perhaps to some form o f consensus. When the f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s made, the o r g a n i z a t i o n s h o u l d be ready t o go on t o another matter, and study o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s b e h a v i o r i n p a r t i c u l a r matter can be ended, b) The A b s t r a c t Model R e l a t e d t o the A l p i n e Lakes  S i t u a t i o n T h i s b a s i c d e s c r i p t i o n o f the model can be r e l a t e d t o the A l p i n e Lakes s i t u a t i o n . L o o k i n g at the A l p i n e Lakes s i t u -a t i o n makes the v a l u e o f the a b s t r a c t model more c l e a r . 68 The o r g a n i z a t i o n b e i n g s t u d i e d i s t h a t group o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l who c o n c e n t r a t e d on the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . These are r a n g e r s , s u p e r v i s o r s , t h e i r s t a f f s , and the t h r e e -man study team. T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n r e c e i v e d i n p u t s o f i n -f o r m a t i o n about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a and sent o u t p u t s 0 The f l o w o f i n f o r m a t i o n over s e v e r a l y e a r s l e d to the f i n a l d e c i -s i o n , which was the f i n a l p r o p o s a l sent by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t o Washington, D. C. f o r the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the Congress. The l o c a l F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l generated much o f t h e i r own i n f o r m a t i o n and r e t r i e v e d some from r e c o r d s . They had the r e s o u r c e s o f s p e c i a l i s t s who c o u l d p r o v i d e i n f o r m a -t i o n on timber r e s o u r c e s , r e c r e a t i o n , w i l d l i f e , and o t h e r f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g t o the a r e a , a study team working f u l l - t i m e on the d e c i s i o n , s u p p o r t i n g s t a f f , past work done on the a r e a s , computer equipment and t e c h n i q u e s , and a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 y e a r s t o prepare a f i n a l p r o p o s a l . I n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l and g e n e r a t i o n was a f f e c t e d by the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n v o l v e d . These a t t i t u d e s and p e rcep-t i o n s i n c l u d e d views toward l a n d use management, w i l d e r n e s s , r e c r e a t i o n , and p u b l i c involvement. Rules c o n s t r a i n e d the work o f t h e s e p l a n n e r s . They had t o operate w i t h i n the laws which govern the e n t i r e F o r e s t S e r v i c e , and the r e g u l a -t i o n s , f o r m a l r u l e s and procedures e s t a b l i s h e d by h i g h e r l e v e l s w i t h i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , and i n f o r m a l r u l e s and procedures developed at h i g h e r l e v e l s o r i n t h e i r own o r g a n i z a t i o n . As has been d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s a b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h a w e l l - d e f i n e d 69 s t r u c t u r e from the C h i e f ' s O f f i c e down to the D i s t r i c t Ranger l e v e l , and t h e r e are r u l e s f o r the o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s b u r e a u c r a c y . The p l a n n e r s r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n from o u t s i d e . When th e y developed t h e i r t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e y used i n f o r m a -t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d by the p u b l i c - t o h e l p them. P u b l i c meetings were h e l d t o r e c e i v e comments and q u e s t i o n s about these a l t e r -n a t i v e s . W r i t t e n i n p u t s c o n t r i b u t e d t o the development o f a s i n g l e p r o p o s a l from these a l t e r n a t i v e s . P u b l i c h e a r i n g s and more w r i t t e n i n p u t s about the s i n g l e p r o p o s a l l e d t o a f i n a l p r o p o s a l . The procedures f o r the meetings, h e a r i n g s , and w r i t t e n i n p u t s c o n s t i t u t e d communication channels. As w e l l t h e r e were meetings and c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h groups and i n d i v i d -u a l s . Government o f f i c i a l s and o f f i c i a l s at h i g h e r l e v e l s o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e made t h e i r i n p u t s through the pr o p e r chan-n e l s . The a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f the p l a n n e r s and the r u l e s imposed on them a f f e c t e d how they r e c e i v e d and r e a c t e d t o these i n p u t s from o u t s i d e . The i n i t i a l s e t o f i n p u t s was the pas t i n f o r m a t i o n about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a r e t r i e v e d from r e c o r d s , i n f o r m a t i o n g e n erated by the l o c a l F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l through stud y o f the a r e a and m a t e r i a l r e l a t i n g t o i t , and some p u b l i c i n p u t . T h i s s e t o f i n p u t s l e d t o an output, the t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the a r e a . F o l l o w i n g t h i s output came a d i a l o g u e between the p l a n n e r s and o u t s i d e r s . There were i n p u t s and outputs r e l a t i n g t o the a l t e r n a t i v e s . F i n a l l y , a f t e r w r i t t e n i n p u t s had been p r o c e s s e d and 70 c o n s i d e r e d a l o n g w i t h the o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , a s i n g l e p r o p o s a l was developed. T h i s was the next major output which was a f o r m a l p a r t o f the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . Other outputs were d e c i s i o n s about l o g g i n g or not l o g g i n g c e r t a i n a r e a s , agree-ment to the study or c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f some ar e a s , and changes i n management p o l i c y . Some o f these outputs preceded the c r e a t i o n o f the study team, and some o f them came d u r i n g the f o r m a l d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . They were a l l p a r t o f the c o n t i n u a l p r o c e s s o f r e c e i v i n g i n p u t s and s e n d i n g outputs. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e and i n t e r e s t groups b a r g a i n e d about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . From 1968 t o 197^ the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o s i t i o n on the a r e a changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y . I n t e r e s t groups made changes i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n s d u r i n g the d e c i s i o n process as w e l l . The f i n a l output was a p r o p o s a l sent to the R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r i n P o r t l a n d and on t o the C h i e f o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n Washington, D, C., to go t o Congress. T h i s p r o p o s a l i n -c l u d e d d r a f t l e g i s l a t i o n and a f i n a l e nvironmental impact statement. The model i s seen as an a b s t r a c t way o f d e s c r i b -i n g the p r o c e s s by which the p l a n n e r s a r r i v e d at t h i s f i n a l o u t p ut. 2) E l a b o r a t i o n o f the Model More d e t a i l i s needed so t h a t the model l e a d s more c l e a r l y t o the d a t a which s h o u l d be c o l l e c t e d and a n a l y z e d . The d e t a i l w i l l s k e t c h out the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g system b e i n g d e s c r i b e d . S o c i e t y has been d e s c r i b e d as a c l a s s i c a l c y b e r n e t i c system. L i k e mechanical o r e l e c t r i c a l communication d e v i c e s the organizations which make up s o c i e t y operate by r e c e i v i n g and sending information. Looking at the sources of informa-t i o n , the paths through which i t i s transmitted, the recep-tors and processing units f o r the information, and the responses to receipt of the information provides the best way to describe the behavior of these organizations. In t h i s case the flow of information within the group of Forest Service personnel working on the decision about the Alpine Lakes area and between t h i s group and outsiders w i l l be examined to learn how some factors contributed to t h i s group's f i n a l decision about the area. Information received that an organization  fe e l s i t must take into account i s an input  to the decision process. These inputs  a f f e c t the decision by creating stress f o r  the organization r e c e i v i n g them. Messages which the Forest Service planners received can be seen as inputs to the organization, David Easton (Easton, 1965) describes p o l i t i c a l systems i n terms of inputs and outputs. He suggests that the concepts of inputs and outputs allow the handling of a v a r i e t y of changes i n ' the environment without the treatment of each change as separate and unique. There are two major kinds of inputs, demands and support. Demands are inputs which seek change i n the actions of the p o l i t i c a l system. Support expresses approval f o r actions of the p o l i t i c a l system, Easton concentrates on demands. These create stress f o r the system. I t responds with some form of output to the public or some other party which then 72 feeds back i n t o the system when the p u b l i c or o t h e r p a r t y responds. The outputs a l l o w the system to p e r s i s t and con-t i n u e r e s p o n d i n g to s t r e s s by f e e d i n g back i n f o r m a t i o n and p e r m i t t i n g the e v a l u a t i o n o f system performance. Groups and i n d i v i d u a l s o u t s i d e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p l a n n i n g group and the p l a n n e r s themselves made i n p u t s to the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . The o n l y way f o r i n f o r m a t i o n to a f f e c t the d e c i -s i o n o f the p l a n n e r s was f o r i t t o be r e c e i v e d by them as i n p u t . The important q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o i n p u t s ares a) who made i n p u t s , b) what k i n d s o f i n p u t s were made, c) why d i d these i n p u t s c r e a t e s t r e s s f o r the p l a n n e r s . Outputs are an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s way o f r e d u c i n g  s t r e s s from i n p u t s a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d . They are  a l s o a way o f l e a d i n g to the g e n e r a t i o n o f  new i n p u t s 0 Members o f a p o l i t i c a l system have wants which they may express to some o r g a n i z a t i o n they f e e l can h e l p them w i t h t h e i r wants. These become demands when the members of the system want to see them implemented through p o l i t i c a l out-p u t s . When wants are c o n v e r t e d t o demands, Easton says t h e y may 1) d i s a p p e a r , 2) be c o n v e r t e d to o u t p u t s , 3) be combined w i t h others or m o d i f i e d to reduce the t o t a l number o f i n p u t s , then be c o n v e r t e d t o o u t p u t s , k) be converted to i s s u e s , then d i s a p p e a r or be c o n v e r t e d t o outputs, or 5) be reduced, be c o n v e r t e d to i s s u e s , and then d i s a p p e a r or become outputs.^ Easton d e f i n e s i s s u e s as demands which are b e i n g d i s c u s s e d i n o r d e r to do something about them and not j u s t f o r e d u c a t i o n a l purposes. 73 A p a r t y may express a want about the A l p i n e Lakes i s s u e T h i s want i s c o n v e r t e d i n t o a demand when i t i s expressed to the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p l a n n e r s . The demand c r e a t e s s t r e s s . I n o r d e r to r e l i e v e the s t r e s s the p l a n n e r s p r o c e s s the demand, e v a l u a t e i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e , and respond w i t h some form o f out p u t s . These outputs are d i r e c t e d toward the p u b l i c or toward a h i g h e r l e v e l i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , or perhaps t o some o t h e r government agency at the l o c a l , s t a t e , or f e d e r a l l e v e l . The outputs can be f e d back to the F o r e s t S e r v i c e as new i n p u t s from the r e c i p i e n t s o f the o u t p u t s , or they may be sent on to another p a r t y . Outputs may be f e d back s e v e r a l t imes. T h i s a l l o w s the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and p a r t i e s o u t s i d e to a d j u s t t h e i r s e p a r a t e p o s i t i o n s . I t can a l s o a l l o w v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e to do the same. Areas o f study s h o u l d be a) what k i n d s o f outputs d i d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p l a n n e r s make, b) how w e l l d i d these outputs d e a l w i t h s t r e s s , c) what e f f e c t d i d these outputs have on the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . I n f o r m a t i o n r e a c h i n g an o r g a n i z a t i o n may  come from w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n or from  o u t s i d e . 2 K a r l Deutsch l i s t s t h r e e streams o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t may r e a c h a system. 1) There i s the p o l i t i c a l system's own network o f communication and i t s o t h e r r e s o u r c e s . 2) There i s the p o l i t i c a l system's memory which s t o r e s i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d i n the p a s t . 3) There i s a stream Deutsch, The Nerves o f Government. 74 o f i n f o r m a t i o n coming from the o u t s i d e . The f i r s t two streams are p a r t o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t i n g c a p a b i l i t y . The t h i r d i s comprised o f the v a r i o u s mes-sages t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e c e i v e s from o u t s i d e . The prime q u e s t i o n here i s what i s the source of the v a r i o u s i n p u t s r e c e i v e d by the p l a n n e r s . I n o r d e r t o s c r e e n and channel d i f f e r e n t  k i n d s of i n p u t s , p o l i t i c a l systems need  switchboards. S c r e e n i n g and c h a n n e l i n g  h e l p an o r g a n i z a t i o n d e a l xvith s t r e s s . Once messages have been f o r m u l a t e d and s e n t , they must go through communication channels. These p r o v i d e a r e g u l a t e d p a t h f o r i n f o r m a t i o n t o f l o w from p a r t i e s o u t s i d e an o r g a n i -z a t i o n t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n or w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Having e s t a b l i s h e d channels a l l o w s an o r g a n i z a t i o n to handle i n f o r m a t i o n i n more e f f i c i e n t and s y s t e m a t i c f a s h i o n . The channels a l l o w the r e c e i p t o f i n f o r m a t i o n so t h a t i t can be p r o c e s s e d p r i o r t o a response. The more complex the network o f communication and the switchboard, the more pro l o n g e d d e c i s i o n s or c o n f l i c t s a r e . P a r t o f t h i s d e c i s i o n o r con-f l i c t p r o c e s s i s the e v a l u a t i o n o f performance. Once i n p u t s have been c o n v e r t e d t o o u t p u t s , the p o l i t i c a l system needs to e v a l u a t e how w e l l these outputs meet s t a t e d p o l i c y g o a l s . Through a p r o c e s s o f feedback the system r e c e i v e s i n f o r m a t i o n from o u t s i d e which p e r m i t s t h i s e v a l u a t i o n . Easton d i s c u s s e s how the communication o f messages c r e a t e s s t r e s s f o r a p o l i t i c a l system and some o f the s t e p s systems can take t o reduce s t r e s s . P o l i t i c a l systems 1) a l l o c a t e v a l u e s f o r a s o c i e t y and Z) induce most members 75 o f the s o c i e t y t o accept these a l l o c a t i o n s as b i n d i n g most o f the time. The systems undergo s t r e s s when they m i s a l l o -cate v a l u e s o r can't induce enough people t o accept a l l o c a -t i o n s as b i n d i n g . The system f e e l s t h i s s t r e s s when the a t t i t u d e s about a l l o c a t i o n are conv e r t e d to demands and d i r e c t e d toward a u t h o r i t y . E x p e c t a t i o n s , p u b l i c o p i n i o n , m o t i v a t i o n s , and i n t e r e s t i n c e r t a i n matters are not always c o n v e r t e d t o demands. P u b l i c a t t i t u d e s p l a y a r o l e i n d e c i -s i o n s o n l y when they can be i n s e r t e d i n t o the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . I n o r d e r t o be i n s e r t e d , they must go through the w e l l - d e f i n e d ways o f r e c e i v i n g i n p u t t h a t p o l i t i c a l systems g e n e r a l l y have. There are t h r e e k i n d s o f s t r e s s to which a system must respond: 1) s t r e s s due to l o s s o f support because demands are n ' t met, 2) s t r e s s due to demand i n p u t o v e r l o a d , the k i n d o f demand made, or the time needed to pro c e s s the i n p u t , and 3 ) s t r e s s due to the f a i l u r e o f output to m a i n t a i n s u f -f i c i e n t p o l i t i c a l s upport. E l i m i n a t i n g s t r e s s o f the second k i n d i s perhaps the e a s i e s t way f o r the system t o g i v e i t s e l f a chance to d e a l w i t h the oth e r two k i n d s o f s t r e s s . S t r e s s due t o o v e r l o a d , the k i n d o f demand made, o r the l a c k o f time f o r p r o c e s s i n g g e n e r a l l y r e s u l t s from 1 ) response f a i l u r e , when a message can get through the communications channels, but t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e response, o r 2) channel f a i l u r e , when communication channels can't c a r r y the messages. I n o r d e r t o reduce these s t r e s s e s , p o l i t i c a l systems s c r e e n demands 76 as soon as p o s s i b l e . Gatekeepers are a way o f s c r e e n i n g demands. Incoming messages must pass through them t o be r e c e i v e d . There are gatekeepers at the p o i n t where wants become demands. F u r t h e r a l o n g i n the pro c e s s t h e r e are g a t e -keepers as w e l l . They may e l i m i n a t e demands, r e v i s e them, combine them, or send them on as th e y a r e . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e p l a n n e r s had channels through which i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be t r a n s m i t t e d . P u b l i c meetings and h e a r i n g s , p r o v i s i o n s f o r w r i t t e n i n p u t s , telephone c o n v e r s a -t i o n s , i n f o r m a l meetings were some o f these c h a n n e l s . Be-cause t h e r e was a l a r g e amount o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a l a r g e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n about the A l p i n e Lakes are generated i n the p a s t , the p l a n n e r s had to develop a network which c o u l d handle a l o t o f i n f o r m a t i o n . A l o t o f people knew about and were i n t e r e s t e d i n the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , and the p l a n n e r s had to do what they c o u l d t o reduce s t r e s s due to o v e r l o a d as w e l l as the oth e r two k i n d s o f s t r e s s men-t i o n e d above. Through gatekeeping the v a r i e t y o f demands, many o f them c o n f l i c t i n g , c o u l d be handled more r e a d i l y . The important i s s u e s t o l o o k at are a) what k i n d s o f communi-c a t i o n channels were used, b) d i d they perform s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n t r a n s m i t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , c) who performed the ga t e k e e p i n g f u n c t i o n , d) how was i n f o r m a t i o n screened, e) how w e l l c o u l d the o r g a n i z a t i o n e v a l u a t e i t s performance through feedback. 77 The i n f o r m a t i o n which an o r g a n i z a t i o n can  generate i t s e l f o r r e t r i e v e from i t s memory  depends on the r e s o u r c e s at the d i s p o s a l o f  o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n , Among these r e s o u r c e s  are persons who p r o v i d e a d v i c e . These  a d v i s o r s may a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s d i r e c t l y . The r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e a f f e c t e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t i n g c a p a b i l i t y . These r e s o u r c e s i n c l u d e d the three-man study team and the s u p p o r t i n g s t a f f , the s c i e n -t i f i c , computer, s o c i a l s c i e n c e , and c a r t o g r a p h i c equipment and s k i l l s which c o u l d be drawn on, and the amount o f time p r o v i d e d f o r the study. The s t a f f r e s o u r c e s c o u l d be f u r -t h e r d e f i n e d by d e s c r i b i n g the t r a i n i n g and experie n c e o f p e r s o n n e l i n c l u d i n g s u p p o r t i n g s t a f f . I n some cases the r o l e o f the s u p p o r t i n g s t a f f w i l l be important when they have knowledge the study team doesn't have. T h e i r r o l e as a d v i s o r s has p o t e n t i a l t o a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s made by the study team. L i k e w i s e , study team a d v i c e may a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s by F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r s o r R e g i o n a l F o r e s t e r s . 3 One p o r t i o n o f McMeiken's survey o f p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s k r e l a t e s t o the r o l e o f a d v i s o r s . Snyder s a i d t h a t a d v i s o r s may e f f e c t i v e l y be de c i s i o n - m a k e r s . Because decision-makers depend on t h e i r a d v i s o r s f o r a d v i c e , the a d v i s o r s may be making d e c i s i o n s s i m p l y through the a c t o f g i v i n g a d v i c e and 5 the k i n d o f a d v i c e they g i v e , M a c l v e r r e p o r t e d a s i m i l a r «* McMexken, P u b l i c H e a l t h P r o f e s s i o n a l ? and the Environment, Snyder i n McMeiken, o£, c i t , M a c l v e r , " M u n i c i p a l Water Supply i n the Grand R i v e r B a s i n " i n S e w e l l and Burton, P e r c e p t i o n s and A t t i t u d e s i n Resources  Management, 78 phenomenon i n h i s study o f people i n v o l v e d i n a water s u p p l y d e c i s i o n i n O n t a r i o . One group he s t u d i e d i n c l u d e d people whom he c a l l e d r e g i o n a l s c i e n t i s t s . They knew l i t t l e about water supp l y , so they depended on o t h e r s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s r e f l e c t e d the p r e f e r e n c e s o f the group from they got t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n . That group was the group which had been most h i g h l y p u b l i c i z e d . P e r s o n n e l w i t h i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e who are i n an a d v i s o r y c a p a c i t y may e f f e c t i v e l y make d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e i r d ecision-maker s u p e r i o r s . They may be more f a m i l i a r w i t h the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , w i t h the p u b l i c i n p u t and w i t h o t h e r r e l e -vant d a t a . T h e i r a d v i c e and a n a l y s e s w i l l tend to be the c h i e f i n p u t i n t o d e c i s i o n s made by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . P a r t i e s o u t s i d e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e may p r o v i d e a d v i c e and i n f o r m a t i o n o f s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i t y or accompanied by s u f f i c i e n t p r e s s u r e t h a t t h e i r i n p u t makes a d e c i s i o n f o r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . The a d v i c e may come from p a r t i e s who have a l o t o f p o l i t i c a l power and can't be e a s i l y i g n o r e d . I t may s i m p l y r e l a t e t o an a r e a about which the F o r e s t S e r v i c e doesn't have s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , which o b l i g a t e s i t t o depend on o t h e r s f o r a d v i c e . Questions to be asked are a) what were the r e s o u r c e s at the d i s p o s a l o f the p l a n n e r s , b) were t h e r e any r e s o u r c e l i m i t a t i o n s , c) who p r o v i d e d a d v i c e , d) how d i d t h i s a d v i c e a f f e c t decision-makers i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . The a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f o f f i c i a l s as  r e l a t e d t o the k i n d of i n f o r m a t i o n generated  and r e t r i e v e d by t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n , and  t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward and p e r c e p t i o n s o f  the p u b l i c and o t h e r groups o u t s i d e t h e i r 79 o r g a n i z a t i o n and these people's views determine  how the o f f i c i a l s generate i n f o r m a t i o n and how  they r e c e i v e and pro c e s s i n p u t s from o u t s i d e . The way o f f i c i a l s l o o k at t h e i r environment, as d e s c r i b e d by t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s , determines what k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y f e e l i s important and, t h e r e f o r e , what the y generate and r e t r i e v e from r e c o r d s . L a t e r i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s , a f t e r i n f o r m a t i o n has been r e c e i v e d , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s a f f e c t what the y do w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n , what d e c i s i o n s t h e y make. Some s t u d i e s have been made o f the r o l e o f a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s i n d e c i s i o n s . J u s t as t h e i r v a l u e framework a f f e c t s the k i n d o f i n f o r m a -t i o n o f f i c i a l s produce, so i t a f f e c t s the way t h e y d e a l w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n from o u t s i d e . They l o o k at how t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n can be used i n a c h i e v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s . I n f o r m a t i o n from o u t s i d e i s f i t t e d i n t o t h e i r view o f the i s s u e b e i n g r e s o l v e d ; not a l l i n f o r m a t i o n sent i s all o w e d t o a f f e c t t h e i r d e c i s i o n , and not a l l i n f o r m a t i o n sent i s r e c e i v e d i n the same form as i t was s e n t . T h i s p r o c e s s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , dependent upon o f f i c i a l s ' a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s , d e t e r -mines how i n p u t s from o u t s i d e a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s . 