Note: AF indicates a file in the author's collection.

1. The West in this article includes eleven states: Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.

2. General statewide groups include the Washington Environmental Council, the Oregon Environmental Council and the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Idaho Environmental Council and the Idaho Conservation League, the Montana Environmental Information Center, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, the Colorado Environmental Council, the Southwest Environmental Service (Arizona), and the New Mexico Conservation Coordinating Council.

3. Typical regional and local groups, whose publications I have used for this article include the Jackson Hole Alliance for Responsible Planning, Jackson, Wyoming; the North Cascades Conservation Council, Seattle; the Save the Redwoods League, San Francisco; the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, San Jose, California; the San Francisco Bay Association; the Siskiyou Mountains Resources Council, Arcata, California; Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Portland, Oregon; the Siuslaw Task Force, Corvallis, Oregon; the Oregon High Desert Study Group, St. Paul; and Preserve Our Poudre, Fort Collins, Colorado.

4. The first western coalition-style environmental group, the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, was formed in 1932 as an alliance of hiking and mountaineering clubs; see its publication, Outdoors West (Seattle, 1978–).Google Scholar A more recent group, the Utah Wilderness Coalition, was formed in 1986 to protect lands in Utah; it was composed of six Utah groups, nine groups from other western states, and five national organizations. See its newsletter, Utah Wilderness News (Salt Lake city, 1986–).Google Scholar

5. The Continental Group, Toward Responsible Growth: Economic and Environmental Concern in the Balance (Stamford, Conn., 1982).Google Scholar

6. High Country News (Lander, Wyo., and Paonia, Colo., 1970–)Google Scholar; Harlow, Susan J., “High Country News: Survival and Change,” M.A. thesis, Department of Journalism and Communication, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 1981.Google Scholar See also Western Wildlands (Missoula: University of Montana School of Forestry, 1974–).Google ScholarPLI [Public Lands Institute] Newsletter (Denver and Washington, D.C., 1978); and First, Earth (Reno and Tucson, 1981–).Google Scholar

7. A representative selection of books relevant to the subject and not cited later are Gregory Graves, R. and Simon, Sally L., eds., A History of Environmental Review in Santa Barbara County, California (Santa Barbara, 1980)Google Scholar; Harrington, Winston, The Regulatory Approach to Air Quality Management: A Case Study of New Mexico (Washington, D.C., 1981)Google Scholar; Johnson, Carolyn R. andHildebrandt, Eric, Still Stripping the Law on Coal (Denver, 1984)Google Scholar; Krier, James E. and Ursin, Edmund, Pollution and Policy: A Case Study on California and Federal Experience with Motor Vehicle Air Pollution, 1940–1975 (Berkely, 1977)Google Scholar; Lamm, Gov. Richard D. and McCarthy, Michael, The Angry West: A Vulnerable Land and Its Future (Boston, 1982)Google Scholar; League of Women Voters of California, Protecting The California Environment: A Citizen's Guide (San Francisco, 1980)Google Scholar; Matheson, Scott M., Out of Balance (Salt Lake City, 1986)Google Scholar; McDonald, Corry, Wilderness: A New Mexico Legacy (Santa Fe, 1985)Google Scholar; Schrepfer, Susan, The Fight to Save the Redwoods (Madison, Wis., 1983)Google Scholar; Twight, Ben W., Organizational Values and Political Power: The Forest Service Versus the Olympic National Park (University Park, Pa., 1983).Google Scholar

8. For accounts of the wilderness movement, see Allin, Craig, The Politics of Wilderness Preservation (Westport, Conn., 1982)Google Scholar; Gilligan, James F., “The Development of Policy and Administration of Forest Service Primitive and Wilderness Areas in the Western United States” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1953).Google Scholar

9. The first de facto wilderness review originated in 1967 when the Forest Service added provisions to the Forest Service Review Manual that required all national forest lands to be reviewed to determine whether they met specific criteria relating to suitability, availability, and need for allocation as wilderness. The manual required each regional forester to submit to the chief a list of areas recommended to be classified as New Study Areas. The agency gave no publicity to this planned review. Under this order little was done and in 1969 the deadline for recommendations was extended to 30 June, 1972. This also produced little action and in February 1971 the chief sent another directive to forest supervisors instructing them to move ahead. In May and June 1971 most of the regional foresters sent instructions to the supervisors as to how they should proceed; since this resulted in varied procedures in August 1971, the chief sent out directives to standardize them. This action also was not published and conservationists first learned of it in mid-November 1971. See Sierra Club, National News Report (San Francisco, 12 June 1972Google Scholar; Roth, Dennis M., The Wilderness Movement and the National Forests (College Station, Tex., 1988).Google Scholar

These moves by the Forest Service were speeded up by the East Meadow Creek, or Parker, case, in which the court ruled that the agency could not proceed with a timber sale near the Gore Range–Eagle Nest Primitive Area in East Meadow Creek, Colorado, until it had been reviewed for wilderness potential. Judge Doyle argued that such a sale along the border of a primitive area under study would “frustrate the purposes of the Wilderness Act to vest the ultimate decision as to wilderness classification in the President and the Congress rather than the Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture.” See Parker v. U.S., l ER 1163–1170, 27 February 1970.