6 G i l b e r t White suggests t h a t a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s can a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s i n t h r e e ways: 1) D i r e c t l y through the a t t i t u d e s o f people making d e c i s i o n s ; 2) Through t h e i r o p i n i o n s o f the p r e f e r e n c e s o f o t h e r s ; 3) Through t h e i r o p i n i o n s o f what the p r e f e r e n c e s o f ot h e r s s h o u l d be. White, "Formation and Role o f P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s " 80 These l a s t two ways mean t h a t the p u b l i c can a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s o n l y by a f f e c t i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . White l i s t s c o n c l u s i o n s about p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s , but some o f them a p p l y t o the a t t i -tudes o f o f f i c i a l s as w e l l . Some f a c t o r s which shape a t t i t u d e s a r e ; 1) The i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p e r i e n c e ! 2 ) The i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f h i s own r o l e : 3 ) The i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f h i s a b i l i t y t o d e a l w i t h the co m p l e x i t y o f the s i t u a t i o n ; 4 ) The i n d i v i d u a l ' s view o f man and n a t u r e : (a) Man's mastery over n a t u r e ; (b) Man's s u b j u g a t i o n t o n a t u r e ; (c) Man's harmony w i t h n a t u r e . These f a c t o r s h e l p e x p l a i n how the a t t i t u d e s o f p e r s o n n e l are formed, and th e y can be a p p l i e d t o F o r e s t S e r v i c e s t a f f working on the A l p i n e Lakes d e c i s i o n . White's comments about a t t i t u d e s and how t h e i r e f f e c t must go through decision—makers can be r e l a t e d t o Easton's concept o f gatekeepers, used i n the model. The a t t i t u d e s o f the decision-makers and the way they r e c e i v e i n p u t s about p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s determine how a t t i t u d e s a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s . The d e c i s i o n o f gatekeepers on whether t o l e t a demand pass through, t o change i t or t o r e j e c t i t i s based on the a t t i -tudes o f the per s o n o r persons p e r f o r m i n g the gatekee p i n g f u n c t i o n and on t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s . Demands must have some impact t o get past gatekeepers and to a f f e c t d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s , and the f a c t o r s mentioned above p l a c e l i m i t s on the impact a demand can have. One d i f f i c u l t y f a c i n g the p u b l i c i n t r y i n g t o a f f e c t decision-makers i s c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e , a pr o c e s s whereby decision-makers w i l l not r e c e i v e c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n which i s s t r a n g e t o t h e i r 81 way of seeing things or information with which they disagree. Cognitive dissonance is one way gatekeepers and decision-makers have of reacting to certain unfavorable demands. In this discussion of White's study of attitudes i t should be remembered that the same factors which affect o f f i c i a l s ' values affect public values. Another factor can be included i n looking at public attitudes; the decision situation ( i . e . the socia l and p o l i t i c a l climate). Likewise two conclusions haven't been mentioned; 1) Different people may view the same environment di f ferently . 2) Concern for environmental quality w i l l vary among people. Understanding these two factors and the others l i s t ed ear l ier i s one of the d i f f i -cult ies that decision-makers face in analyzing public attitudes. » 7 Kates' study of perception and choices of flood pla in residents and of technical personnel involved i n flood pla in management describes differences between perceptions of residents and perceptions of technical personnel. He found residents tended to base their perceptions on their own experiences i n their part icular area. They didn't accept information about floods more severe than any they had experienced, and they didn't feel a need to learn from floods i n other locations. Technical personnel had a broader base of information which they added to their personal experience. From this broader base they had a willingness to consider a wider range of alternatives and 7 Kates, Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain  Management. 82 a more p r e c i s e knowledge o f the d e t a i l s o f the v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s . R e s i d e n t s would b e n e f i t from b e t t e r i n f o r m a t i o n , Kates f e e l s , but o n l y i f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n d i d n ' t make the s i t u a t i o n too complex or too s i m p l i s t i c . They c o u l d n ' t d e a l w i t h a l a r g e range o f a l t e r n a t i v e s , but too s i m p l i s t i c a d e s c r i p t i o n would render t h e i r a t t i t u d e s u n r e a l i s t i c . The o b j e c t o f any i n f o r m a t i o n exchange w i t h r e s i d e n t s would be t o h e l p them see beyond t h e i r own p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e . O f f i c i a l s may have a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f l o o d hazard, but Kates p r e s e n t s l i t t l e evidence t h a t t h e y h e l p e d r e s i d e n t s understand the s i t u a t i o n b e t t e r . I n f o r m a t i o n was o f t e n too complex f o r r e s i d e n t s t o under-stand or to want to understand. Kates f e e l s t h e r e was a need f o r t e c h n i c a l p e r s o n n e l to develop i n f o r m a t i o n which would h e l p the p u b l i c ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f l o o d h a z a r d . One p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t the t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g and the r e s p o n -s i b i l i t y o f t h e i r o f f i c e may l e a d o f f i c i a l s t o see t h e i r work i n terms o f s o l v i n g problems. They may want t o do a b e t t e r job than r e s i d e n t s f e e l i s n e c e s s a r y . They may have a g r e a t e r d e s i r e to c o n s t r u c t t h i n g s than r e s i d e n t s have. I f t h i s i s the case, r e s i d e n t s may be s k e p t i c a l about o f f i c i a l s . The v a r i e t y of ways r e s i d e n t s had f o r i g n o r i n g f l o o d h a z a r d or f o r e x c l u d i n g themselves from danger l e d t o decreased i n t e r e s t i n c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f p r o t e c t i o n measures. Only i n areas o f h i g h c e r t a i n t y o f h a z a r d d i d r e s i d e n t s accept the p r o b a b i l i t y of h a v i n g to bear f u t u r e 83 l o s s e s * Kates concludes t h a t t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s demonstrated r a t i o n a l i t y bounded by the l i m i t s of* t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e , and dependent on the r e l a t i v e c e r t a i n t y or u n c e r t a i n t y o f f l o o d -i n g . L e t t i n g themselves be l i m i t e d t o p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e and not b e n e f i t i n g from the broader u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t e c h n i c a l o f f i c i a l s had reduced the q u a l i t y o f messages t h a t r e s i d e n t s c o u l d send. E m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s g o f o f f i c i a l s are o f i n t e r e s t h e r e . S e w e l l s t u d i e d a t t i t u d e s o f P u b l i c H e a l t h o f f i c i a l s and o f engineers i n B r i t i s h Columbia, F a c t o r s which he found i n f l u e n c e d a t t i t u d e s were l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , number o f p o s i t i o n s h e l d , view o f man as s u p e r i o r or i n f e r i o r t o n a t u r e , and p r o f e s s i o n a l background. C o n s u l t i n g engineers d i f f e r e d from government e n g i n e e r s , and P u b l i c H e a l t h i n s p e c t o r s d i f f e r e d from M e d i c a l H e a l t h O f f i c e r s , These f i n d i n g s support some o f G i l b e r t White's c o n c l u s i o n s about the f o r m a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s . An important p a r t o f the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f o f f i c i a l s i s t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward p u b l i c involvement. When f a c e d w i t h h y p o t h e t i c a l d e c i s i o n s n e i t h e r the e ngineers S e w e l l s t u d i e d n o r the P u b l i c H e a l t h O f f i c i a l s s a i d t h e y would t r u s t a group o f j u s t s c i e n t i s t s , j u s t p o l i t i c i a n s , o r j u s t laymen; t h e y p r e f e r r e d a mixed group. But Sewell f e e l s , 8 S e w e l l , " I n t e g r a t i n g P u b l i c Views i n P l a n n i n g and P o l i c y Making" i n Sewell and Burton, o£. c i t . 8k The r e s u l t s show t h a t some o f the o f f i c i a l s were not e s p e c i a l l y anxious to i n v o l v e e i t h e r the g e n e r a l p u b l i c or o t h e r a g e n c i e s , except i n a r a t h e r c u r s o r y c o n s u l t a t i v e capacity,, • P u b l i c involvement', suggested one o f them •makes d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g cumbersome and i n e f -f i c i e n t , and perhaps even impossible,, 1 I n a d d i t i o n most o f the P u b l i c H e a l t h o f f i c i a l s were convinced t h a t they s h o u l d occupy the key p r o f e s s i o n a l r o l e i n d e a l i n g w i t h e n v i r o n -mental q u a l i t y problems. ° Other s t u d i e s examined how these a t t i t u d e s a f f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t i o n or use o f the i n f o r m a t i o n generated Maclver s t u d i e d the p e r c e p t i o n s o f o f f i c i a l s i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n s about water s u p p l y i n p a r t o f O n t a r i o . He found t h a t the p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p a r t i c u l a r s o l u t i o n s were c o r r e l a t e d v e r y c l o s e l y w i t h the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g o f the o f f i c i a l s . R i v e r managers p r e f e r r e d t o get water from the r i v e r , those f a m i l i a r w i t h groundwater p r e f e r r e d t o use groundwater, and the O n t a r i o Water Resources C o u n c i l f e l t a p i p e l i n e from one o f the Great Lakes was the b e s t s o l u t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n a g i v e n i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g r a r e l y d i f f e r e d . M a c l ver a l s o found t h a t d i f f e r e n t groups c o u l d use the same c r i t e r i a - c o s t o f s u p p l y , l e n g t h o f time t h a t the s o l u t i o n worked, and the r e g i o n a l n a t u r e o f the s o l u t i o n -and a r r i v e at d i f f e r e n t s o l u t i o n s . They f i t t e d the c r i t e r i a and the i n f o r m a t i o n used i n the d e c i s i o n t o t h e i r own p e r c e p t i o n s , M a c l v e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was no s t r o n g sentiment f o r p u b l i c involvement. Perhaps o f f i c i a l s f e l t the e x i s t i n g McMeiken, 0 £ . c i t . , p. 63, 85 system o f communications was adequate, M a c l v e r f e l t t h e r e were i n f o r m a t i o n gaps between groups o f o f f i c i a l s and between these groups and the p u b l i c . Having a n a l y s e s done by one agency l e d to i g n o r i n g c e r t a i n a l t e r n a t i v e s , such as c o n s e r v i n g more o f the e x i s t i n g water s u p p l y and u s i n g i t b e t t e r . The experience of F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l , the way t h e y view t h e i r r o l e and t h e i r a b i l i t y t o perform i t , and t h e i r view about man and n a t u r e a f f e c t e d the k i n d o f i n f o r m a -t i o n t h e y f e l t was important i n the A l p i n e Lakes d e c i s i o n . T h i s i n c l u d e d i n f o r m a t i o n they generated themselves and i n f o r m a t i o n they r e c e i v e d from o u t s i d e . What the y see as the important problems to s o l v e and the c h o i c e s f o r s o l v i n g them i s determined by the v a l u e s they h o l d . P a r t o f t h i s comes from t h e i r experience i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , The o r g a n i z a t i o n , l i k e many o r g a n i z a t i o n s , can h e l p determine some o f the v a l u e s i t s members h o l d . From the b e g i n n i n g o f the study team's work on the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a the F o r e s t S e r v i c e committed i t s e l f t o i n v o l v i n g the p u b l i c i n i t s d e c i s i o n s . There were c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t groups, i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n s t s , members o f the f o r e s t p r o d u c t s i n d u s t r y , and others who made i n p u t s . Because these people came from v a r y -i n g backgrounds and e x p e r i e n c e s , the F o r e s t S e r v i c e had t o t r y t o understand how the a t t i t u d e s were formed t o make use o f the i n p u t s . I t i s important to l o o k at a) what the ex p e r i e n c e o f the p l a n n e r s was, b) what t h e i r v a l u e s about land-use management, r e c r e a t i o n , w i l d e r n e s s , and o t h e r i s s u e s 86 a r e , c) how these a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s may have been formed din p a r t by t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , d) i n v e r y g e n e r a l terms what f a c t o r s shaped p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s e) what the range o f these a t t i t u d e s was, f ) what o f f i c i a l s 1 f e e l i n g about groups and i n d i v i d u a l s o u t s i d e t h e i r o r g a n i z a -t i o n and about t h e i r v i e w s . a r e , g) how much d i s p a r i t y t h e r e was between the views o f these o u t s i d e r s and the views o f the p l a n n e r s , h) how open the p l a n n e r s were t o views which d i f f e r e d from o f f i c i a l F o r e s t S e r v i c e views or p r o p o s a l s , i ) how w e l l the p l a n n e r s seem t o have understood how p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s were formed and what the y a r e , j ) how t h e i r v a l u e s appear t o have a f f e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n generated and r e t r i e v e d by the p l a n n e r s , k) how t h e i r v a l u e s a f f e c t e d the way the p l a n n e r s r e c e i v e d i n p u t s from o u t s i d e . The l e g a l framework, r e g u l a t i o n s . p r o c e d u r e s . and p o l i c i e s w i t h i n which an o r g a n i z a t i o n must  operate h e l p d e f i n e the goals o f the o r g a n i z a -t i o n , the k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n i t produces, and  a framework i n t o which i n p u t s from o u t s i d e are  f i t t e d . Some of these r u l e s can be e x p l a i n e d  by s t u d y i n g how b u r e a u c r a c i e s o p e r a t e . Government o r g a n i z a t i o n s are c r e a t e d through laws or> e x e c u t i v e o r d e r s , and some d e t a i l s o f t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s are d e f i n e d by these o r subsequent laws o r o r d e r s . I n d i v i d u a l s i n important p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n o r i n d i v i d u a l o r groups o u t s i d e the o r g a n i z a t i o n e s t a b l i s h p o l i c i e s and procedures which f u r t h e r c o n s t r a i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . These c o n s t r a i n t s c o n s t i t u t e a framework w i t h i n which the o r g a n i z a t i o n has freedom© 87 The i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g which c o n s t r a i n e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team was d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I I . To supplement the d i s c u s s i o n o f the e x i s t i n g r u l e s , some o f the p e r t i n e n t t h e o r e t i c a l m a t e r i a l on b u r e a u c r a t i c b e h a v i o r i s examined below. Anthony Downs^ l i s t s seven b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f b u r e a u c r a c i e s . 1) A h i e r a r c h y e x i s t s i n order to be a b l e to r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s ; 2) A h i e r a r c h i c a l system f o r communicat-i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , u s u a l l y the same as the c o n f l i c t - r e s o l v i n g h i e r a r c h y , gets i n f o r m a t i o n to the r i g h t person q u i c k l y ; 3) Formal r u l e s are needed t o c o - o r d i n a t e complex a c t i v i t i e s and to assure u n i f o r m b e h a v i o r w i t h o u t s i d e r s ; k) I n f o r m a l d e v i c e s which are c r e a t e d t o serve the p e r s o n a l needs o f members become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d ; 5) Operations are imper-s o n a l due to r u l e s and t e c h n i c a l a t t r i b u t e s o f the work done; 6) There i s p e r s o n a l l o y a l t y and involvement, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n h i g h e r l e v e l s ; 7) There are i n f o r m a l p e r s o n a l communication networks t o improve f l e x i b i l i t y . These seven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a c c o r d i n g t o Downs, are n e c e s s a r y f o r the o p e r a t i o n o f b u r e a u c r a c i e s . However, t h e y s h o u l d a l s o be seen as con-s t r a i n t s on what b u r e a u c r a c i e s can do. What the F o r e s t S e r v i c e c o u l d do i n the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a was governed by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the b u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e . Downs a s s e r t s t h a t b u r e a u c r a c i e s pose l i m i t a t i o n s on the e f f i c i e n c y o f i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w . These l i m i t a t i o n s a c t as s e r i o u s c o n s t r a i n t on what k i n d s o f d e c i s i o n s can emerge from b u r e a u c r a c i e s , e s p e c i a l l y when they are l a r g e . The ^°Downs, I n s i d e Bureaucracy. 88 g r e a t e r the volume o f i n f o r m a t i o n , the g r e a t e r the u n i t c o s t o f h a n d l i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n . There are g r e a t e r d e l a y s i n making d e c i s i o n s , t h e r e i s p o o r e r c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n s , and t h e r e are more p e r s o n n e l and r e s o u r c e s used p e r u n i t output. The g r e a t e r the i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h people and groups o u t s i d e the b u r e a u c r a c y the h i g h e r the c o s t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . Because budgets are always l i m i t e d , t h e r e i s a tendency t o keep c o s t s down. One way to accomplish t h i s i s t o reduce the volume o f i n f o r m a t i o n handled. D e c i s i o n s can be a f f e c t e d by l o w e r i n g the volume o f i n f o r m a t i o n handled to reduce c o s t s . R e l a t e d to the comments o f Downs i s the f a c t t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s a government o r g a n i z a t i o n , not a b u s i n e s s o r p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Lyden p o s i t s t h a t government o r g a n i -z a t i o n s have c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i f f e r from those o f b u s i n e s s o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The d i f f e r e n c e s may e x i s t because government o r g a n i z a t i o n s have more i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o t h e r s , and t h e y l a c k a p r o f i t motive to make them i n n o v a t i v e . He c a u t i o n e d , however, a g a i n s t j u d g i n g a government o r g a n i z a t i o n by i t s f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e . The f o r m a l i z e d b u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e o f r e l a -t i o n s h i p s serves l e s s as a network f o r d e c i s i o n -making than as a means o f l e g i t i m a t i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g d e c i s i o n s made i n more i n f o r m a l ^ * (and f r e q u e n t l y c l i e n t co-opted) r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The r u l e s p l a y an important p a r t i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i t seeks to do, what i t s g o a l s a r e . Lyden, "De c i s i o n - F l o w A n a l y s i s : A Methodology f o r S t u d y i n g the P u b l i c P o l i c y - M a k i n g P r o c e s s " i n LeBreton, et a l . , Comparative A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Theory, p. 1h2, 89 I t cannot n o r m a l l y seek to do more than the r u l e s a l l o w i t t o do. Achievement o f these g o a l s i s one r e a s o n f o r g e n e r a t i n g and r e t r i e v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . L i k e w i s e i n f o r m a t i o n from out-s i d e has t o be used t o achieve g o a l s . Only i n f o r m a t i o n which can h e l p the o r g a n i z a t i o n a c h i e v e i t s g o a l s w i l l be seen as r e l e v a n t . I t i s understandable t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n which con-f l i c t s w i t h these goals w i l l not be r e c e i v e d as r e a d i l y as i n f o r m a t i o n which supports them. S e v e r a l o f the laws, r e g u l a t i o n s , p o l i c i e s and procedures used by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e have a l r e a d y been d e s c r i b e d . B e i n g a bureaucracy, the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has the b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s o f b u r e a u c r a c i e s and i s f o r c e d t o operate w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e has to behave as a government o r g a n i z a t i o n , not a b u s i n e s s o r g a n i z a -t i o n . F o r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e the problem o f r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n which c o n f l i c t s w i t h i t s g o a l s can be complex. M u l t i p l e - u s e means t h a t g o a l s i n c l u d e p r o v i d i n g timber, water, i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n , w i l d e r n e s s , and g r a z i n g . These g o a l s are d e f i n e d by the r u l e s o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and the a t t i t u d e s o f important o f f i c i a l s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Inputs from advocates o f any s i n g l e one o f these goals or o f o t h e r g o a l s have t o be f i t t e d i n t o the m u l t i p l e - u s e framework. These f a c t o r s c o n s t r a i n e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n the p r o c e s s o f d e c i d i n g what t o do i n the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . Some i s s u e s to examine are a) how the l e g a l and p o l i c y c o n s t r a i n t s p l a c e d on the F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e l a t e d t o the d e c i s i o n about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , b) how the b u r e a u c r a t i c 90 nature of the group of personnel working on the decision can be described, c) how these rules can be used to i n f e r the goals of the organization, d) what procedures are provided i n the rules f o r handling inputs from outside, e) what d i f f e r -ences there were between the goals of the planners and the goals of those making inputs, f ) how the various rules af f e c t e d what kind of information was generated and r e t r i e v e d and how they affected the way inputs from outside were i n t e r -preted, g) how much the r e l a t i v e importance of rules and of the attitudes and perceptions of the planners i n a f f e c t i n g the generation of information and the re c e i p t and i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n of inputs from outside can be evaluated, h) how much the goals and rules were defined at higher l e v e l s i n the Forest Service and how much they were defined at the l e v e l of the l o c a l planners. The same factors which a f f e c t what kind of  information i s generated, r e t r i e v e d , or  received by an organization a f f e c t what  kinds of outputs are appropriate f o r the  organization. A l l of these factors have been discussed. Since they f i t i nto the objectives of the organization, they determine what kind of responses to inputs are appropriate. The out-puts are both a r e s u l t of i n t e r p r e t i n g inputs already received and a way of i n f l u e n c i n g what kinds of new inputs w i l l be received. They are an organization's attempt to reduce stress while guiding the decision process i n the general d i r e c t i o n of organizational goals. The r e l a t i o n of outputs to the work of Forest Service personnel i n the Alpine 91 Lakes a r e a has a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d . The f a c t o r s which shape outputs have a l s o been d i s c u s s e d . The r e l a t i o n between these f a c t o r s and the outputs i s an a p p r o p r i a t e a r e a o f study. Questions to examine a r e : a) what were the r e l a t i v e r o l e s o f a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f the p l a n n e r s and the r u l e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outputs t o the p u b l i c and t o o t h e r government o r g a n i z a t i o n s , b) d i d the outputs l e a d the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e f f e c t i v e l y t o the achievement o f the p l a n n e r s ' g o a l s , c) what k i n d s o f new i n p u t s were generated by these o u t p u t s . Because the g o a l s o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n u s u a l l y  are d i f f e r e n t from those o f o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s  and i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n a d e c i s i o n , the  groups have t o b a r g a i n . They attempt t o  r e s o l v e t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s by exchanging i n p u t s  and outputs over a p e r i o d of time. O r g a n i z a t i o n s have g o a l s they hope to a c h i e v e . N o r m a l l y they don't l e t o u t s i d e r s d i c t a t e these g o a l s u n l e s s they have power over the o r g a n i z a t i o n . However, when the y have to share power or i n f l u e n c e over m a t t e r s , t h e i r g o a l s may con-f l i c t w i t h the g o a l s o f o t h e r s . Each o r g a n i z a t i o n has t o g i v e up a l i t t l e i n o r d e r t o achieve a compromise. Whenever power i s shared, b a r g a i n i n g i s a n e c e s s a r y p a r t o f the d e c i -s i o n p r o c e s s . I n the case o f the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a the F o r e s t S e r v i c e shares power and i n f l u e n c e w i t h the p u b l i c and w i t h o t h e r a g e n c i e s . I n u s i n g a communications model one c o u l d t r e a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e as a n e u t r a l r e c e p t o r f o r i n f o r m a t i o n generated by the p u b l i c , Timothy O'Riordan d i s p u t e s t h i s i d e a . He l i s t s f a c t o r s l i m i t i n g people's c l e a r e x p r e s s i o n and p o l i t i c a l a r t i c u l a t i o n o f p u b l i c p r e f e r e n c e s as to the 92 12 q u a l i t y of environment they vant," 1) People don't act u n t i l they are d i r e c t l y affected. 2) People don't help each other unless they f e e l commonly affected. 3) People can t o l e r a t e gradually worsening s i t u a t i o n s . 4) People are unaware of the interconnections of actions i n the environment; they w i l l p o l l u t e and demand a better environment at the same time. 5) People discount future uncertainties i n favour of immediate gains. 6) People postpone d i f f i c u l t decisions, leave them to p o l i t i c i a n s , and are often disappointed with the r e s u l t s . 7) People play several r o l e s simultaneously, and these may confli c t o Because of these factors O'Riordan f e e l s a theory of decisions s t a r t i n g from the public and moving upward to decision-makers i s f a u l t y . Rather, decisions involve c o n f l i c t between decision-makers and c e r t a i n groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . F i n a l decisions are ar r i v e d at through bargaining among these actors. The Forest Service i s a receptor f o r inputs and an emitter of outputs. The idea of bargaining has to be i n -cluded i n the model. By l i s t i n g three a l t e r n a t i v e s within a c e r t a i n range the Forest Service stated i t s p o s i t i o n on management of the Alpine Lakes area. Through bargaining with various i n t e r e s t groups, i n which both the i n t e r e s t groups and the Forest Service modified t h e i r p o s i t i o n s , a f i n a l proposal was prepared by the Forest Service, The Forest Service i s not simply a neutral receptor of demands 1 2 O'Riordan, "Towards A Strategy of Public Involvement" i n Sewell and Burton, op, c i t , , p, 107 • 93 from the p u b l i c , p r o c e s s i n g and e v a l u a t i n g them t o a r r i v e at a consensus o f what the p u b l i c s a y s . I t i s an agency w i t h i n s i g h t s and p e r c e p t i o n s about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , and i t b a r g a i n e d w i t h the p u b l i c . S i m i l a r l y , w i t h i n and among groups and i n d i v i d u a l s i n the p u b l i c t h e r e was b a r g a i n i n g . Because the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n have a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s , t h e r e was a need f o r b a r g a i n -ingo The aim o f b a r g a i n i n g i s t o maximize the correspondence between messages sent and messages r e c e i v e d . The important q u e s t i o n s are a) how much power or i n f l u e n c e over the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a d i d o t h e r s share w i t h the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p l a n n e r s , b) how l a r g e were the d i f f e r e n c e s between these groups when the study team began i t s work, c) how much d i d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and the o t h e r s concede i n o r d e r t o r e a c h a more s a t i s f a c t o r y s i t u a t i o n f o r a l l , d) what d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups s t i l l e x i s t a f t e r the b a r -g a i n i n g p r o c e s s , e) was the b a r g a i n i n g s a t i s f a c t o r y t o the major p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . The p r o c e s s which has been o u t l i n e d above l e a d s from the f i r s t work o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team,and the i n v o l v e -ment o f the p u b l i c and o f o t h e r government agencies to the f i n a l p r o p o s a l t o be sent t o Congress. Once the p r o p o s a l goes to Congress, a s e p a r a t e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s b e g i n s . Many o f the same p a r t i e s may be i n v o l v e d , but the p a r t i e s u l t i -m a tely making the d e c i s i o n , the Congress and the P r e s i d e n t , a r e d i f f e r e n t from those d i s c u s s e d above. What goes on a f t e r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s p r o p o s a l has been f i n a l i z e d i s not covered by t h i s model. 9k B. The Methods Used to Apply the Model In attempting to f i n d what factors affected the Forest Service planners i n t h e i r d ecision about the Alpine Lakes area, two sources of information were used. Documents were read and interviews were conducted. The research was intended to answer the questions r a i s e d i n the discussionnof the model. 1 ) Documents It was o r i g i n a l l y hoped that some correspondence f i l e s could be reviewed to see how outside groups and i n d i v i d u a l s interacted with the Forest Service planners. Apparently i n the o f f i c e of the Snoqualmie National Forest any cor-respondence was f i l e d as an input to the decision process. These were a l l coded using the Forest Service's Codinvolve technique. Because the f i l e s i n the o f f i c e were being rearranged or were i n the basement, i t was deemed im p r a c t i c a l to go through the f i l e of inputs. No other f i l e s with cor-respondence could be located. The other documents were avail a b l e to the p u b l i c . They included reports by the Forest Service and i n t e r e s t groups, journal published by some of the i n t e r e s t groups, the North Cascades Study Report, some manuals o u t l i n i n g Forest Service procedures and p o l i c i e s , and newspaper f i l e s . These docu-ments were intended to provide background information on the h i s t o r y of the area, the viewpoints and type of involve-ment of some of the i n t e r e s t groups, the issues which were being discussed, the way the Forest Service normally con-ducts i t s business. Some of these materials were already 95 d i s c u s s e d i n Part I I , The r e s t of* the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d background f o r the i n t e r v i e w s and supplemented them i n some cases by f i l l i n g i n d e t a i l s o r v e r i f y i n g some i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d i n the i n t e r v i e w s . The i n t e r v i e w s were the prime source o f i n f o r m a t i o n about how the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s worked, 2) I n t e r v i e w s With Informed I n d i v i d u a l s The b a s i c purpose o f the i n t e r v i e w s was to p r o v i d e some i n f o r m a t i o n which c o u l d h e l p answer the q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n the d i s c u s s i o n o f the model. A l l the persons i n t e r v i e w e d were i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s , so the i n t e n t was t o f i n d out from s e v e r a l p o i n t s o f view what people thought had happened. What k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n d i d the p l a n n e r s c o l -l e c t on t h e i r own, what i n f o r m a t i o n d i d they r e c e i v e from o u t s i d e , how d i d they compile a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n and a r r i v e at a d e c i s i o n , which persons, groups, and events i n f l u e n c e d the p l a n n e r s t o behave the way the y d i d ? A l l o f the people i n t e r v i e w e d were members o f some o r g a n i z a t i o n or i n t e r e s t group working on the A l p i n e Lakes d e c i s i o n . No u n a f f i l i a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s were i n t e r v i e w e d . Nine people from the F o r e s t S e r v i c e were i n t e r v i e w e d . These i n c l u d e d t h r e e r a n g e r s i n d i s t r i c t s a f f e c t e d by the A l p i n e Lakes study, two o f the t h r e e o r i g i n a l members o f the study team and a man who j o i n e d the study team l a t e r on to r e p l a c e one o f the o r i g i n a l members, both F o r e s t Super-v i s o r s , and a man on the s t a f f i n the r e g i o n a l o f f i c e i n P o r t l a n d , 96 Three members of the Alpine Lakes C o a l i t i o n were i n t e r -viewed* One was a representative of the Burlington Northern Railroad, one was a former representative of the I n d u s t r i a l Forestry Association, and the other represented the Western Horsemen's Association* Six members of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society were interviewed. These included people involved inrthe founding of ALPS and the president of ALPS. Two members of the C o a l i t i o n of Conservation Groups were interviewed. One was a member of the Mountaineers and several other member groups of the C o a l i t i o n . She was interviewed by telephone. The other person was the p r e s i -dent of the North Cascades Conservation Council. Three members of the Governor's Task Force on Wilderness were interviewed. One was the co-ordinator of the Task Force, one was a county commissioner who was a member of the Task Force, and one was a representative of the O f f i c e of P o l i c y Planning and F i s c a l Management, a state agency. The interviews were conducted between Ju l y 29, 1974 and August 26, 1974. Most of them were 1-g- hours to 2 hours long. At f i r s t glance there appears to be a preponderance of members of ALPS who were interviewed. However, i n some cases two people were interviewed together, so that one interview might a c t u a l l y be counted as two. I f ..any improve-ment were to be suggested i n the group of persons interviewed, i t would be to interview a few more members of the Alpine 97 Lakes C o a l i t i o n , perhaps one more representative of industry and one or two representatives of intensive recreation groups. The persons to be interviewed were i n i t i a l l y chosen on the basis of recommendations by Dick Buscher, the leader of the Forest Service study team. He suggested rangers who headed d i s t r i c t s i n the Alpine Lakes, but who also had d i f -ferent feelings about management of the area. He and J o e l Dahlin, one of the members of the study team, f e l t that they and these rangers and the two supervisors could present the Forest Service's point of view adequately. One representa-t i v e of the regional o f f i c e was also recommended. Two members of the Alpine Lakes C o a l i t i o n were recom-mended. From them a few more names of persons who might be h e l p f u l were obtained. One was selected to provide a view from the C o a l i t i o n but not d i r e c t l y a f f i l i a t e d with the forest products industry. Three members of ALPS were recommended. They were f e l t to represent some of the d i f f e r i n g views within ALPS. From them several other names were obtained, and those who i t was f e l t could provide u s e f u l a d d i t i o n a l information were selected. Some attempt was made to cover both sides of the Cascades• One representative of the C o a l i t i o n of Conservation Groups was recommended, and he was interviewed very b r i e f l y on the phone. From him the other two names were obtained. They were interviewed because i t was f e l t that ALPS and the C o a l i t i o n of Conservation Groups represented d i f f e r e n t 98 s t r a t e g i e s and a t t i t u d e s about the ar e a and because the two groups each had t h e i r own l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l . Two o f the members o f the Governor's Task Force were recommended by Dick Buscher. T h e i r group r e p r e s e n t e d another government agency i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n . The t h i r d member had been c o n t a c t e d p r i o r t o t a l k i n g w i t h Dick Buscher. I n s e l e c t i n g these persons t h e r e was not a s t r i c t attempt t o balance the v a r y i n g v i e w p o i n t s . I n t e r v i e w i n g a d d i t i o n a l persons from one group d i d not simply mean adding -one more vote f o r t h a t v i e w p o i n t . The i n t e n t was to s u p p l e -ment i n f o r m a t i o n a l r e a d y p r o v i d e d by o t h e r members o f t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n . I f the c o n c l u s i o n s which w i l l f o l l o w seem to support some v i e w p o i n t s more than o t h e r s , i t i s not si m p l y a m atter o f how many people were i n t e r v i e w e d from each o r g a n i z a t i o n . The i n t e r v i e w s were s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d . There was a l i s t o f g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s which were t o be answered. Some o f these were not a p p r o p r i a t e to some o f the groups. From these b a s i c q u e s t i o n s s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s which were s u i t e d t o the p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r v i e w were developed. I f the i n t e r v i e w s t e e r e d i n a d i r e c t i o n not a n t i c i p a t e d but deemed worthwhile, the d i r e c t i o n was pursued. An attempt t o m a i n t a i n some i n f o r m a l i t y was made, w h i l e s t i l l k e e p i n g the b a s i c o u t l i n e o f q u e s t i o n s i n mind, A few times q u e s t i o n s which i t was f e l t would have been too o f f e n s i v e or p r o b i n g were omi t t e d . One a r e a o f q u e s t i o n i n g has not been d i s c u s s e d at l e n g t h . I t i s mentioned here because an attempt was made t o 99 pursue t h i s a r e a w i t h a i l F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l . I t covered t h r e e g e n e r a l areas r e l a t i n g t o the i n s i g h t s o f the p l a n n e r s . F i r s t the p h i l o s o p h y o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e w i t h r e l a t i o n t o c o n s e r v a t i o n and l a n d use was i n v e s t i g a t e d . T h i s i n c l u d e d t h e i r i d e a s on s i t u a t i o n s when " m u l t i p l e use" i s a p p l i c a b l e , whether i t i s p r i m a r i l y a means o f f i t t i n g o t h e r uses around a need f o r timber h a r v e s t i n g , the economic t h r e a t posed t o l o g g i n g by c r e a t i n g w i l d e r n e s s a r e a s , the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f s i n g l e use management i n c l u d i n g uses ot h e r than l o g g i n g and w i l d e r n e s s , the need f o r f u r t h e r w i l d e r n e s s l a n d , the need f o r l a n d f o r o t h e r k i n d s o f r e c r e a t i o n , the f l e x i b i l i t y o f a t t i t u d e s o f c o n s e r v a t i o n groups, and t h e i r view o f man i n r e l a t i o n t o n a t u r e . These areas o f q u e s t i o n i n g i n d i c a t e d t o some extent how the p l a n n e r s t r i e d t o balance v a r i o u s demands f o r use o f the l a n d , how they viewed economic use o f the l a n d i n r e l a t i o n to e s t h e t i c use o f the l a n d . Second was the p a t t e r n o f r e c r e a t i o n o r r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t s t h a t F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l have. The k i n d o f r e c r e a t i o n they enjoy on weekends and h o l i d a y , t h e i r r e c r e a -t i o n a l v i s i t s t o Wilderness Areas, the e f f e c t o f spending a l o t o f time i n the f o r e s t s on t h e i r r e c r e a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s , and the r e l a t i o n between t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n w i l d e r n e s s and t h e i r work were s t u d i e d . These q u e s t i o n s supplemented the f i r s t s e t by showing how w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d the i n t e r e s t i n w i l d e r n e s s o f these people was. 100 Third, the views of Forest Service personnel toward research i n forest and water management was probed. Their views of the important problems to be researched i n land and water management, the kinds of land areas to be studied, the need f o r p r a c t i c a l versus less concrete areas of research, the value of Wilderness Areas f o r research, and research needs i n the determination of public r e c r e a t i o n a l preferences were areas of questioning. These opinions suggest how they see land and water management and what d e f i c i e n c i e s they f e e l need to be corrected through research. Since s c i e n t i f i c research i s one purpose f o r the creation of Wilderness Areas, t h e i r views show more c l e a r l y how they made decisions. The intent of maintaining some i n f o r m a l i t y i n the i n t e r -views was to maintain as comfortable a s i t u a t i o n as possible f o r both the interviewer and the interviewee. To some extent t h i s evolved over the month of interviewing. I f one interview seemed a l i t t l e uncomfortable, an attempt was made to make the next interview more comfortable. One change which could be noted during the month was that as more interviews had been conducted and more information had been gathered, the questions could be more s p e c i f i c . One thing should be mentioned here, 1-g- to 2 hours represents a long time f o r a working person to give up f o r an interview. The generosity of the interviewees with t h e i r time i s greatly appreciated. The l i m i t e d time which i t had been f e l t would be av a i l a b l e was a prime reason f o r having an outline of questions from which to work. 1 0 1 One reason i t was f e l t t h e r e d i d not have t o be a s p e c i f i c number o f persons from each group was t h a t the i n t e r v i e w s were not r i g i d l y s t r u c t u r e d . I n t e r v i e w e e s were not a l l asked the same q u e s t i o n s , and some areas were d i s -cussed i n some i n t e r v i e w s and not i n o t h e r s . There was no need f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a c c u r a c y . 3) Data A n a l y s i s As was j u s t mentioned, the i n t e r v i e w s d i d not r e p r e s e n t a s t a t i s t i c a l sample. No c o r r e l a t i o n s o f v a r i o u s f a c t o r s and the answers o f i n t e r v i e w e e s t o q u e s t i o n s were made. Dur i n g the i n t e r v i e w s responses were w r i t t e n i n p o i n t form. These notes were conv e r t e d t o sentences and paragraphs soon a f t e r . The w r i t t e n statements were seen as each person's v e r s i o n o f how c e r t a i n events took p l a c e and o f what f a c t o r s a f f e c t e d what took p l a c e 0 The problem was to put a l l o f these s t o r i e s t o g e t h e r t o get one account o f what happened. One way o f t r y i n g t o v e r i f y accounts was to mention some t h i n g s which had been d i s c u s s e d i n e a r l i e r i n t e r v i e w s and ask l a t e r i n t e r v i e w e e s f o r r e a c t i o n o r comments. Some o f the w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s h e l p e d v e r i f y i n f o r m a t i o n . I n r e t r o s p e c t i t appears t h a t l a t e r i n t e r v i e w s supplemented or c l a r i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n e a r l i e r i n t e r v i e w s r a t h e r than n e g a t i n g i t . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n te s t i m o n y appeared u s u a l l y t o be d i f f e r e n c e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r a t h e r than d i f f e r e n c e s o f f a c t s . I f d i f f e r e n c e s went beyond i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , an attempt was made t o o b t a i n w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l t o s u b s t a n t i a t e 1 0 2 one s t o r y or the o t h e r . I f no such m a t e r i a l was a v a i l a b l e and no judgment c o u l d be made o f which v e r s i o n was more r e a s o n -a b l e and f i t b e t t e r w i t h o t h e r testimony, b o t h v e r s i o n s were p r e s e n t e d . O f t e n i n s t e a d o f d i f f e r e n c e s between two s t o r i e s , t h e r e were omissions i n one. I n t h a t case an attempt was made to d e c i d e why the o m i s s i o n might have been made. I f a reason f o r the o m i s s i o n which appeared r e a s o n a b l e c o u l d be found, such as c o g n i t i v e dissonance or a need to save f a c e , the new m a t e r i a l was t r e a t e d as v a l i d testimony. I f n o t , i t was examined to see why i t might have been added to someone's s t o r y . T h i s k i n d o f problem arose f r e q u e n t l y , s i n c e much o f the i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d not be proved or d i s p r o v e d d e f i n i t i v e l y . As much as p o s s i b l e was i n f e r r e d about people's a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s to h e l p i n t e r p r e t what they s a i d . By t r y i n g to understand why people s a i d what they s a i d and t r y i n g t o see where the s t o r i e s o f v a r i o u s people supported each o t h e r , a composite p i c t u r e was o b t a i n e d . That does not c o m p l e t e l y answer what was done w i t h q u e s t i o n s f o r which d e f i n i t i v e answers c o u l d not be f o u n d 0 F o r t h a t r e a son f i n a l d r a f t s o f t h i s t h e s i s were c i r c u l a t e d among some o f the persons i n t e r v i e w e d f o r t h e i r comments. I t was hoped they c o u l d more r e a d i l y see where q u e s t i o n s c o u l d or c o u l d not be answered o r where r e a s o n i n g appeared f a u l t y . They were the persons most f a m i l i a r w i t h events o f the A l p i n e Lakes d e c i s i o n , and i t was f e l t t h a t they c o u l d b e s t say whether q u e s t i o n s had been answered. Even a f t e r the d r a f t had been w r i t t e n , i t was f e l t a f i n a l check was needed. 103 PART IV FINDINGS A. I n t r o d u c t i o n From the a n a l y t i c a l model developed i n P a r t I I I a model o f how the study team a r r i v e d at i t s output can be developed. I t can d e s c r i b e i n s i m p l i f i e d terms how the d e c i s i o n b e i n g s t u d i e d here, the f i n a l recommendation o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team c o n c e r n i n g the management o f the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , was reached. T h i s model can be expressed as f o u r p r o p o s i t i o n s . P r o p o s i t i o n 1; The study team's output, i t s recommendation c o n c e r n i n g the A l p i n e Lakes ar e a , was determined by the o b j e c t i v e s o f the study team and the i n f l u e n c e o f the i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d and c o n s i d e r e d by the study team. P r o p o s i t i o n 2 : The study team's o b j e c t i v e s were determined by the r u l e s c o n s t r a i n i n g i t and the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f the members o f the study team. P r o p o s i t i o n 3? The i n f o r m a t i o n which a f f e c t e d the output of the study team c o n s i s t e d o f a) i n f o r m a t i o n which was r e c e i v e d from out-s i d e and screened and i n t e r p r e t e d by the stud y team i n a c c o r d w i t h the v a l u e s o f the study team members and b) i n f o r m a t i o n generated by the study team. P r o p o s i t i o n k: The i n f o r m a t i o n generated by the study team and the s c r e e n i n g and i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n from o u t s i d e were determined by a) the r u l e s c o n s t r a i n i n g the s t u d y team, b) the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f study team members, and c) the r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o the study team. 104 These four propositions w i l l be used to organize the presentation of the findings of this thesis . As can be seen, Proposition 1 i s the most general of the four. The other three w i l l be discussed f i r s t , and discussion of Proposition 1 w i l l serve as a summary. As each proposition i s discussed, the questions i t suggests and the answers provided by the research conducted w i l l be studied. Clearly there i s some degree of overlapping between the various propositions, but hopefully a rigorous explanation of the roles of the various factors affecting the output of the study team w i l l emerge, B, Proposition 2 The study team's objectives were determined by the rules constraining i t and the attitudes and perceptions of the members of the study team. The important questions are: What rules constrained the study team? What were the attitudes and perceptions of the study team members? How did the rules and the study team members' attitudes and perceptions affect the study team's objectives? What were the study team's objectives? 1) The Rules F i r s t the rules constraining the study team should be discussed. These include laws already mentioned, general pol icy and regulations, pol icy and regulations specific to the Alpine Lakes s i tuat ion, and understandings. 105 I t should be recognized that the rules that i n fact constrain the behavior of an organization consist of more than the bare provisions of an act, a regulation, or a statement of agency p o l i c y . The rules that are of p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e r e f l e c t the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of them by the mem-bers of the organization which i n turn stem to a c e r t a i n extent from the attitudes and perceptions they hold. Thus i n the analysis which follows an e f f o r t i s made to indicate not only the rules that exist but also how they were i n t e r -preted and applied by the Forest Service study team, a) Laws The Forest Service i s governed by several laws. Some of these were discussed e a r l i e r . The one which describes the Forest Service's mission i n the most basic manner i s the Multiple Use-Sustained Y i e l d Act of i960. The Forest Service i s committed through t h i s act to managing renewable surface resources to "best meet the needs of the American people." There i s enough freedom of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n that phrase f o r higher l e v e l Forest Service personnel to choose what t h e y f e e l i s the pattern of needs of Americans. The law gives the Forest Service a mandate to meet the needs of the American people, but i t does not s p e c i f y these needs or spe c i f y how they are to be met. The nati o n a l , regional, and forest o f f i c e s decide i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l fashion what the needs are, and t h e i r decisions about these needs can change slowly over time i n response to input from outside. The Alpine Lakes study happened to come at a time of change. 106 There i s a f e e l i n g among some t h a t i n the past these needs have been i n t e r p r e t e d to be a need f o r consumptive use o f r e s o u r c e s , e s p e c i a l l y timber. Hovever, w i l d e r n e s s i s e x p l i c i t l y d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the aims o f the a c t . The impact o f t h i s a c t on the study team was to make them r e s p o n s i b l e to "the needs o f the American p e o p l e " as d e f i n e d by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . What t h i s d e f i n i t i o n was i s not known. I n p l a n n i n g f o r the a r e a they had t o con-s i d e r s e r i o u s l y a l l uses o f the r e s o u r c e s , w i l d e r n e s s b e i n g j u s t one use. When c o n f l i c t s between p o t e n t i a l r e s o u r c e uses ar o s e , r e s o u r c e d a t a and p o l i t i c a l p r e s s u r e more than t h i s a c t determined which u s e ( s ) were chosen. The Wilderness Act c l e a r l y a f f e c t e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n the A l p i n e Lakes s t u d y 0 The act l i s t s c r i t e r i a f o r Wilderness Areas and some reasons f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g them. T h i s act guided the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n s e l e c t i n g p o r t i o n s o f the A l p i n e l a k e s which were or were not s u i t a b l e f o r w i l d e r -n e s s . I n g e n e r a l terms these c r i t e r i a were t h a t the a r e a be "an a r e a where the e a r t h and i t s community o f l i f e are un-trammeled by man, where man h i m s e l f i s a v i s i t o r who does not remain.,." and f u r t h e r t h a t i t be "an a r e a o f undeveloped F e d e r a l l a n d r e t a i n i n g i t s p r i m e v a l c h a r a c t e r and i n f l u e n c e , without permanent improvements or human h a b i t a t i o n . . . " ^ Four more c r i t e r i a were l i s t e d : 1) t h a t the a r e a not show the " i m p r i n t o f man's work" n o t i c e a b l y , Z) t h a t t h e r e be ^U.S.DoAo, The Wilderness A c t , s e c t . ( c ) . 107 opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, 3) that the area cover at least 5000 acres, 4) that there may be other features of scientific, historical , or scenic 2 interest. Uses which are prohibited in a Wilderness Area are l isted, but those are primarily considerations for managers of a Wilderness Area, not for a study team planning for an area. The act also states that there shall be oppor-tunity for public comment on the Forest Service's proposal. Nominally this was the reason for having public hearings on the single proposal. The Forest Service had other motives in having the hearings, but these requirements provided the i n i t i a l reason. By modifying its proposal in response to public input the study team was able to have a plan that incorporated more information and which would generate more pol i t ica l support. These latter motives were more important. It is important to remember that the Wilderness Act gives the power to create Wilderness Areas to the Congress. Prior to the act the Forest Service created its own Wilder-ness Areas, and i t had freedom to make decisions on its own or involve the public, as i t saw f i t . Now the Forest Service conducts studies on behalf of the Administration and prepares a wilderness proposal for Congress to vote on. It is an advisor, not a decision-maker. Because the Forest Service is no longer in a decision-making position with respect to Wilderness, i t must make greater efforts to be pol i t ical ly Ibid. 108 r e s p o n s i v e i n p l a n n i n g f o r such areas* P r o p o s a l s have t o have some p u b l i c support and must have support i n Congress t o be enacted. I t i s more d i f f i c u l t t o i g n o r e o p p o s i t i o n to p r o p o s a l s than i t was i n the pasto The study team had t o keep the p u b l i c and Congress i n mind i n p l a n n i n g . A l t h o u g h the Wilderness Act i s seen here as a r u l e , t h e r e i s some f e e l i n g t h a t i t i s too vague and s u b j e c t too much to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . S e l e c t i o n o f Wilderness Areas and to a s l i g h t extent management under the act by the Park S e r v i c e and the F o r e s t S e r v i c e d i f f e r s . The Park S e r v i c e w i l l c o n s i d e r some areas which have roads and/or s t r u c t u r e s f o r W i l d e r n e s s . They f e e l these i m p r i n t s o f man's work can d i s a p p e a r over time i f o t h e r f a c t o r s i n d i c a t e the a r e a has h i g h w i l d e r n e s s v a l u e . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e w i l l g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r o n l y r o a d l e s s , "rnitrammeled" areas* On Mount Whitney i n C a l i f o r n i a the F o r e s t S e r v i c e removed t o i l e t s from a backcountry campground once the Wilderness A r e a was c r e a t e d . To m a i n t a i n s a n i t a r y c o n d i t i o n s , the number o f u s e r s had t o be r e s t r i c t e d . I n a proposed Wilderness Area i n Olympic N a t i o n a l Park the Park S e r v i c e would b u i l d a c o n c r e t e v a u l t w i t h a f i b e r g l a s s c o n t a i n e r f o r waste and f l y the c o n t a i n e r out w i t h a h e l i c o p t e r and empty i t p e r i o d i c a l l y . These are examples o f the room f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the a c t . I n p l a n n i n g which areas s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d and which s h o u l d not the s t u d y team had freedom t o i n t e r p r e t the a c t , and l a t e r i n p l a n n i n g what k i n d o f management would be used and i n implementing these p l a n s the study team and o t h e r F o r e s t 109 S e r v i c e o f f i c i a l s had and w i l l have freedom. The important p o i n t i s t h a t , as the above examples show, t h e r e was some freedom w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s o f the a c t . A Park S e r v i c e s t u d y team c o u l d have come up w i t h d i f f e r e n t recommendations about what t o i n c l u d e i n the proposed Wilderness A r e a and w i t h d i f f e r e n t proposed management g u i d e l i n e s . The N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t a f f e c t s w i l d e r -ness s t u d i e s . A d r a f t and a f i n a l environmental impact statement have t o be pr e p a r e d . P u b l i c comment has to be taken i n t o account. Other government agencies review the d r a f t statement and request a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The a c t p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r impetus f o r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l t e r -n a t i v e l a n d uses i n the study a r e a and f o r t a k i n g account o f p u b l i c views. These t h r e e a c t s are the most important laws a c t i n g as c o n s t r a i n t s on the study o f the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . While c o n s i d e r i n g the c r i t e r i a f o r Wilderness and the need t o l o o k at environmental impacts and p u b l i c o p i n i o n , the p l a n -n e r s were r e q u i r e d t o keep i n mind the need to manage a l l l a n d s w i t h i n the m u l t i p l e - u s e p h i l o s o p h y , emphasizing a s u s -t a i n e d y i e l d o f renewable r e s o u r c e s . I t may appear t h a t p l a n n i n g a Wilderness A r e a and managing lands w i t h i n the m u l t i p l e - u s e p h i l o s o p h y are opposing concepts. The m u l t i p l e -use p h i l o s o p h y i n c l u d e s the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t some uses o f some r e s p u r c e s are i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h o t h e r u s e s . W i l d e r n e s s i s not compatible w i t h timber h a r v e s t i n g o r i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n . M u l t i p l e - u s e can mean t h a t c e r t a i n areas are 1 1 0 managed f o r o n l y one or two r e s o u r c e u s e s . That l a n d i s not c l a s s i f i e d as m u l t i p l e - u s e l a n d , but i n c l u d i n g i t w i t h i n m u l t i p l e - u s e lands i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p h i l o s o p h y and w i t h the a c t . One use can be dominant o r e x c l u s i v e i n a s m a l l e r a r e a , l i k e the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , w h i l e a l a r g e r a r e a l i k e a whole f o r e s t i s b e i n g managed f o r m u l t i p l e - u s e w i t h no i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n p h i l o s o p h y . The study team had t o t r y t o f i n d the b e s t o v e r a l l combination o f uses f o r the whole A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , b) G e n e r a l P o l i c y and R e g u l a t i o n s The f i r s t a r e a o f p o l i c y which i s apparent a f t e r i n t e r -v i e w i n g F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l i s m u l t i p l e - u s e . T h i s has a l r e a d y been mentioned under laws. A l l the p e r s o n n e l i n d i -c a t e d c o n f i d e n c e i n t h i s p h i l o s o p h y as the b e s t way t o manage N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s , More d e t a i l on t h e i r a t t i t u d e s w i l l be p r o v i d e d l a t e r , but the p o i n t to be made here i s t h a t such a l l - p e r v a s i v e a t t i t u d e s p o i n t to p o l i c y from above which becomes p a r t o f the p h i l o s o p h y o f p e r s o n n e l . From the n a t i o n a l o f f i c e to r a n g e r s ' o f f i c e s t h e r e i s c o n t i n u a l p r e s -sure t o serve the needs o f America i n the b e s t way p o s s i b l e through m u l t i p l e - u s e management o f a l l the r e s o u r c e s i n the f o r e s t s . Beyond the M u l t i p l e U s e - S u s t a i n e d Y i e l d Act t h e r e i s a p o l i c y which has been p a r t o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e f o r s e v e r a l decades t h a t r e s o u r c e s are t o be managed f o r a l l the uses p o s s i b l e i n the b e s t combination. I n p a r t t h i s p o l i c y l e a d s t o a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s i n F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l , but i t a l s o l e a d s to r u l e s which supplement and 111 c l a r i f y the a c t , The study team had t o be aware o f past t r a d i t i o n s d a t i n g t o l o n g b e f o r e the a c t , and i t had to be aware o f the c o n t i n u i n g change i n m u l t i p l e - u s e p o l i c y . A g a i n t h e y were c o n s t r a i n e d to keep timber h a r v e s t needs and o t h e r r e s o u r c e consumptive needs i n mind, as w e l l as i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n needs, and to a v o i d t h i n k i n g j u s t i n terms o f Wi l d e r n e s s , T i e d to t h i s was the p o l i c y o f p r o d u c i n g timber. As was mentioned e a r l i e r , the F o r e s t S e r v i c e has to r e p o r t once a week on how i t i s d o i n g " i n meeting planned timber s a l e o b j e c t i v e s " . Right from the top t h e r e i s a p o l i c y o f meeting p r o j e c t e d wood product needs through timber s a l e s . Because these needs have t o be met, o t h e r uses have t o com-pete w i t h timber h a r v e s t i n g i n areas where i t i s f e a s i b l e . A l o n g w i t h p r e s s u r e t o meet timber needs i s a p r e s s u r e t o p r o v i d e jobs f o r l o c a l , r e s o u r c e - b a s e d economies. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e has to c o n s i d e r c a r e f u l l y the p o s s i b i l i t y o f c l o s i n g down a lumber m i l l or a c a t t l e r a n c h i n g o p e r a t i o n which grazes on F o r e s t l a n d . I t has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to » a v o i d d e s t r o y i n g j o b s . The stud y team was f o r c e d t o ba l a n c e the p r e s s u r e f o r and the need f o r Wilderness a g a i n s t the need f o r o t h e r uses o f r e s o u r c e s . I n p r o v i d i n g a Wilder n e s s A r e a t h e y had t o t r y t o m a i n t a i n as much l a n d i n m u l t i p l e - u s e as p o s s i b l e , so r e s o u r c e s and jobs dependent on them c o u l d be p r o v i d e d . There i s no c l e a r - c u t d e f i n i t i o n o f how much timber p r o d u c t i o n f o r t h i s a r e a i s enough, but the study team had t o make some d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f how much 112 timber p r o d u c t i o n f o r t h i s a r e a i s enough, but the study-team had to make some d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f how much was enough and assure t h a t s u f f i c i e n t timbered l a n d was s e t a s i d e f o r h a r v e s t i n g . One a c t i v i t y which p o l i c y doesn't see as p a r t o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s m i s s i o n i s the c r e a t i o n o f N a t i o n a l R e c r e a -t i o n A r e a s . One r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f ALPS who i s a lawyer f e l t t h a t w i t h i n i t s e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e c o u l d recommend N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a s , but i t chooses to i n t e r p r e t the l e g i s l a t i o n as not i n c l u d i n g recommendation o f N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas i n t h e i r powers. One o f the F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r s s t a t e d t h a t the i n i t i a l impetus f o r a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a has t o come from someone e l s e t han the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , T h i s i s F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o l i c y o r i g i n a t -i n g from the C h i e f ' s o f f i c e . The i d e a o f N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r ea has t o come from someone e l s e than the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . T h i s i s F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o l i c y o r i g i n a t i n g from the C h i e f ' s o f f i c e . The i d e a o f N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas was developed more w i t h agencies l i k e the Department o f the I n t e r i o r and the Bureau o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n i n mind than w i t h the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n mind a c c o r d i n g t o one F o r e s t S e r v i c e o f f i c i a l . Once the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n d e c i d e s i t wants a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r ea c o n s i d e r e d , subsequent to p o l i t i c a l i n i t i a t i v e s , the F o r e s t S e r v i c e can become i n v o l v e d . T h i s view o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s r o l e i s a r e s u l t o f p o l i c y r a t h e r than law, but i t was s t i l l an e f f e c t i v e c o n s t r a i n t on the study team. 113 F o r e s t S e r v i c e s t u d i e s o c c a s i o n a l l y i n c l u d e c r e a t i o n o f N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas as an a l t e r n a t i v e or p r o p o s a l d e s p i t e t h i s policy,, The study team l e a d e r worked on a study i n the North Cascades, which was a F o r e s t S e r v i c e f o l l o w - u p t o the i n t e r a g e n c y North Cascades Study f i n i s h e d i n 19<->5» i n which a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a was recommended. Among the t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a was one which i n c l u d e d some l a n d s u i t a b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area. F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l were c a r e f u l t o s t a t e t h a t the l a n d was b e i n g d e s i g n a t e d as s u i t a b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area, but i t was not b e i n g recommended f o r i n c l u s i o n . I n g e n e r a l the p o l i c y appears q u i t e s t r o n g , though. At one p o i n t recommending a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n a r e a was c o n s i d e r e d f o r the f i n a l p r o p o s a l f o r A l p i n e Lakes, i n order to f i t p u b l i c d e s i r e s b e t t e r , but p o l i c y at the C h i e f ' s o f f i c e l e v e l p r e -c l u d e d t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . The p o l i c y l e d the study team to a v o i d recommending a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area d e s p i t e p u b l i c i n p u t s u p p o r t i n g such a recommendation. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e a d m i n i s t e r s s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s on p r i v a t e l a n d s which are n e ar N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s or concern them. There was an a t t i t u d e among r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s j u s t a manager o f p u b l i c l a n d s . There i s a branch o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , which i s s e p a r a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y from the branch which manages N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s , which d e a l s w i t h s t a t e and p r i v a t e l a n d s , but b a s i c a l l y the F o r e s t S e r v i c e o n l y a d m i n i s t e r s s t a t e 1 1 4 regulations i n those p a r t i c u l a r cases of lands which a f f e c t the National Forests, f o r instance the private land which i s interspersed with public lands i n the Alpine Lakes area* The Forest Service does not have power over the management of private lands beyond administering the state regulations, and industry guards i t s independence. There i s a p o l i c y of not denying reasonable access to private lands v i a public lands. This i s important f o r areas l i k e the checkerboard areas i n the Alpine Lakes where alternate sections are i n private hands, and access, i f provided, has to go through public lands. This p o l i c y l e d the study team to avoid making any e x p l i c i t recommendation f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of p r i v a t e lands and to avoid recommending i n c l u s i o n of large areas of private land i n the Wilderness Area or i n any other c l a s s i f i -c a t ion such as a National Recreation Area which might i n f r i n g e on what the Forest Service f e e l s are private owners' r i g h t s . The study team was more reluctant than some members of the public to s a c r i f i c e c e r t a i n private r i g h t s f o r the benefit of the p u b l i c . The most important p o l i c y a f f e c t i n g the Forest Service's decision about the Alpine Lakes i s the p o l i c y of i n v o l v i n g the public and considering t h e i r wants. Before going into t h i s p o l i c y i t would be u s e f u l to discuss the factors which seem to have to lead the Forest Service to that p o l i c y . In 1960, before the Wilderness Act was passed, the Forest Service created the G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness. Some of the events concerning t h i s Wilderness Area were described 115 e a r l i e r . When c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s saw t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e had i g n o r e d some o f t h e i r p r o p o s a l s , they banded t o g e t h e r to f i g h t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , They d e c i d e d to ask the Park S e r v i c e to h e l p them. They o r g a n i z e d e f f o r t s t o c r e a t e a North Cascades N a t i o n a l Park n o r t h o f the G l a c i e r Peak.Wilderness, The c o n s e r v a t i o n -i s t who p r o v i d e d most o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f events f e l t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e was s t i l l complacent when the Park S e r v i c e was c o n t a c t e d . They thought the f o r e s t p r o d u c t s i n d u s t r y had more p o l i t i c a l power i n Washington s t a t e than c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s d i d . I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case many o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the f o r e s t products i n d u s t r y were s m a l l m i l l s i n the n o r t h e r n p a r t o f the s t a t e . There was a l o t o f power i n Puget Sound where c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s were w e l l - o r g a n i z e d . As was d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , they had enough power to h e l p b r i n g about the i n t e r a g e n c y N o r t h Cascades Study, F o l l o w i n g the study r e p o r t o f 1965» a N a t i o n a l Park was proposed and p u b l i c h e a r i n g s were h e l d . P a r t i c u l a r l y i n the S e a t t l e h e a r i n g c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s were > s t r o n g . I n 1968 a North Cascades N a t i o n a l Park was c r e a t e d . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e , a p o w e r f u l agency, had l o s t a l o t o f l a n d t o the Park S e r v i c e , a r e l a t i v e l y weak agency. The man who d e s c r i b e d these events f e l t t h a t i f the two r i v e r v a l l e y s which were omitted from the G l a c i e r Peak Wilderness had been i n c l u d e d , c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s wouldn't have been a b l e to work t o g e t h e r t o p r e s s u r e f o r a park, and t h e y might not have been as anxious f o r i t s c r e a t i o n . I n o t h e r 116 words, because the Forest Service f a i l e d to recognize the p o l i t i c a l power of the p u b l i c , and s p e c i f i c a l l y of conserva-t i o n groups, and decided to leave two v a l l e y s i n multiple-use management so industry could harvest timber, they l o s t a large amount of land to the Park Service. The Forest Service's organization i s geared toward r u r a l and semi-rural areas. Their personnel become very f a m i l i a r with the wants of people i n small towns and r u r a l areas. They don't have as dependable a way of sensing the desires of people i n large c i t i e s . This could help explain t h e i r f a i l u r e to l i s t e n to the inputs of people from Puget Sound concerning G l a c i e r Peak and t h e i r apparent com-placency about t h e i r own p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n . They didn't r e a l i z e the p o l i t i c a l power behind the conservationists' views. The r e s u l t appears to be a strong concern with l i s t e n i n g c a r e f u l l y to the p u b l i c . This concern was manifested as a change both i n the rules that constrained Forest Service personnel and i n the attitudes and perceptions of the per-sonnel. The change i n the rules was that a greater e f f o r t was to be made to receive ideas from the public and to a r r i v e at proposals f o r land management which could generate p o l i t i c a l support. The impact of the North Cascades struggle was compared to the impact of the Echo Park decision i n the 1950's, The S i e r r a Club defeated a proposal by the Bureau of Reclamation to b u i l d a dam i n Utah. From then on Congressmen f e l t they had to take note of conservationists and t h e i r p o l i t i c a l power. S i m i l a r l y the North Cascades 117 s t r u g g l e l e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t o much g r e a t e r p u b l i c involvement i n i t s d e c i s i o n s . Documents l i k e Framework F o r the Future i n 1970 and Inform and I n v o l v e i n 1972 committed the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t o i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c involvement. Framework F o r the Fu t u r e was a s e t o f p o l i c y statements f o r broad f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s . P u b l i c involvement i n l a n d use p l a n n i n g was p a r t o f these d i r e c t i o n s . I n Inform and I n v o l v e some ex c e r p t s from Framework F o r the Fu t u r e were l i s t e d 0 O b j e c t i v e s I n v o l v e the p u b l i c i n F o r e s t r y P o l i c y and Program F o r m u l a t i o n - — P o l i c y . Seek out and o b t a i n l o c a l and n a t i o n a l views i n the process o f p o l i c y and program f o r m u l a t i o n . Discharge our r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n ways t h a t make our management pro c e s s e s v i s i b l e and our r e s p o n s i b l e people a c c e s s i b l e . C onsult w i t h and seek c o - o p e r a t i v e a c t i o n w i t h agencies at a l l l e v e l s o f Government, and w i t h p r i v a t e groups and i n d i v i d u a l s , i n programs f o r r e s o u r c e management and economic development,^ The o b j e c t i v e o f Inform and I n v o l v e was s t a t e d t h u s : TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE SCIENTIFIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT RELATE ' TO LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. AND TO INVOLVE THE PUBLIC CONSTRUCTIVELY IN PROVIDING INFORMA-TION, COMMENT AND POINTS OF VIEW THAT WILL LEAD . TO BETTER LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS. The p l a n d e s c r i b e d i n the brochure was seen as "...not a new I & E ( i n f o r m a t i o n and E d u c a t i o n ) program but ... r a t h e r U.S.D.A., Framework F o r the F u t u r e , p. 2. 118 a d i r e c t i o n of emphasis that r e f l e c t s current Forest Service 5 p o l i c y . " The Manual and other documents provided a d d i t i o n a l guidelines. A 1973 study by the research arm of the Forest Service examined public involvement programs, commented on them, and proposed improvements.^ Because a l o t of people i n Seattle, as well as other parts of Washington, know about the Alpine Lakes, the Forest Service would be f o o l - r i s h not to make a s a t i s f a c t o r y decision. One r u l e was imposed by the House I n t e r i o r and Insular A f f a i r s Committee. The former chairman, Wayne A s p i n a l l of Colorado, stated that wilderness proposals would be studied only i f a mineral survey had been completed by the U.S. Geological Survey. I t made cases l i k e the Pasayten Wilder-ness, where the requirement was waived by Congress, very u n l i k e l y . This requirement placed a time burden on the study. The explanations given by the Forest Service and by ALPS d i f f e r on t h i s matter. People from the Forest Service stated that o r i g i n a l l y the Geological Survey was going to study only the areas i n the boundaries of the o r i g i n a l Wilderness proposal. The Forest Service prevailed on them to include the Van Epps Pass-Jack Creek corridor between the two proposed Wilder-nesses. This study was completed, but then ALPS put Ib i d . . p. 5 U. S. D.A., Public Involvement and the Forest Service. 119 p r e s s u r e on the F o r e s t S e r v i c e to i n c l u d e the checkerboard a r e a s , w i t h i n the ALPS Wilderness p r o p o s a l . They were con-cerned t h a t these areas might not be c o n s i d e r e d without a m i n e r a l survey. A r e v i s e d study i n c l u d e d these a r e a s , and at the same time the F o r e s t S e r v i c e d e c i d e d t o add an a r e a f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the r e v i s e d study. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e f e l t the d e l a y was due'to the ALPS a c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o ALPS the F o r e s t S e r v i c e made arrangements to study the a r e a w i t h i n the separate Wilderness boundaries o n l y , a l t h o u g h they were aware t h a t a l a r g e r , s i n g l e W i l d e r -ness was b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d . To complicate m a t t e r s , the Bureau o f Mines, which was c o n d u c t i n g the study, had man-power problems. When the a d d i t i o n a l areas had to be s t u d i e d , the whole pro c e s s was d e l a y e d . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e had adequate time and i n f o r m a t i o n to request a study o f a much l a r g e r a r e a . ALPS hoped o p t i m i s t i c a l l y f o r a study o f the e n t i r e a r e a i n t h e i r N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area p r o p o s a l , and more r e a l i s t i c a l l y f o r a study o f the W i l d e r -ness core i n t h a t p r o p o s a l . A n a t i o n a l c o n s e r v a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o l d ALPS t h a t i t was st a n d a r d F o r e s t S e r v i c e procedure t o i n v e n t o r y the s m a l l e s t a r e a b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d and then have to go back, perhaps s e v e r a l times, t o i n v e n -t o r y a d d i t i o n a l a r e a s . I n ALPS's view the F o r e s t S e r v i c e caused the d e l a y . From the p o i n t o f view o f ALPS and some o t h e r groups, the importance o f the d e l a y i s t h a t i t weakens t h e i r p o l i t i c a l e f f o r t . T h e i r e f f o r t i s s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y , 120 and the l o n g e r the process goes on, the h a r d e r i t i s f o r a v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n to e l i c i t support from i t s members. They have o t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which may e v e n t u a l l y over-r i d e t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to t h e i r p o l i t i c a l e f f o r t . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s p a i d f o r i t s work and can expect a weakening o f o p p o s i t i o n to i t s p o s i t i o n i f the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s i s d e l a y e d s u f f i c i e n t l y . L i k e w i s e some r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n were p a i d f o r t h e i r work, and they c o u l d endure a d e l a y more e a s i l y . Of course some n a t i o n a l c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s l i k e the S i e r r a Club have p a i d , f u l l - t i m e s t a f f persons, but o r g a n i z a t i o n s l i k e ALPS do n o t , and t h e y are e s p e c i a l l y a f f e c t e d by d e l a y s . The f a c t t h a t two d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s o f t h i s d e l a y have been p r e s e n t e d s h o u l d show t h a t the o b j e c t i v e i n v o l v e d here i s u n c l e a r . There was an obvious o b j e c t i v e o f meeting the House Committee's requirement. A d d i t i o n a l l y from the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s p o i n t o f view t h e r e was an o b j e c t i v e o f i n c l u d i n g some areas proposed by groups o u t s i d e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n the survey so these areas c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d by Congress. From ALPS' p o i n t o f view t h e r e was an o b j e c -t i v e o f d e l a y i n g the process as much as p o s s i b l e as a t a c t i c aimed at v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s and an a d d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e o f a l l o w i n g Congress to c o n s i d e r the s m a l l e s t a r e a p o s s i b l e by l i m i t i n g the a r e a surveyed. Regardless o f whether i t was p a r t o f the study team's o b j e c t i v e s or n o t , the d e l a y d i d a f f e c t groups l i k e ALPS. T h i s s i t u a t i o n c o u l d have been a case o f r u l e s l e a d i n g to an o b j e c t i v e which then l e d to f u r t h e r i n d i r e c t o b j e c t i v e s . 1 2 1 c) S p e c i f i c P o l i c y and R e g u l a t i o n s Some p o l i c y c o n s t r a i n t s r e l a t e d more s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the A l p i n e Lakes study,, These were imposed on the study team by the n a t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s and the two f o r e s t o f f i c e s . The study team had freedom, granted by the n a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l , and f o r e s t o f f i c e s , but, as one member o f the team s a i d , p o l i c y p r e c l u d e d c o n s i d e r i n g a no-Wilderness a l t e r n a t i v e o r an a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h a huge W i l d e r n e s s . He d i d not s t a t e t h a t these were w r i t t e n commitments, j u s t t h a t t h e y were a l t e r n a t i v e s which were p r e c l u d e d by p o l i c y from h i g h e r l e v e l s . L i k e w i s e , i f i n the step between the s i n g l e p r o p o s a l brought to the p u b l i c f o r i n p u t and the f i n a l p r o -p o s a l sent t o Congress p u b l i c i n p u t had i n d i c a t e d 1 0 0 $ support f o r the two Wilderness p r o p o s a l o f the A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n , p o l i c y and laws would not have allowed the p r o -p o s a l t o be changed t h a t much. In the conduct o f the study the study team had a l o t o f freedom. I n the past p l a n n i n g was g e n e r a l l y done at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l . S u p e r v i s o r s put t o g e t h e r the work o f t h e i r r a n gers t o prepare F o r e s t P l a n s . I n an e f f o r t to be l e s s p r o v i n c i a l the F o r e s t S e r v i c e s t a r t e d u s i n g study teams when s e v e r a l r a n g e r d i s t r i c t s were i n v o l v e d . The approach was f a i r l y new, at l e a s t t o the P a c i f i c Northwest Region, when the A l p i n e Lakes study was begun. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f the freedom o f the study team l e a d s to a r e i t e r a t i o n o f the importance o f r u l e s i n the development o f some o f the study 122 team's o b j e c t i v e s . S e v e r a l o b j e c t i v e s have a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d . The f a c t t h a t s p e c i f i c p o l i c y c o n s t r a i n t s r e a l l y amounted t o review o f study-team output t o see t h a t i t met g e n e r a l p o l i c y c o n s t r a i n t s meant t h a t the study team's freedom i n s p e c i f i c matters l e d them to an o b j e c t i v e o f d e v e l o p i n g p l a n n i n g techniques and procedures which would b e s t h e l p them meet the g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e s a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d . Subsequent t o the s t a r t o f the A l p i n e Lakes study the C h i e f ' s o f f i c e developed land-use p l a n n i n g procedures f o r a l l f o r e s t s . However, the study team had to e s t a b l i s h i t s own procedures i n t r y i n g t o prepare output which would s a t i s f y the n a t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s . Some o f the p l a n n i n g methods sh o u l d be viewed as r u l e s . O f f i c i a l l y d e c i s i o n s are made l a r g e l y on the b a s i s o f environmental determinism. U s i n g techniques s i m i l a r to those o f Ian McHarg, as d e s c r i b e d i n Design With Nature, s p e c i a l i s t s p r o v i d e d r e s o u r c e d a t a through which the i n t r i n s i c s u i t a b i l i t y o f the l a n d can be mapped. These ex p e r t s developed c r i t e r i a which are used t o determine f o r what uses the l a n d i s or i s not s u i t a b l e . I n many cases t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n p o i n t s the p l a n n e r s t o the b e s t l a n d use f o r an ar e a . The method i s f e l t t o be r a t i o n a l and s c i e n -t i f i c . The s p e c i f i c methods used i n the A l p i n e Lakes study were a combination o f e x i s t i n g methods used by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n oth e r p l a c e s and changes made by the study team f o r t h e i r s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . The i n t e n t was to l e n d as much r a t i o n a l i t y to the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s as p o s s i b l e . To 123 a g r e a t extent such an i n t e n t can be a t t r i b u t e d t o the r o l e o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e o f b e s t s e r v i n g the r e s o u r c e needs o f the American p e o p l e . T h i s would i n c l u d e not t a k i n g l a n d which was b e t t e r s u i t e d f o r o t h e r uses than W i l d e r n e s s , as p e r c e i v e d by the p l a n n i n g t e c h n i q u e s used, f o r Wilderness r a t h e r than the more v a l u a b l e u s e s . The study team was c o n s t r a i n e d by the c r i t e r i a developed by the e x p e r t s . The f a c t t h a t c e r t a i n lands might be committed to i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n or timber p r o d u c t i o n r a t h e r than Wilderness through these techniques was not a r e s u l t o f the techniques or the models on which they were b u i l t , but o f the i n t e n -t i o n s and p o l i c y background s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i r development. R a t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e s can be bent to meet p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s . With the use o f these t e c h n i q u e s the r o l e o f the p u b l i c i s t o make a c h o i c e when r e s o u r c e d a t a i n d i c a t e more than one use i s p o s s i b l e . When the best use i s not c l e a r , a l t e r n a t i v e s are developed and p u b l i c i n p u t p o i n t s to the b e s t a l t e r n a t i v e . Here the i n t e n t i s s i m i l a r to what was a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o Inform and I n v o l v e . The p u b l i c was to h e l p the F o r e s t S e r v i c e when i t s r a t i o n a l t echniques c o u l d not p r o v i d e c l e a r answers. There were some e x c e p t i o n s . Some areas which would have been s u i t a b l e f o r timber h a r v e s t i n g a c c o r d i n g t o r e s o u r c e d a t a were i n c l u d e d i n the" W i l d e r n e s s , f o r i n s t a n c e the D e c e p t i o n Creek a r e a . These e x c e p t i o n s and the comment from LeBreton i n p a r t I I I t h a t o f f i c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the r e a l s t r u c t u r e l e a d t o some c o n c l u s i o n s 124 about the r o l e o f environmental determinism,, I t appears t h a t t h i s r a t i o n a l method o f making d e c i s i o n s was used w i t h i n the context o f p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t y . As the study team l e a d e r s a i d , "The F o r e s t S e r v i c e would have been v e r y unwise not to c r e a t e a l a r g e Wilderness."; They were com-m i t t e d t o l i s t e n t o the p u b l i c , and the use o f t h i s t echnique s t i l l had t o l e a v e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e w i t h a p o s i -t i o n t h a t was p o l i t i c a l l y t e n a b l e . The method, j u s t l i k e any o t h e r method, i s s u b j e c t t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t c o u l d be used t o develop the best p a t t e r n o f l a n d use which would be g e n e r a l l y i n acco r d w i t h p u b l i c wishes. These e x c e p t i o n s r e f l e c t the o b j e c t i v e o f d e v e l o p i n g a p o l i t i c a l l y s u p p o r t a -b l e p r o p o s a l . R a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g would not always be enough to convince the n a t i o n a l o f f i c e , the Congress, and the p u b l i c t h a t a good job had been done. The study team knew t h a t h i g h e r l e v e l s wanted a p o l i t i c a l l y t e n a b l e p r o p o s a l . d) Understandings Some o f the r u l e s o r c o n s t r a i n t s which operated on the p l a n n e r s were l e s s e x p l i c i t or l e s s f o r m a l than the ones mentioned above. Sometimes response t o them v a r i e d among p e r s o n n e l . These r u l e s guide b e h a v i o r o f p e r s o n n e l as do the o t h e r s , but they can be c a l l e d "understandings" because t h e r e was more freedom o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h them. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e l i k e s t o be i n the middle i n any s i t u a t i o n w i t h two extremes. T h i s l e a d s to a s e a r c h f o r compromise i n p l a n n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . As one i n d u s t r y 125 spokesman put i t , getting input from just one side makes the Forest Service uncomfortable. They l i k e to see two views at opposite poles. At that point they can develop a p o s i t i o n i n the middle, which by v i r t u e of being i n the middle, becomes the best p o s i t i o n . One member of the C o a l i t i o n of Conservation Groups characterized t h i s method of decision-making as a numbers game. I f 50$ of the public input supported one extreme and 50$ supported the other extreme and nobody supported anything i n between, the Forest Service would s t i l l be happy because the numbers would support the middle ground. Developments l i k e Codinvolve only make f o r a better numbers game. At the same time that the wish f o r compromise i s held, the Forest Service has preferred positions on many issues. For instance, several of the Forest Service personnel sai d that what the Forest Service r e a l l y wanted fo r the Alpine Lakes was represented by the o f f i c i a l proposal f o r the Alpine Lakes i n the North Cascades Study. These Forest Service people said the f i n a l proposal w i l l represent a compromise between what the Forest Service wanted and what the public wanted. The p o s i t i o n of the Alpine Lakes C o a l i t i o n , b a s i c a l l y one extreme, was very close to the o f f i c i a l proposal i n the North Cascades Study, the preferred p o s i t i o n of the Forest Service. The Forest Service had, i n other words, chosen one extreme, not the middle, as i t s preferred a l t e r n a t i v e . O f f i c i a l l y the Forest Service preferred none of the three a l t e r n a t i v e s or any other 126 p o s i t i o n . Rather, i t was a n e u t r a l r e c e p t o r f o r p u b l i c i n p u t . U n o f f i c i a l l y t h e r e was a p r e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n . There are c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n s which the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r e f e r s on c e r t a i n i s s u e s , but at the same time t h e r e i s a d e s i r e t o h o l d a p o s i t i o n between the extremes on these i s s u e s . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e f a c e s a c o n f l i c t between what i t would l i k e t o do and what p o l i t i c a l p r e s s u r e pushes i t to do. A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n suggested t h i s k i n d o f c o n f l i c t when he s a i d t h a t F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l w i l l not c r i t i c i z e Wilderness p u b l i c l y , but they w i l l c r i t i c i z e i t p r i v a t e l y . He a l s o s a i d t h a t p r i v a t e l y the F o r e s t S e r v i c e agreed w i t h h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t group's p o s i t i o n . The study team was f a c e d w i t h c o n f l i c t -i n g o b j e c t i v e s . I t sought t o develop a p r o p o s a l which was c l o s e to what past F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r o p o s a l s i n d i c a t e d the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r e f e r r e d f o r the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . The o t h e r o b j e c t i v e , which appears to have o v e r r i d d e n the f i r s t o b j e c t i v e , was to develop a p r o p o s a l which a t t r a c t e d broad p o l i t i c a l support, and ih i c h p u b l i c i n p u t would show was a compromise p r o p o s a l . I n p l a n n i n g where Wild e r n e s s Areas s h o u l d go, the q u e s t i o n , "What i s W i l d e r n e s s ? " always a r i s e s . As was d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I I , the Park S e r v i c e and the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n t e r p r e t the Wilderness Act d i f f e r e n t l y . The cour t case i n Colorado addressed the q u e s t i o n o f whether the F o r e s t S e r v i c e can choose which areas s h o u l d or sho u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d f o r W i l d e r n e s s . The q u e s t i o n remains, 127 "How do people i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e know when an a r e a q u a l i -f i e s f o r W i l d e r n e s s ? " I n a sense the pro c e s s appeared s i m i l a r t o the simple statement used i n mathematics, sometimes c y n i c a l l y when t h e r e ' s no o t h e r way o f p r o v i n g something, "The p r o o f i s i n t u i t i v e . " An a r e a q u a l i f i e s f o r Wilderness when i t "has w i l d e r n e s s c h a r a c t e r . " One o f the stud y team members d e s c r i b e d the p r o c e s s o f s e l e c t i n g Wilderness i n a l e s s c i r c u l a r manner. I n t r i n s i c s u i t a b i l i t y c o u l d be d e f i n e d f o r o t h e r l a n d u s e s , but not f o r W i l d e r n e s s . The study team was f o r c e d t o use the c r i t e r i a g i v e n i n the Wilderness A c t . I n mapping the ar e a n o t h i n g about the q u a l i t y o f the l a n d was mapped. Mapping was l a r g e l y a matter o f drawing a l i n e around the r o a d l e s s a r e a r e m a i n i n g . That was the l a n d which was s u i t a b l e f o r Wi l d e r n e s s . The c r i t e r i a f o r o t h e r r e s o u r c e uses were developed by experts i n v a r i o u s f i e l d s . The f a c t t h a t the c r i t e r i a i n the Wilderness Act were used f o r Wilderness s e l e c t i o n stems from the i n a b i l i t y o f these experts to develop any o t h e r c r i t e r i a f o r W i l d e r -ness and from p o l i c y from above. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e has i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what lands w i l l not q u a l i f y as Wilderness and t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o n s t r a i n e d the study team. I t had freedom t o look at a l l the l a n d i n the study a r e a , but i t knew what k i n d s o f lands are u s u a l l y r e j e c t e d f o r Wilderness by the n a t i o n a l o f f i c e . The q u e s t i o n which comes up immediately concerns r o a d s . C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s f e e l t h a t F o r e s t S e r v i c e people who say t h a t any a r e a where a 128 r o a d has been b u i l t no l o n g e r q u a l i f i e s f o r Wilderness are " p u r i s t s . " Some o f these c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s f e e l t h a t roads can be c l o s e d to c r e a t e "second-growth W i l d e r n e s s . " The F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s v e r y s t r i c t about c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y r o a d l e s s a r e a s . Some areas t h a t had roads i n the past c o u l d s t i l l q u a l i f y . I f t h e r e has been j u s t a jeep t r a c k a l o n g the f l a t s where n a t u r a l r e g e n e r a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e , an ar e a can q u a l i f y . I f an are a has had cuts and f i l l s by a b u l l d o z e r or oth e r equipment, i t i s not s u i t a b l e . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e f e e l s i t i s the p r e r o g a t i v e o f Congress, not the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t o c l o s e r o a d s . One F o r e s t S e r v i c e man f e l t the q u e s t i o n o f roads showed t h a t the c o n f l i c t between Wilderness use and timber management i n the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a was l a r g e l y over. Now the c o n f l i c t i s between Wilderness use and ot h e r forms o f r e c r e a t i o n , ' Some o f the roads t h a t the C o a l i t i o n o f Con-s e r v a t i o n Groups wanted c l o s e d are f a i r l y o l d • and/or support major campgrounds. F o r example, the I c i c l e Creek Road i s about 20 ye a r s o l d , paved, and has s e v e r a l major campgrounds. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e f e e l s t h a t f o r some roads t h e r e are a c c e p t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s to t o t a l c l o s u r e , A f a i r l y new road l i k e the E i g h t m i l e Creek road, b u i l t i n about 1967 or 1968, where more l o g g i n g i s planned, c o u l d be managed w i t h a gate. Only l o g g e r s c o u l d d r i v e up the ro a d . Others would have t o h i k e . The a r e a would not have to be c l a s s i f i e d as Wi l d e r n e s s , but i t would serve as a b u f f e r f o r the Wil d e r n e s s , T h i s s u g g e s t i o n and r e a c t i o n 129 to i t would i l l u s t r a t e the c o n f l i c t between Wilderness and o t h e r forms o f r e c r e a t i o n . Another example i s the Teanaway a r e a . I n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r o p o s a l and the ALPS p r o p o s a l t h i s a r e a i s s e t a s i d e f o r m o t o r i z e d r e c r e a t i o n . I n order to a r r i v e at a l a r g e Wilderness acreage, the C o a l i t i o n o f C o n s e r v a t i o n Groups has i n c l u d e d t h i s a r e a i n W i l d e r n e s s . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e f e l t t h i s was the l a s t a r e a o f p u b l i c l a n d which c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y be added to the Wilderness p r o p o s a l . To add any more undeveloped l a n d would i n v o l v e a c q u i s i t i o n o f p r i v a t e l a n d . These few examples show how the F o r e s t S e r v i c e c o u l d make some d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the l a n d i t f e l t q u a l i f i e d f o r W i l d e r n e s s . The study team f e l t an o b l i g a t i o n to con-s i d e r o n l y r o a d l e s s l a n d f o r W i l d e r n e s s , to be " p u r i s t " i n the view o f some c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s . T h i s n o t i o n o f r o a d l e s s areas appeared to be the crux o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n o f the Wilderness A c t . The study team a l s o r e a l i z e d t h e r e was some c o n f l i c t between timber h a r v e s t i n g and w i l d e r n e s s i n t e r e s t s and between i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n i and w i l d e r n e s s i n t e r e s t s , and i t f e l t an o b l i g a t i o n to con-s i d e r and attempt t o c a t e r t o a l l s i d e s i n d e v e l o p i n g i t s p r o p o s a l . There have been some changes i n management i n the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a , p a r t i c u l a r l y o u t s i d e the L i m i t e d Area. I n the Enchantment Lakes r e g i o n t h e r e are r e s t r i c t i o n s on camp-f i r e s , and i n 150,000 acres o f the A l p i n e Lakes seaplane and h e l i c o p t e r l a n d i n g s and cargo drops are p r o h i b i t e d . 130 These are a r e s u l t of decisions at the Forest l e v e l rather than decisions i n the higher l e v e l s , but they are a r e s u l t of understandings with higher l e v e l s that portions of the Alpine Lakes be managed as Wilderness u n t i l a f i n a l d e c i -sion i s made by Congress. The moratorium on logging, comes from the same under-standings. Because t h i s wasn't o f f i c i a l p o l i c y on the s i t e , conservationists pressed Congressmen and Governor Evans to request a moratorium on timber sales within the areas being considered f o r Wilderness. Both within the old Limited Area and outside the Forest Service had a r i g h t to defer timber sales u n t i l a f i n a l decision about r e c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n had been made. In the Roadless Area studies being con-ducted now, p o l i c y i s to defer any a c t i v i t y which might a f f e c t the wilderness character of the area u n t i l a f i n a l d e c ision has been made. The Snoqualmie Forest responded r i g h t away i n 1970 to the request f o r a moratorium. The Deception Creek and M i l l e r River areas of the Skykomish d i s t r i c t are examples of areas affected by the moratorium. However, one ALPS o f f i c i a l s a id, " . . o i t took the Wenatchee Forest a while to catch on." They responded more slowly. Timber sales have e s s e n t i a l l y been confined to areas outside the areas a l l the groups are discussing. That i s one of ALPS' biggest achievements. The Wenatchee National Forest d i d e s t a b l i s h a moratorium, but i t did so l a t e r than the Snoqualmie National Forest, Several conservationists noted a great difference i n s e n s i t i v i t y to requests l i k e those f o r 131 a moratorium in the Snoqualmie Forest and the Wenatchee Forest, Such actions as moratoria are not s t r i c t l y pol icy . They are understandings, and they depend on who i n the Forest Service i s involved. Understandings l ike the new regulations in the Enchantment Lakes and the logging moratorium are manifestations of an effort by the study team and the two supervisors to maintain as much of the study area as possible i n i t s existing condition u n t i l the study process was complete. This was an effort to prevent the pos s ib i l i ty of land being precluded from Wilderness before completion of the study. Various interest groups differed on how much they fel t the study team and the two supervisors were committed to this objective, but there were some manifestations of this objective, 2) Attitudes and Perceptions In studying attitudes and perceptions of study team members, the attitudes and perceptions of other Forest Service personnel should be considered. In part they represent the value framework of the organization as a whole and the atmosphere within which personnel work. The follow-ing refers to a l l the Forest Service personnel who were interviewed. When attitudes are discussed, multiple-use comes up immediately. In a l l the interviews i t was evident that Forest Service employees feel a responsibi l i ty to provide a l l the resources and uses of resources possible. Wilder-ness i s one of these resources, but i t i s seen as a desire, 132 whereas r e s o u r c e s l i k e timber, f o r a g e , and water are needs. Because Wilderness i s seen as a d e s i r e f a t h e r than a need, i t s p l a c e i n the m u l t i p l e - u s e p h i l o s o p h y i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f o t h e r u s e s . Many see Wilderness as something t h a t i s done by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i n the absence o f o t h e r r e -source u s e s . "Wilderness on i c e " or "Wilderness on the r o c k s " are phrases t o d e s c r i b e t h i s view. I t seems more f a i r to the s t u d y team t o say t h a t the f a c t t h a t Wilderness p r e -c l u d e d o t h e r r e s o u r c e uses was always on t h e i r minds. Wilderness l a n d i s d i f f e r e n t from m u l t i p l e - u s e l a n d , but p r o v i d i n g Wilderness Areas, one form o f r e s o u r c e use, i s s t i l l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the m u l t i p l e - u s e p h i l o s o p h y . However, t h i s c o n s i s t e n c y i s a c h i e v e d to some extent by s a c r i f i c i n g some p o t e n t i a l Wilderness lands to o t h e r u s e s . A F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f e l t the charge t h a t t h e y are o n l y concerned w i t h u t i l i t a r i a n v a l u e s i s wrong. He s a i d t h a t p r e s e r v a t i o n i s t s i g n o r e the f a c t t h a t a f o r e s t i s a u t i l i t a r i a n p l a c e . B e s i d e s , the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s i n s t r u c t e d by law to use the r e s o u r c e s , and Congress i n i t s a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f a v o r s timber h a r v e s t i n g over o t h e r u s e s . He s a i d people don't understand the v i a b i l i t y o f t r e e s . They are a l i v e , and e v e n t u a l l y they d i e and are r e p l a c e d by new t r e e s . P r e s e r v i n g them as i n Redwoods N a t i o n a l Park t r e a t s them as though they would be around f o r e v e r , A t r e e farm t h e r e would assure t h a t t h e r e would always be redwoods, whereas a park does n o t . He f e l t t h a t t h i s view of the f o r e s t i s the way the f o r e s t i s , not j u s t a 133 u t i l i t a r i a n b i a s toward the f o r e s t . The study team attempted t o l o o k at the study a r e a from a u t i l i t a r i a n v i e w p o i n t . P l a n n i n g was done w i t h the i d e a o f making the b e s t use o f the r e s o u r c e s . One r a n g e r admitted t h a t i n the past o n l y the s t r i p a l o n g a r o a d would be managed c a r e f u l l y f o r r e c r e a t i o n , v i s u a l , e s t h e t i c , and w i l d l i f e v a l u e s i n a timber h a r v e s t a r e a . Under the s p e c i a l management u n i t o b j e c t i v e s the F o r e s t S e r v i c e w i l l have t o c o n s i d e r these v a l u e s c a r e f u l l y throughout the ar e a and not p l a c e p r i m a r y emphasis on timber h a r v e s t i n g to the e x c l u s i o n o f oth e r v a l u e s . One o f the team members s a i d t h a t i n the past t h e r e weren't many people i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e s e n s i t i v e t o c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t v a l u e s , but t h a t i s changing. However, t h e r e i s some i n e r t i a a s s o c i a t e d w i t h changing F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o l i c y i n t h i s r e s -p e c t . He f e l t the study team had enough freedom t h a t i t d i d n ' t have t o overcome t h i s i n e r t i a . They attempted t o be s e n s i t i v e t o c o n s e r v a t i o n s t v a l u e s i n l o o k i n g at the whole a r e a . There i s a g e n e r a l f e e l i n g t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s competent. One rang e r f e l t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e s h o u l d be smart enough t o manage the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a p r o p e r l y without a l i n e on a map. He thought the a r e a was s u i t a b l e f o r o t h e r uses, and t h a t the Wilderness Act merely l i m i t s F o r e s t S e r v i c e f l e x i b i l i t y . S i m i l a r l y p e r s o n n e l f e l t t h e y c o u l d manage the p e r i p h e r a l a r e a as a s p e c i a l management u n i t b e t t e r than as a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a . A N a t i o n a l 134 R e c r e a t i o n A r e a was not seen as s u i t a b l e f o r the mix o f r e s o u r c e s and p r i v a t e l a n d . They d i d n ' t f e e l i t would h e l p the rangers do t h e i r j o b . O b j e c t i o n to a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a i s based i n p a r t on t h i s f e e l i n g o f com-petence. F o r e s t S e r v i c e people f e e l what i s needed t o p r o t e c t the a r e a around the Wilderness i s s e n s i t i v e manage-ment, not s p e c i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . They f e e l they can p r o t e c t the a r e a without b e i n g t o l d how. The F o r e s t S e r v i c e would most l i k e l y manage an A l p i n e Lakes N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area, The o b j e c t i o n comes not from a f e a r o f l o s i n g the a r e a to another agency, but from a d e s i r e to manage i t s r e s o u r c e s f r e e from the c o n s t r a i n t s o f any a d d i t i o n a l C o n g r e s s i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n . S e v e r a l men seemed t o i n d i c a t e a s t r o n g sense o f respon-s i b i l i t y t o the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , to the i n t e r e s t s o f the American people, and to n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s i n g e n e r a l . One s t a t e d t h a t i f people's a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r changed s u f f i c i e n t l y t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e weren't needed, he would be happy because r e s o u r c e s would be t r e a t e d p r o p e r l y by the p u b l i c . Another wants to go to A l a s k a to work i n new f o r e s t s i f they are c r e a t e d t h e r e . He'd be s t a r t i n g f r e s h without h a v i n g to c o r r e c t anyone e l s e ' s m i s t a k e s . The d e s i r e to go t h e r e i n d i c a t e s a person l o o k i n g f o r c h a l l e n g e , enjoyment, and an o p p o r t u n i t y to do a b i g job t h a t needs t o be done. These a t t i t u d e s i n d i c a t e t h a t F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l t e n d t o view t h e i r job as p r o v i d i n g as many r e s o u r c e s as 135 p o s s i b l e t o the American p u b l i c . They f e e l t h a t h a v i n g the F o r e s t S e r v i c e manage an ar e a r a t h e r than e i t h e r l e t t i n g someone e l s e impose r e s t r i c t i o n s on the F o r e s t S e r v i c e o r l e a v i n g an ar e a alone i s the p r e f e r r e d way o f p r o v i d i n g these r e s o u r c e s . Nature must be managed by man to meet h i s needs, b o t h f o r t a n g i b l e r e s o u r c e s l i k e timber and water, and f o r i n t a n g i b l e r e s o u r c e s l i k e r e c r e a t i o n and Wi l d e r n e s s . Others won't manage an ar e a as w e l l as the F o r e s t S e r v i c e to meet these needs, and l e a v i n g an ar e a alone w i l l not meet these needs e i t h e r 0 T h i s does not mean t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e opposes W i l d e r n e s s . I t means t h a t , u n l i k e the Park S e r v i c e which p r o v i d e s o n l y Wilderness and r e c r e a t i o n , the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r o v i d e s a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e uses, among which are Wilderness and r e c r e a t i o n . The s t u d y team and o t h e r F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l f e l t and s t i l l f e e l t h e i r job i s to p r o v i d e t h i s v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e u s e s , and they f e l t and f e e l t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the b e s t q u a l i f i e d t o serve the cou n t r y through the p r o v i s i o n o f these r e s o u r c e u s e s . i The p a t t e r n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s v a r i e d . Two ran g e r s s a i d they go i n the Wilderness f o r t h e i r work, but not f o r r e c r e a t i o n . One s a i d he and h i s f a m i l y p r e f e r t o go t o the beach or E a s t e r n Washington to get out o f the mountains. The o t h e r s a i d t h e r e ' s no way they'd go because he would see a l l the c o n f l i c t s he has to d e a l w i t h at work. He'd end up c a r r y i n g out cans and l i t t e r . 136 The two s u p e r v i s o r s used to go i n the w i l d e r n e s s f o r r e c r e a t i o n when th e y were younger. Now they o n l y go as p a r t o f t h e i r work. A l l t h r e e men who were on the o r i g i n a l study team, one man who j o i n e d the study team l a t e r on, and one ranger a l l use the Wilderness f o r r e c r e a t i o n . Most enjoy t h i s form o f r e c r e a t i o n a l o n g w i t h o t h e r forms o f r e c r e a t i o n . Only one man, Dick Buscher, the study team l e a d e r , i d e n t i f i e d the use o f the Wilderness as the s i n g l e most important a c t i v i t y f o r h i m s e l f and h i s f a m i l y . I n s e l e c t i n g study team members who v i s i t the Wilderness f o r r e c r e a t i o n the two s u p e r v i s o r s reduced the chances t h a t t h e r e would be s t r o n g b i a s a g a i n s t Wilderness i n the study. At l e a s t the study team members had some u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the needs and d e s i r e s o f Wilderness u s e r s . They weren't p r e d i s p o s e d t o the c r e a t i o n o f as s m a l l a Wilderness as p o s s i b l e . The commitment t o m u l t i p l e - u s e o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l means th a t most o f them do not have as s t r o n g and e x c l u s i v e a commitment t o Wilderness as some c o n s e r v a t i o n -i s t s have. The study team members were men who had a s t r o n g e r commitment t o Wilderness than many o f t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s . T h e i r s e l e c t i o n appears t o mean l e s s a con-c e s s i o n t o proponents o f l a r g e Wilderness than an attempt t o assure t h a t the study team would be b e t t e r a b l e t o understand the d e s i r e s o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s ; i f p o l i t i c a l c o n d i t i o n s and the r e s u l t s o f study i n d i c a t e d a l a r g e r W i l d e r n e s s Area was i n o r d e r , t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study team was i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than men l e s s s e n s i t i v e t o 137 Wilderness v a l u e s t o propose a l a r g e W i l d e r n e s s . F o r a l o t o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l i n t e r v i e w e d r e s e a r c h needs c e n t e r e d around people management. Some f e l t t h e r e were j u s t people problems not l a n d problems. There was a concern w i t h how people and t h e i r use o f f r a g i l e areas c o u l d be managed without r e s t r i c t i n g them. How can the use o f an a r e a be maximized through d i s p e r s a l o f people r a t h e r than a simple r e a c t i o n l i k e r e g u l a t i n g use? A l o n g w i t h people management i s a need f o r study o f c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y . What i s the s o c i a l and e c o l o g i c a l c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f h i g h country? By knowing the c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f areas the F o r e s t S e r v i c e c o u l d b u i l d t r a i l s and t r a i l h e a d s which s u i t the a r e a and c o u l d d i s p e r s e use to l e s s - u s e d areas w h i l e knowing how much use they can t o l e r a t e . J u s t the c r e a t i o n o f a Wilderness Area i n c r e a s e s use o f an a r e a d r a s t i c a l l y . I n one r a n g e r d i s t r i c t i n f o r m a t i o n i s b e i n g c o l l e c t e d on the e f f e c t o f the p r o p o s a l to c r e a t e an A l p i n e Lakes Wilderness A r e a on use o f r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d > i n t h a t d i s t r i c t . I f managers don't know the c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f an a r e a , they can e a s i l y r u i n i t . The f o r e s t S e r v i c e doesn't want t o k i l l areas by e s t a b l i s h i n g W i l d e r -n e s s , which i s i n t e n d e d to p r o t e c t them. T h i s dilemma i n d i c a t e s a need f o r r e s e a r c h on c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y and on management o f use. Needs f o r r e s e a r c h i n the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d . One study b e i n g s t a r t e d by Dr, John Hendee, 1 3 8 head o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e Research S t a t i o n i n S e a t t l e , w i l l examine the background o f people who get i n v o l v e d i n f e d e r a l l a n d management i s s u e s and how t h e y become i n t e r e s t e d i n them. Codinvolve d a t a from the A l p i n e Lakes study w i l l be used. A U n i v e r s i t y o f Montana f o r e s t r y p r o f e s s o r has t h e o r i z e d t h a t people w i l l . j o i n a v o c a l m i n o r i t y once t h e y become concerned enough about an i s s u e , and i t i s through these v o c a l m i n o r i t i e s t h a t a c t i o n takes p l a c e . Such t h e o r i e s might be s u i t a b l e areas o f r e s e a r c h . Perhaps some s o r t o f sampling system s h o u l d be developed to get an i d e a o f people's wants and needs. Another a r e a o f r e s e a r c h would be what motivates people t o do what they do. What are they l o o k i n g f o r , and how much change i n t h e i r b e h a v i o r w i l l t hey t o l e r a t e i n p u r s u i t o f a hobby? What r e g u l a t i o n s w i l l t hey t o l e r a t e ? One man f e l t o t h e r forms o f l i f e i n the f o r e s t have been w e l l - s t u d i e d , but man has n o t . Research i s needed on what Wilderness i s , on what the W i l d e r n e s s Act means, and on the e f f e c t o f government r e g u l a t i o n s and r e s t r i c t i o n s l i k e the Wilderness A c t , What i s i t t h a t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s supposed to p r o v i d e , and how do laws a f f e c t i t s a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e ? These r e s e a r c h needs mentioned above, a l l r e l a t e d t o people problems, i n d i -c a t e the problems f o r e s e e n by the study team i n d e v e l o p i n g i t s p l a n s . To some extent t h e y c o u l d t r y to minimize the p o s s i b i l i t y o f such problems i n p l a n n i n g . More o f t e n they c o u l d be aware o f the problems without h a v i n g s o l u t i o n s t o propose. They had an o b j e c t i v e o f d e v e l o p i n g a p r o p o s a l 139 which would minimize the people problems managers would f a c e but t h e i r l a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n many areas meant t h i s objec t i v e c o u l d not r e a l l y be met. Some r e s e a r c h needs i d e n t i f i e d i n d i c a t e d a concern about e r o s i o n o f the l a n d base. Research i s needed on how more wood products can be p r o v i d e d as the l a n d base gets s m a l l e r . The u t i l i z a t i o n o f a l l the m a t e r i a l on s i t e i n timber h a r v e s t areas s h o u l d be examined, i n c l u d i n g r e s e a r c h on how to use these m a t e r i a l s e c o n o m i c a l l y . S i n g l e - u s e management i s seen as bad i n t h i s r e s p e c t , because as the need f o r r e s o u r c e s i s growing, the country's l a n d base i s n o t . Are parks and Wilderness Areas what people r e a l l y want? C r e a t i o n o f Wilderness Areas means th a t f u e l s f o r f o r e s f i r e s accumulate i n those a r e a s , because t h e r e i s no removal o f m a t e r i a l s . F u e l s accumulation and means o f r e d u c i n g f o r e s t f i r e h azard i n Wilderness Areas s h o u l d be r e s e a r c h e d . E c o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h i s needed to determine what happens i n the f u t u r e t o t r e e s and o t h e r p a r t s o f the ecosystem i n Wilderness A r e a s . A l o n g w i t h t h i s r e s e a r c h need i s a need to l e t the p u b l i c know t h a t a Wilderness Area w i l l change over time. Trees w i l l d i e , v e g e t a t i o n types w i l l change, meadows w i l l become f o r e s t e d . How a Wilderness Area w i l l appear i n the f u t u r e s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d . Another r e -s e a r c h need i s the r e v e g e t a t i o n o f overused areas w i t h problems o f h i g h a l t i t u d e and poor s o i l s . 140 The areas mentioned f o r r e s e a r c h show a f e a r t h a t the c r e a t i o n o f Wilderness Areas w i l l pose a l o t o f management problems f o r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . F o r the study team t h i s may have been more a r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t problems would a r i s e than a f e a r o f the problems, but f o r many o f t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those who have to manage, t h i s was an a c t u a l f e a r o f the problems and the apparent shortage o f s o l u t i o n s . Some would l i k e Wilderness Areas as s m a l l as p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s r e a s o n , Others would p r e f e r t h a t they be l a r g e r , but t h e y r e a l i z e t h a t much r e s e a r c h i s needed i n s o l v i n g manage-ment problems. P e r s o n n e l a l s o f e a r t h a t n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s may be harmed. There was i n t e r e s t shown i n f i n d i n g out more about the d e s i r e s o f the r e c r e a t i n g p u b l i c and about b e t t e r means o f communicating these d e s i r e s to the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . The concern f o r the l a n d base demonstrated the p r e s s u r e p e r s o n n e l f e e l to p r o v i d e timber. They want to know how t h e y can do i t i f more l a n d i s put i n t o W i l d e r n e s s . T h i s concern f o r the l a n d base and the s u g g e s t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h on how Wilderness management w i l l change the ecosystem p o i n t t o the f e e l i n g t h a t r e s o u r c e s should be managed by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e because they know what to do w i t h them. 3) O b j e c t i v e s The r u l e s c o n s t r a i n i n g the study team and the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f the members c o n t r i b u t e d to a s e t o f o b j e c t i v e s f o r the study team. These o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be l i s t e d below. 141 The study team had an objective of* providing as many resources and uses of resources as possible to meet the needs of the American people. This stemmed from the pressures of laws, p o l i c y from above, past t r a d i t i o n , and from the values of the members. A l l uses of the resources had to be considered and the best combination of uses ar r i v e d at. While r e a l i z i n g that i t was planning f o r a Wilderness Area, the study team made an attempt to leave as much land as possible i n multiple-use, so that other resources than Wilderness and recreation could s t i l l be provided. The c r i t e r i a of the Wilderness Act had to be met. These were that 1) the area not show the "imprint of man's work" noticeably, 2) there be opportunities f o r s o l i t u d e or p r i m i t i v e recreation, 3) the area cover at least 5000 acres, 4) there may be other features of s c i e n t i f i c , h i s t o r i c a l , or scenic i n t e r e s t . The above were the major c r i t e r i a which defined what could or could not be Wilderness. The study team sought to involve the public i n i t s planning process and l i s t e n to i t c a r e f u l l y . Due to past cases of poor communication the study team f e l t pressure from above and from i t s members* values to communicate well with the p u b l i c . This included f i n d i n g people's " r e a l " desires f o r land use management, A c o r o l l a r y of t h i s objective was to develop a proposal which would have p o l i t i c a l support among the public and i n Congress. The study team had freedom i n carrying out i t s study. An objective was to carry out the study i n a manner consistent 142 w i t h F o r e s t S e r v i c e p o l i c y and p h i l o s o p h y i n s e l e c t i n g areas t o be recommended f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the Wilderness P r e s e r v a t i o n System, The F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s r i g o r o u s about i n c l u d i n g o n l y r o a d l e s s areas without s i g n s o f man's work. A Park S e r v i c e s t u d y team c o u l d have developed a d i f f e r e n t p r o p o s a l by i n -c l u d i n g areas t h a t a l r e a d y had roads and/or s t r u c t u r e s . They c o u l d have recommended c l o s i n g the roads and l e t t i n g the a r e a r e v e r t t o t r u e W i l d e r n e s s . The study team chose to l o o k at p o t e n t i a l Wilderness i n the s t r i c t F o r e s t S e r v i c e view. They knew the r e g i o n a l o f f i c e , and more i m p o r t a n t l y , the n a t i o n a l o f f i c e would be l o o k i n g at t h e i r work t o see how areas were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the Wilderness A r e a ( s ) . The study team attempted to minimize d e p l e t i o n o f areas where timber c o u l d be h a r v e s t e d or o t h e r r e s o u r c e s used con-s u m p t i v e l y and to minimize the d e s t r u c t i o n o f jobs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these r e s o u r c e u s e s . They t r i e d t o c a t e r t o the p r e s s u r e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e f e e l s t o p r o v i d e timber f o r the c o u n t r y . Another o b j e c t i v e was to a v o i d recommending a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area. Part o f t h i s was due to r u l e s , but v a l u e s o f the team members prevented them from making a b e t t e r case f o r a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area, They wanted to main-t a i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s freedom and f l e x i b i l i t y t o manage i t s r e s o u r c e s . The study team sought to m a i n t a i n the freedom o f the p r i v a t e s e c t o r and o f l o c a l and s t a t e government t o manage t h e i r own a f f a i r s . They d i d not want t o i n f r i n g e on the r i g h t s o f the p r i v a t e s e c t o r or o f o t h e r l e v e l s o f government. 143 The study team wanted to meet the requirement o f a m i n e r a l s u r v e y f o r areas t o be c o n s i d e r e d f o r W i l d e r n e s s . There were two p o s s i b l e c o r o l l a r i e s to t h i s o b j e c t i v e . One was to i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l areas c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s wanted i n c l u d e d i n the survey so th e y c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d . The o t h e r was to d e l a y the pr o c e s s so t h a t l e s s o p p o s i t i o n t o the F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r o p o s a l would be generated as time went on. There was an o b j e c t i v e o f d e v e l o p i n g t e c h n i q u e s to b e s t meet the g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e s d i s c u s s e d above. The stud y team had the freedom t o develop these p l a n n i n g t e c h n i q u e s . They wanted to p l a n from a u t i l i t a r i a n view and i n as r a t i o n a l a manner as p o s s i b l e . Another o b j e c t i v e was to develop a p r o p o s a l which would be a compromise o f a l l i n p u t s , w h i l e k e e p i n g i n mind t h a t t h e r e were p r e f e r e n c e s i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e as evidenced by past p r o p o s a l s . These two o b j e c t i v e s c o n f l i c t e d , and the o b j e c t i v e o f d e v e l o p i n g a compromise appears t o have been dominant, In l o o k i n g at the c o n f l i c t s between i n t e r e s t s l i k e W ilderness and timber h a r v e s t i n g or Wilderness and i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n the study team t r i e d t o c a t e r t o a l l s i d e s . T h i s o b j e c t i v e was r e l a t e d to the o b j e c t i v e s o f c o n s i d e r i n g a l l r e s o u r c e uses and o f l i s t e n i n g t o a l l segments o f the p u b l i c . The study team a l o n g w i t h the two F o r e s t S u p e r v i s o r s attempted to l e a v e as much o f the study a r e a i n i t s e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n u n t i l the ^end o f the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s as p o s s i b l e . Pressure from above and values of some of these people l e d to t h i s desire not to eliminate more land from Wilderness before any decision. As the study team leader s a i d , much land had already been eliminated from consideration f o r Wilderness by past management decisions. The study team had an objective of being s e n s i t i v e to conservationist values. They wanted to maintain an open r ear to what conservationists f e l t , to avoid ignoring them as has been done i n the past by Forest Service personnel, A f i n a l objective was to develop a proposal which would minimize people problems and other management problems f o r those who would a c t u a l l y manage an Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, Minimizing these problems was attempted i n the face of i n s u f f i c i e n t information. The above l i s t of objectives can be summarized f o r a n a l y t i c a l purposes. This summary gives a condensed idea of what the study team sought to do. The study team sought to include i n t h e i r Wilderness Area proposal lands which would meet the c r i t e r i a i n the t Wilderness Act. These are lands where 1 ) "the imprint of man's work" i s " s u b s t a n t i a l l y unnoticeable," 2 ) there are opportunities f o r solitude or a p r i m i t i v e kind of recrea-t i o n , 3) there are at l e a s t 5000 acres, h) there may be other features of e c o l o g i c a l , g e o l o g i c a l , s c i e n t i f i c , h i s t o r i c a l , or scenic value. Forest Service p o l i c y d i c -tated that only roadless areas could be included; there would be no "second-growth Wilderness," As well i n con-s i d e r i n g areas f o r Wilderness or f o r other uses the study 145 team sought to use r e s o u r c e d a t a and p l a n n i n g t e c h n i q u e s to make t h e i r c h o i c e s as r a t i o n a l as p o s s i b l e . They f e l t an o b l i g a t i o n t o meet the C o n g r e s s i o n a l requirement o f recom-mending o n l y areas which had undergone a m i n e r a l survey. The study team attempted t o develop a Wilderness Area p r o p o s a l which would minimize the removal o f timbered lands from the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s l a n d base. By i n c l u d i n g as l i t t l e l a n d w i t h h a r v e s t a b l e timber as p o s s i b l e i n the Wilderness A r e a the study team c o u l d c o n t i n u e to p r o v i d e a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e amount o f timber f o r l o g g i n g companies. As w e l l as p r o v i d i n g l a n d f o r timber h a r v e s t i n g , the study team sought to p r o v i d e l a r g e enough areas f o r i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n , the k i n d not p e r m i t t e d i n a Wilderness Area. Some areas which c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y have been i n c l u d e d i n Wilderness were recommended f o r m o t o r i z e d or o t h e r i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n . The s t u d y team attempted t o m a i n t a i n a m u l t i p l e - u s e p o s t u r e wherever p o s s i b l e . The study team sought to a v o i d recommending a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a as a b u f f e r a r e a s u r r o u n d i n g the Wilderness c o r e . They f e l t a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area would a t t r a c t too many people to the g e n e r a l a r e a and would t h e r e b y have nega-t i v e impacts on the Wilderness c o r e . As w e l l , t h e y f e l t N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area l e g i s l a t i o n would l i m i t t h e i r freedom to manage the a r e a around the Wilderness A r e a e f f e c t i v e l y . I n s t e a d they chose to propose a s p e c i a l management u n i t s u r r o u n d i n g the Wilderness A r e a . 146 The study team t r i e d t o develop a p r o p o s a l which would be p o l i t i c a l l y a c c e p t a b l e . They made a great e f f o r t t o i n v o l v e as much o f the p u b l i c as p o s s i b l e . T h e i r p u b l i c h e a r i n g s and the brochures and p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s e f f o r t were w e l l - o r g a n i z e d . They attempted to develop a compro-mise by weighing the views o f a l l s i d e s 0 At the same time they t r i e d t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e t o the views o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s i n view o f past i n s e n s i t i v i t i e s t o t h e i r d e s i r e s . They sought t o a v o i d any i n f r i n g e m e n t o f the r i g h t s t h e y f e l t the p r i v a t e s e c t o r and s t a t e and l o c a l governments had. They t r i e d t o a v o i d making recommendations f o r any lands where they f e l t these p a r t i e s had primary j u r i s d i c t i o n . These f o u r g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e s summarize the i n t e n t i o n s o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team i n c a r r y i n g out i t s study and p l a n n i n g e f f o r t f o r the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . C l e a r l y some o f these o b j e c t i v e s c o n f l i c t e d . They r e f l e c t some o f the problems an o r g a n i z a t i o n l i k e the F o r e s t S e r v i c e i s bound to f a c e . I n t r y i n g t o c a t e r t o most or a l l o f the 1 p u b l i c the study team was bound to f a c e v e r y d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s . The p h i l o s o p h y o f m u l t i p l e - u s e i s an attempt t o serve as many people and needs as p o s s i b l e . As these o b j e c t i v e s i n d i c a t e , the m u l t i p l e use p h i l o s o p h y i n c l u d e s the concept o f W i l d e r n e s s , but i n the f a c e o f p u b l i c concern, the p h i l o s o p h y i s not always adequate to the problems o f Wilderness s e l e c t i o n and management. 147 C. P r o p o s i t i o n 3 The i n f o r m a t i o n which a f f e c t e d the output o f the study team c o n s i s t e d o f a) i n f o r m a t i o n which was r e c e i v e d from o u t s i d e and screened and i n t e r -p r e t e d by the study team i n a c c o r d w i t h the v a l u e s o f the study team members and b) i n f o r m a t i o n generated by the study team. The important q u e s t i o n s a r e : What i n f o r m a t i o n d i d the study team r e c e i v e from o u t s i d e ? How was t h i s i n f o r m a -t i o n screened and i n t e r p r e t e d ? What:i i n f o r m a t i o n was generated w i t h i n the study team? What was the r e l a t i v e importance o f the two sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n ? 1) Sources o f and Channels f o r I n f o r m a t i o n Since 1946 or e a r l i e r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e had been r e c e i v i n g messages about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . Some were messages about the are a p e r se, others concerned a l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f the Cascade Range, F o r e s t p r o d u c t s companies asked f o r timber s a l e s i n the r e g i o n w h i l e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s wrote p r o p o s a l s f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and p r o t e c t i o n o f the area i n v a r i o u s j o u r n a l s . T h i s t h e s i s concerns the work o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e s t u d y team which was formed i n J u l y o f 1972. Because some o f the i n f o r m a t i o n which had an impor-t a n t p a r t i n the f i n a l recommendations o f the study team was gathered and p r e s e n t e d p r i o r t o the study team's c r e a t i o n , t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l d i s c u s s some i n p u t s which were made b e f o r e the study team o f f e r e d i t s t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s to the p u b l i c . I n 1963 f o u r Northwest c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s , the North Cascades C o n s e r v a t i o n C o u n c i l , the Mountaineers, 148 the Mazamas, and the P a c i f i c Northwest Chapter o f the S i e r r a Club, prepared a p r o p o s a l f o r an A l p i n e Lakes Wilderness A r e a . T h i s p r o p o s a l appeared i n the A p r i l - M a y 1964 i s s u e o f The W i l d Cascades and c a l l e d f o r Wilderness o f 2 7 8 , 0 0 0 a c r e s to 3 3 4 , 0 0 0 acres depending on how much p r i v a t e l a n d c o u l d be a c q u i r e d . I n the October-November 1967 i s s u e o f The W i l d Cascades Brock Evans wrote "The A l p i n e Lakes: S t e p c h i l d o f the North Cascades." He contended t h a t because c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s were so busy t r y i n g t o p r o t e c t the a r e a t h a t became the North Cascades N a t i o n a l Park, nobody was w o r r y i n g about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . He noted t h a t i n areas such as Lake Dorothy, M i l l e r R i v e r , Salmon La Sac, and Mt. S t u a r t which were omitted from the L i m i t e d A r e a , c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s had asked t h a t p l a n s f o r development o f the areas be d e f e r r e d u n t i l d i s p o s i t i o n o f the whole a r e a had been s e t t l e d . He then o u t l i n e d the d e p l e t i o n o f the r e m a i n i n g r o a d l e s s c o u n t r y , through timber s a l e s . T h i s p r o c e s s began " i n e a r n e s t " i n 1962. U s i n g the example o f the E i g h t m i l e Creek timber s a l e o f 1967 he showed through e x c e r p t s from c o r -respondence w i t h the F o r e s t S e r v i c e how a timber s a l e c o u l d be conducted d e s p i t e p r o t e s t from c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s . A f t e r o u t l i n i n g t h r e a t s from timber h a r v e s t i n g and from m i n i n g Evans c a l l e d on people to o r g a n i z e to save the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . 1 4 9 S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s a r t i c l e and p u b l i c h e a r i n g s on the proposed North Cascades N a t i o n a l Park i n 1968, the A l p i n e Lakes P r o t e c t i o n S o c i e t y was formed. The two major i n p u t s mentioned above, a l o n g w i t h r e q u e s t s from i n d u s t r y f o r timber s a l e s i n the a r e a , can be c o n s i d e r e d to precede the a r e a o f concern o f t h i s t h e s i s . They s e t the stage f o r what i s to be s t u d i e d . The 1970 p r o p o s a l o f ALPS preceded the work o f the study team, i n f a c t i t h e l p e d i n i t i a t e the c r e a t i o n o f the study team. I t a l s o was a major i n p u t o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d by the study team. T h i s p r o p o s a l , i n the form o f l e g i s l a t i o n , c a l l e d f o r the c r e a t i o n o f a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A rea w i t h a Wilderness c o r e . At the same time ALPS was busy sending o r a l and w r i t t e n communications to the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and to the Washington C o n g r e s s i o n a l d e l e g a t i o n . New members were r e c r u i t e d , and an e f f o r t was made to i n f o r m the p u b l i c about the A l p i n e Lakes a r e a . N e w s l e t t e r s , meetings, s l i d e shows, the w r i t t e n o r a l communications a l l informed the F o r e s t S e r v i c e t h a t someone was i n t e r e s t e d i n the a r e a . I n 1970 the f o r e s t p roducts i n d u s t r y and the s t a t e o f Washington Department o f N a t u r a l Resources c r e a t e d the C e n t r a l Washington Cascades Study Team, T h i s study team and the U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington c o n s u l t i n g f i r m , BEAR, prep a r e d a d e t a i l e d r e p o r t on the a r e a . I n 1972 the r e p o r t was submitted t o the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and summary r e p o r t s were made a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c . The r e p o r t i n c l u d e d r e s o u r c e 150 d a t a , e s t i m a t e s o f the impact o f the ALPS p r o p o s a l on the economy and on use o f the r e s o u r c e s o f the a r e a , the study team's own p r o p o s a l f o r two s e p a r a t e Wilderness Areas, and an assessment o f the impact o f t h i s p r o p o s a l . At the same time the C e n t r a l Washington Cascades Study Team was r e c r u i t i n g support among o t h e r members o f the f o r e s t p r o -d u c t s i n d u s t r y , landowners, i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n i n t e r e s t s , and o t h e r s f o r t h i s p r o p o s a l . As ALPS was doing, they t r i e d t o l e t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e and Congress know how they f e l t the a r e a s h o u l d be managed. Once the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team was formed, t h e r e was a s p e c i f i c body to which i n p u t s about the a r e a c o u l d be d i r e c t e d . The two p r o p o s a l s d e s c r i b e d above c o u l d be t u r n e d over to the study team. Meetings were h e l d w i t h the study team to d i s c u s s the p r o p o s a l s . L e t t e r s gave reasons s u p p o r t i n g v a r i o u s p o r t i o n s o f the p r o p o s a l s . P u b l i c i t y i n the p r e s s and i n d i r e c t p r e s s u r e v i a Congress-men l e t the study team know t h a t these two groups i n t e n d e d to folloxv the whole p r o c e s s through. Other groups and i n d i v i d u a l s began to communicate i n f o r m a t i o n to the study team through l e t t e r s , i n f o r m a l meetings, or e x p r e s s i o n s o f support f o r o p p o s i t i o n t o one o f the two above p r o p o s a l s . I n 1973 the study team pr e p a r e d i t s t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s and i n v i t e d p u b l i c comment on i t . Over 1900 persons attended the seven p u b l i c meetings h e l d i n communities around the a r e a . Four thousand s i x hundred n i n e t y (4690) w r i t t e n i n p u t s r e p r e s e n t i n g 5380 persons were 151 received. These inputs were separated into primary inputs, generated by i n d i v i d u a l action, and secondary inputs, generated by organized action. Half of the inputs were primary inputs, u s u a l l y personal l e t t e r s or tear forms from the Forest Service booklets. The secondary inputs came c h i e f l y from industry. Other sources of input such as meetings or regular correspondence outside the formal pro-cess were not documented. Their r o l e has to be i n f e r r e d . Most i n d i v i d u a l written inputs appear to have been included i n t h i s tabulation. The other inputs, those not counted, seem to be c h i e f l y inputs from the major groups who com-municated with the study team continuously during the process, using various means such as contacting Congress-men, getting cartoons or e d i t o r i a l s i n l o c a l papers, meet-ings with the study team or the two supervisors, sending them l e t t e r s and written material. This process ended formally a f t e r the public hearings i n October 1973# Two thousand seven hundred f i f t y two (2752) inputs representing 6469 persons were received i n -rea c t i o n to the Forest Service proposal f o r the Alpine Lakes area. These inputs included o r a l inputs from the o f f i c i a l t r a n s c r i p t s and written inputs. Following analysis of these inputs the study team prepared i t s f i n a l proposal. The groups went on using the same channels of communication to l e t the Forest Service and Congress know how they f e l t and to communicate any changes i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . The one other group proposal discussed here came from the Coalition of Conservation Groups. This proposal was prepared shortly before the public hearings in October 1973* and just after the study team released its proposal. A pamphlet for public distribution and communications to the study team like those from the other groups but less detailed were used to influence the study team. Communica-tions from the Coalition were more a continuation of past efforts like those in 1963 a n c * 9^^ 7 than a continuous and specific effort like those of the Central Washington Cascades Study Team, later the Alpine Lakes Coalition, and of ALPS. For many of the groups in the Coalition of Conservation Groups the Alpine Lakes was one concern out of several, and their communications were different from those of groups more specifically organized around the Alpine Lakes area. 2) Substantive Information Because they both preceded the alternatives of the Forest Service study team, the proposals of ALPS and the Alpine Lakes Coalition wi l l be discussed f irs t . Afterward the Forest Service alternatives, reaction to them, the Coalition of Conservation Groups proposal, and the single Forest Service proposal wi l l be discussed, a) The ALPS Proposal ALPS proposed a 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 acre National Recreation Area with a 3 6 4 , 0 0 0 acre Wilderness core. Approximately 128,000 acres in the National Recreation Area would be 153 ' included i n a one-mile wide buffe r s t r i p surrounding the Wilderness Area. In t h i s b u f f e r area timber harvesting would be allowed only under s t r i c t guidelines. In the rest of the National Recreation Area outside the Wilderness other uses such as timber harvesting or grazing would be allowed only i f t t h e y were compatible with the primary purpose of providing recreation. The buffe r area would prevent c l e a r -c u t t i n g adjacent to the Wilderness, which would diminish the q u a l i t y of the Wilderness. I t would also provide a "near wilderness" atmosphere f o r those who could not or would not go farther, into the actual Wilderness. Thus ALPS proposed concentric zones with less intensive use i n the core and more intensive use on the perimeter. They f e l t t h i s plan would permit u n i f i e d management of the entire area rather than dealing with just a portion of the area. They also included a p o l i c y f o r acquiring necessary privat e land through purchase. During the time following preparation of t h i s proposal ALPS gathered and presented information supporting i t s pro-posal and discussing i t s impacts. Perhaps the most obvious kind of information i s that r e l a t e d to the forest products industry. ALPS estimated that i t s proposal would reduce by 25 m i l l i o n board feet per year the allowable harvest l e v e l s , or about 2.5$ of the current harvest l e v e l i n the four-county region. I t was f e l t that improved management practices i n the remaining area could make up f o r t h i s 2.5$. 7 ALPS memo, Sept. 30, 1973. 154 Nevertheless AXPS responded to estimates by others of these impactS o They acknowledged the larg e r Wilderness Area and proposed controls on harvesting as contributing to t h e i r l a r g e r negative economic impacts. Using a Forest Service estimate of the loss i n timber sale revenues to school d i s t r i c t s and counties per m i l l i o n board feet of timber l o s t , ALPS showed that t h e i r proposal would not cause losses 8 of more than about one percent of the annual budgets. Because approximately 40$ of the timber harvested i n the area was exported, ALPS f e l t the impact of t h e i r proposal on l o c a l jobs was not as serious as the Central Washington Cascades Study Team stated i t was. They f e l t that estimates of impacts based on " f u l l y i e l d " as prepared by the Central Washington Cascades Study Team or on p o t e n t i a l annual har-vest as prepared by the Forest Service were exaggerations. They stated that harvesting i n the area had never exceeded 55$ of " f u l l y i e l d " and that current harvest l e v e l s were 58.5$ of the Forest Service's p o t e n t i a l annual harvest, which i n turn was 70$ of " f u l l y i e l d . " ^ No ALPS estimates of job impacts were obtained. However, others' estimates were obtained. When these are presented, the above f a c t o r s , and the fact that i f d i r e c t job impacts ( i . e . logging and sawmills) are exaggerated, so are i n d i r e c t job impacts should be remembered. ALPS d i d present evidence that i n the long run i n other areas such as Redwoods National 8 I b i d . 9 ALPS l e t t e r to Dick Buscher, March 1, 1973. 155 Park job l o s s e s i n timber h a r v e s t i n g were more than r e p l a c e d by jobs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e c r e a t i o n . ALPS attempted to p r o v i d e a p l a n whereby maximum use of* r e c r e a t i o n p o t e n t i a l would r e s u l t . They recommended areas such as the Teanaway a r e a f o r m o t o r i z e d r e c r e a t i o n , minimum road c l o s u r e s so t h a t areas f o r r o a d s i d e r e c r e a t i o n c o u l d be r e t a i n e d , a p o l i c y f o r a c q u i r i n g p r i v a t e l a n d t o permit maximum Wi l d e r n e s s , g u i d e l i n e s f o r u n i f y i n g management which was c u r r e n t l y d i v i d e d among two f o r e s t s and f o u r coun-t i e s , c l e a r p o l i c y f o r p r o v i d i n g non-Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n . They f e l t t h i s p l a n would improve land-use i n the a r e a . By c o n s o l i d a t i n g management o f the whole a r e a they f e l t t h a t w h i l e the lands b e s t s u i t e d f o r Wilderness would be used f o r W i l d e r n e s s , the lands b e s t s u i t e d f o r o t h e r forms o f r e c r e a t i o n or f o r timber h a r v e s t i n g , g r a z i n g , o r f o r o t h e r uses would be managed f o r t h e i r b e s t uses under one a r e a -wide p l a n . They t r i e d t o address problems l i k e the crowded highway through Snoqualmie Pass, the areas o f checkerboard ownership, the needs o f non-Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , ALPS d i d not l i m i t i t s e l f t o areas too h i g h f o r timber h a r v e s t i n g i n p r o p o s i n g W i l d e r n e s s . Some timbered lowland v a l l e y s were included,. Areas o f mixed ownership were i n c l u d e d . E s s e n t i a l l y the Teanaway a r e a was the o n l y r o a d l e s s a r e a which c o u l d have been added f o r a major i n c r e a s e i n the s i z e o f the W i l d e r n e s s . The boundaries o f the N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area were drawn to a l a r g e extent w i t h the highway c o r r i d o r s i n mind. These highways are the 1 5 6 portals to the Alpine Lakes, arid they create a lot of the management problems. Including them and such areas as the Teanaway area, Icicle Greek, and the three ar t i f i c ia l lakes near Cle Elum and Snoqualmie Pass would permit better manage-ment of the area for non-Wilderness uses. Over a period of several years this information and elaboration of i t was presented to the Forest Service. Since the end of 1 9 7 4 and the preparation of the final Forest Service proposal ALPS has amended its proposal. Since a new session of Congress is now in progress, a new b i l l had to beiintroduced. The size of the National Recreation Area and of the Wilderness core have been increased, and some guidelines have been changed. These changes do not concern the work of the study team, but they do concern Congress, and they demonstrate the ongoing planning effort. b) The Alpine Lakes Coalition-CWCST Proposal The Alpine Lakes Coalition's proposal, presented originally by the Central Washington Cascades Study Team, was the next proposal of concern. This proposal called for 1 7 8 , 1 5 0 acre Alpine Lakes Wilderness and a separate 4 5 , 4 3 0 acre Enchantment Wilderness. Two Scenic Areas and a Botanical Area created under regulation U - 3 , discussed earlier in the thesis, were recommended. In these areas recreational developments - such as resorts and campgrounds are permitted providing they and associated roads don't interfere with natural scenic features. Tree removal is permitted only for the provision of such fac i l i t ies . The 157 purpose of management i s to preserve outstanding scenic beauty. Other than these areas, a l l lands outside the Wilderness were to be c l a s s i f i e d f o r multiple use. They proposed emphasis on "timber management and medium density recreation" i n the t r a n s i t i o n and general forest zones through provision of more roads, campgrounds, and other such r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , and through forest regeneration and control of pests and f i r e . These recommendations f o l -lowed a lengthy and de t a i l e d study of the Alpine Lakes area. The economic-ecological study performed by BEAR com-pared the impacts of the ALPS proposal and the CWCST pro-posal. They f e l t the ALPS requirement of small clearcut areas and some p a r t i a l c u t t i n g required would mean greater s o i l erosion and water p o l l u t i o n and some conversion of cer t a i n tree species to other species. Over time ALPS changed some of i t s logging recommendations i n response to such anticipated problems. The CWCST proposal was f e l t to provide r e c r e a t i o n f o r more people due to increased access. The most s t r i k i n g difference noted, however, was the economic d i f f e r e n c e . The CWCST proposal would allow retention of 81.4 m i l l i o n board feet of timber more per year,almost 2500 jobs more and $27 m i l l i o n i n state and l o c a l income more per year 10 than the ALPS proposal i t was claimed. R e s t r i c t i o n s on the size of clearcuts, the percentage of the annual harvest The Central Washington Cascades An Economic-Ecological  Evaluation, p. 3 • 158 which c o u l d be c l e a r c u t , r e f o r e s t a t i o n p r a c t i c e s , and h a r v e s t i n g i n watersheds f o r water s u p p l y accounted f o r much o f the r e d u c t i o n o f h a r v e s t under the ALPS p r o p o s a l , as w e l l as the l a r g e r W i l d e r n e s s . The o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s c l a i m e d were i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l i t y f o r watershed manage-ment, more l a n d a v a i l a b l e f o r g r a z i n g , b e t t e r w i l d l i f e management p o s s i b l e , and g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l m i n e r a l e x p l o r a t i o n . The CWCST p r o p o s a l was f e l t t o p r o v i d e not timber i n s t e a d o f r e c r e a t i o n , but more timber and r o a d - o r i e n t e d r e c r e a t i o n i n s t e a d o f l e s s timber and more Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n . They f e l t t h e y were c a t e r i n g to the needs o f the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f the p u b l i c . They p o i n t e d to the h i g h percentage o f l a n d s e t a s i d e f o r Wilderness use i n Washington compared to o t h e r s t a t e s and q u e s t i o n e d the need f o r more W i l d e r n e s s . I n g e n e r a l the C e n t r a l Washington . Cascades Study Team f e l t they d i d a b e t t e r job than ALPS o f p r o v i d i n g f o r the r e s o u r c e and r e c r e a t i o n needs o f a l a r g e segment o f the p u b l i c . c) The F o r e s t S e r v i c e A l t e r n a t i v e s Before p r e p a r i n g t h e i r t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s the F o r e s t S e r v i c e study team generated s u p p l y and demand i n f o r m a -t i o n about the v a r i o u s r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e i n the a r e a . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was j u s t as important as p u b l i c i n p u t i n f o r m i n g the f i n a l output i n the view o f one study team member. He f e l t the c o n s t r a i n t s o f r u l e s , mentioned e a r l i e r , put the study team i n the b a l l p a r k . A f t e r the c o n s t r a i n t s were 1 5 9 c o n s i d e r e d , p u b l i c i n p u t and s u p p l y and demand i n f o r m a t i o n shared i n the f i n a l outcome. Supply and demand i n f o r m a t i o n determined t h a t o u t s t a n d i n g p o t e n t i a l s k i areas on the p e r i p h e r y o r m i n e r a l areas on the p e r i p h e r y would o v e r r i d e o t h e r u s e s . T h i s s u p p l y and demand i n f o r m a t i o n was seen as a way o f r e p r e s e n t i n g those who d i d not make i n p u t t o the p r o c e s s . The s t u d y team o f f e r e d t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the a r e a e a r l y i n 1 9 7 3 « The s u p p l y and demand i n f o r m a t i o n , some p u b l i c i n p u t , and the study team's i n s i g h t s c o n t r i b u t e d t o thes e a l t e r n a t i v e s . A l t e r n a t i v e A c a l l e d f o r a s i n g l e W i l d e r n e s s o f 1 8 2 , 5 0 0 a c r e s , an a d d i t i o n a l 2 2 , 5 0 0 a c r e s o f checkerboard l a n d t o be managed f o r W i l d e r n e s s , 1 3 0 , 6 0 0 a c r e s c l a s s i f i e d as "Roadless Backcountry," and 2 4 , 3 0 0 a c r e s o f S c e n i c A r e a . The o b j e c t i v e was t o maximize n e a r - p r i m i t i v e r e c r e a t i o n t o reduce p r e s s u r e on the W i l d e r n e s s . There would be minimal r e s t r i c t i o n s on backpacking use and horse use i n comparison w i t h W i l d e r n e s s . A l t e r n a t i v e A had the l e a s t economic impact on the ar e a o f the t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s . A c h a r t at the end o f t h i s s e c -t i o n compares the impacts o f the t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s and o f management w i t h no dominant use l i k e W ilderness o r r e c r e a t i o n . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e was an attempt t o minimize economic impacts w h i l e maximizing p r i m i t i v e r e c r e a t i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e B p r o v i d e d f o r the g r e a t e s t amount o f l a n d i n W i l d e r n e s s . 2 7 3 , 9 0 0 a c r e s would be i n W i l d e r n e s s , and 7 4 , 0 0 0 a c r e s o f checkerboard l a n d would be managed f o r 160 W i l d e r n e s s . A g a i n 2 4 , 3 0 0 a c r e s would go i n t o S c e n i c A r e a . When the checkerboard areas and the Wilderness were combined, the t o t a l a r e a would have a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same c o n f i g u r a t i o n as the Wilderness core o f the ALPS N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a . The F o r e s t S e r v i c e d i d not p r o v i d e any c l e a r p o l i c y f o r a c q u i s i t i o n o f p r i v a t e l a n d . No e q u i v a l e n t to the one-mile b u f f e r zone or the s u r r o u n d i n g N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area was p r o v i d e d . W i t h i n the Wilderness r e s t r i c t i o n s would be s t r i n g e n t t o p r o t e c t the a r e a . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e was i n the middle i n terms o f economic impacts. I t s impact was not much more severe than a l t e r n a t i v e A, The p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e was maximization o f W i l d e r n e s s . A l t e r n a t i v e C i n c l u d e d two separate Wildernesses w i t h a combined a r e a o f 170,300 a c r e s . 2 2 , 5 0 0 acres o f checkerboard l a n d would be managed f o r W i l d e r n e s s . The two Wildernesses would be s e p a r a t e d by 2 0 8 , 5 0 0 acres o f " R e c r e a t i o n A r e a , " l a n d s u i t a b l e f o r a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area. I n a d d i t i o n 126,100 a c r e s o f Roadless Backcountry and 24 , 3 0 0 a c r e s o f S c e n i c Area would be i n c l u d e d . The study team made i t c l e a r t h a t i t was not recommend-i n g a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area, but t h a t i t was s t a t i n g which l a n d was s u i t a b l e f o r such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t some p r o v i s i o n would be made f o r z o n i n g i f a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a were c r e a t e d . The two Wildernesses compared i n v e r y g e n e r a l terms t o the Wildernesses proposed by the A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n , However, the emphasis i n the s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a was on 161 recreation, not on multiple use. Because of the large Recreation Area the al t e r n a t i v e had the greatest economic impact of a l l three. In t h i s respect i t pleased nobody. There were two separate Wildernesses, but there was a Recreation Area, p o t e n t i a l l y a National Recreation Area, and the economic impacts were higher than with the other two \ a l t e r n a t i v e s . The objective was to maximize a l l forms of recreation, but t h i s may have been l o s t i n the confusion r e s u l t i n g from combining some features of the two outside proposals. The brochure which included these three a l t e r n a t i v e s also included 22 management objectives f o r the whole area. They outlined i n a general way what the basic management d i r e c t i o n f o r the area would be. They are l i s t e d i n the appendix. When the study team presented a single proposal, these objectives were revised. When the f i n a l output of the study team i s discussed, under Proposition 1, the important objectives w i l l be discussed, d) Reaction to the Forest Service A l t e r n a t i v e s Some of the reactions to the Forest Service a l t e r n a -t i v e s were of a substantive nature. These w i l l be summarized. The Alpine Lakes C o a l i t i o n said that a l l of the Forest Service proposals created unfavorable economic impacts that were too large. They f e l t timber harvests, jobs, and l o c a l revenues would be unduly decreased, and that demands f o r county services l i k e road maintenance,garbage c o l l e c t i o n , and p o l i c e protection would be grea t l y increased. They also 1 6 2 f e l t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e u n derestimated the impacts o f t h e i r a l t e r n a t i v e s . When the s i n g l e F o r e s t S e r v i c e p r o p o s a l i s d i s c u s s e d , i t w i l l be seen t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t d i s -crepancy between F o r e s t S e r v i c e estimates o f impacts and A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n e s t i m a t e s f o r the same ar e a . The C o a l i t i o n f e l t the F o r e s t S e r v i c e s h o u l d not suggest a p o t e n t i a l N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A rea where p r i v a t e l a n d and l o c a l government c o u l d be i n v o l v e d . They a l s o ob-j e c t e d t o . t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s p o t e n t i a l a r e a was i n c l u d e d i n the o n l y p r o p o s a l w i t h two separate W i l d e r n e s s e s , They f e l t c e r t a i n p e r i p h e r a l a r e a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the West, were too a c c e s s i b l e and s h o u l d not be i n c l u d e d i n Wilderness s i n c e t h e y would be too d i f f i c u l t t o manage, . They would be b e t t e r managed f o r i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n . The b a s i c o b j e c t i o n f o l l o w e d e s s e n t i a l l y the same r e a s o n i n g as the C o a l i t i o n ' s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i t s p r o p o s a l . I t s p r o p o s a l o f f e r e d g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r use o f r e s o u r c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y timber. I t s e r v e d a b r o a d e r segment o f the r e c r e a t i n g p u b l i c . I t s t a t e d more r e a l i s t i c a l l y the impacts o f Wilderness on the l o c a l and s t a t e economies. I t d i d not u n n e c e s s a r i l y l i n k two l o g i c a l l y s e p a r a t e W i l d e r n e s s e s . I t d i d not i n c l u d e a vague c l a s s i f i c a t i o n c a l l e d "Roadless Backcountry" where timber c o u l d not be h a r v e s t e d . ALPS had o b j e c t i o n s to the t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s . A major o b j e c t i o n was t h a t none o f the a l t e r n a t i v e s suggested to the p u b l i c t h a t t h e y comment on i s s u e s l i k e the checkerboard a r e a s , the i n t r u s i o n o f power l i n e s and highways i n t o s c e n i c 163 mountain a r e a s , the c o n f l i c t i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s o f v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f government, and i n g e n e r a l management p o l i c y f o r the l a n d o u t s i d e the r o a d l e s s c o r e . They f e l t the p u b l i c was o n l y b e i n g asked to comment on the r o a d l e s s c o r e . Too many p e r i p h e r a l r i v e r v a l l e y s a l o n g w i t h the highway c o r -r i d o r s were omitted c o m p l e t e l y from c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The a l t e r n a t i v e s d i d not view the whole ar e a , Wilderness and non-Wilderness, as a s i n g l e management u n i t as ALPS attempted t o . They f e l t t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e C r e p r e s e n t e d a complete mi s u n d e r s t a n d i n g on p a r t o f the study team o f the i n t e n t o f a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a . Another F o r e s t S e r v i c e N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A rea i n c l u d e s more p r i v a t e l a n d , i s l e s s d e v e l -oped, and r e c e i v e s l e s s r e c r e a t i o n a l use than the A l p i n e Lakes, I n s h o r t , N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas do not have to mean a c e r t a i n percentage o f p u b l i c l a n d or a h i g h degree o f i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n development. They thought the F o r e s t S e r v i c e wanted too much f l e x i b i l i t y i n the management o f non-Wilderness l a n d s . I n N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Areas the o n l y l i m i t a t i o n on f l e x i -b i l i t y i s t h a t r e c r e a t i o n and e s t h e t i c s be dominant but not e x c l u s i v e u s e s . They f e l t the f l e x i b i l i t y the F o r e s t S e r v i c e wanted l e f t too much to the d i s c r e t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . There was no b u f f e r i n g t o p r o t e c t the Wilderness from i n t e n s i v e use, and t h e r e were not s u f f i c i e n t areas p r o v i d e d f o r a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f r e c r e a t i o n to Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n . 164 No p r o v i s i o n f o r adequate r e c r e a t i o n a l f u n d i n g as would e x i s t w i t h a N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area was made. No pl a n s or i n s u f -f i c i e n t money would mean poor f a c i l i t i e s f o r non-Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n i s t s i n the f u t u r e . ALPS a l s o commented on the d i s c u s s i o n o f economic impacts by CWCST and by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . They o b j e c t e d t o u s i n g p o t e n t i a l y i e l d r a t h e r than a c t u a l y i e l d as a b a s i s f o r c a l c u l a t i n g impacts. They f e l t net impacts, not gross impacts s h o u l d be d i s c u s s e d , l o o k i n g at new jobs which might be c r e a t e d as w e l l as o l d jobs which might be l o s t . As the A l p i n e Lakes C o a l i t i o n d i d , ALPS f e l t i t s p r o p o s a l b e t t e r addressed the r e s o u r c e and r e c r e a t i o n needs o f r a l a r g e segment o f the p u b l i c than d i d any o f the F o r e s t S e r v i c e a l t ernat i v e s. e) The C o a l i t i o n o f C o n s e r v a t i o n Groups P r o p o s a l Since the C o a l i t i o n o f C o n s e r v a t i o n Groups had not prepared i t s p r o p o s a l at the time o f the t h r e e F o r e s t S e r v i c e a l t e r n a t i v e s , i t d i d not o f f e r o r g a n i z e d o b j e c t i o n s to them at t h a t time. The o b j e c t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s and o f member groups r o u g h l y p a r a l l e l e d those o f ALPS. Perhaps the b e s t way to present these o b j e c t i o n s i s as a p a r t o f the C o a l i -t i o n ' s p r o p o s a l which was prep a r e d s h o r t l y a f t e r the study team p r e s e n t e d i t s s i n g l e p r o p o s a l . The C o a l i t i o n proposed a 573,000 acre Wilderness surrounded by the same N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Area boundaries as proposed by ALPS, about 950,000 a c r e s t o t a l . E x t e n s i v e 165 road c l o s u r e