10. Western state wilderness organizations include the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the California, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona wilderness associations, the Utah Wilderness Coalition, and the New Mexico Wilderness Study Committee. For activities of the American Wilderness Alliance, see its publications, On the Wild Side (Denver, 1979–)Google Scholar and Wild America (Denver, 1979–); see also At the Confluence, Proceedings, Western Wilderness and Rivers Conference, 21 and 22 November 1980, Denver, sponsored by the alliance (Denver, 1980). Brock Evans, associate executive director of the Sierra Club described the conference: “It really was a historic gathering, I thought, the first time in my memory that the real grassroot leaders from all over the West were brought together in one place to hear each other”; see Proceedings, introduction. The section of the report entitled “State Overviews” gives an especially useful description of state wilderness activities.

11. Interview with Andy Kerr, associate director, Oregon Natural Resources Council, 14 April 1980; for activities of ONRC, see its publication Wild Oregon (Eugene, 1972–); Oregon proposals are included in the Oregon Wilderness Coalition's “The Oregon Alternatives” (draft), n.p., September 1978.

12. The most active western state representative of the Wilderness Society in the 1970s was Bill Cunningham in Montana. The organization had the strong support of Arnold Bolle, dean of the School of Forestry at the University of Montana in Missoula and enjoyed a close association with Senator Lee Metcalf. The Wyoming Wilderness Association, independent of the Wilderness Society, was formed in December 1979, following a meeting of conservation leaders in Laramie (see issues of its newsletter in AF) to revise the proposed Wyoming wilderness designations known as the RARE II selections and to prepare a wilderness bill for Wyoming's national forests. The association's interests included national forest management and management of BLM lands, especially the Wyoming Red Desert; for these items, see the association newsletter, 18 October 1981, and letter from Dick Randall to the author, 7 February 1981.

13. For information about the organization and activities of the Utah Wilderness Association, see its newsletter and miscellaneous material in AF.

14. See newsletters of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and the Utah Wilderness Coalition, formed to press for more acreage in BLM wilderness than did the Utah Wilderness Association.

15. On Public Lands (Salt Lake City, 1986–).Google Scholar

16. For new developments in the Wilderness Society, see its magazine, Living Wilderness, and especially articles on the federal public lands.

17. “Wilderness Protection Gets Boost from Congress, Court Injunctions,” Land Letter Special Report 2 (November 1983); “Agreement on Wilderness Near,” Land Letter 3 (1 May 1984); “Congress Reaches Wilderness Accord,” Land Letter 3 (1 June 1984). See also U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System, 98th Cong., 2d sess., February 1983–April 1984, parts 1 – 11 (Washington, D.C., 1984).

18. For a popular account of the issue, see Shepard, Jack, The Forest Killers (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; for an account of the legislative development seen from the viewpoint of an “insider,” see LeMaster, Dennis C., Decade of Change: The Remaking of Forest Service Statutory Authority During the 1970's (Westport, Conn., 1984).Google Scholar See also U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Clear Cutting Practices on National Timberlands, 3 parts, 5–6 April 1971, 7 April, 7 May, and 29 June 1971 (Washington, D.C., 1971). This issue led to a proposed Executive Order to restrict clearcutting practices, drawn up by the Executive Office of the President but forestalled by opposition from professional foresters and the timber industry. Especially significant was the defense of clearcutting by a committee of six forestry school deans, intended to counter the criticism of clearcutting by one of their fellow deans, Arnold Bolle of the School of Forestry, University of Montana. An account sympathetic to their views is Horwitz, Eleanor C. J., Ckarcutting: A View from the Top (Washington, D.C., 1974).Google Scholar For additional items pertaining to events leading up to the 1976 act, see AF. The 1976 act specified that several issues—size of clearcut, riparian strips, marginal lands, and diversity—should be left for the Forest Service to decide, with advice from a “Committee of Experts,” rather than to be specified or “prescribed” in the legislation. The Committee of Experts, in turn, gave firm advice on only the first of these and not the last two. See AF for the minutes of its meetings and the documents it prepared for internal use.

19. The most thorough and concise record of the debate over forest policy is in Forest Planning, later Forest Watch (Eugene, 1980–).Google Scholar For the debate from a Washington, D.C., vantage point, see “Timber Cutting Replaces Wilderness as Number One Forest Management Issue,” Land Letter 4 (1 February 1985), 1–3Google Scholar; “New Forest Service Management Scheme Proposed by Conservation Advocates,” Land Letter Special Report 4 (15 August 1985); and “Conflict Looms over Forest Plans in Northwest States: Fish, Wildlife, Economics All Are at Issue,” Land Letter Special Report 5 (15 July 1986). For western newspaper accounts, see R. H. Ring, “Taming the Forests,” Arizona Star, 5–12 February 1984, an eight-part series on the impact of western forest planning; Steve Woodruff, “Timber: A Balancing of Values,” first of a six-part series in the Missoulian (Missoula), 9–24 March 1985; Kadera, Jim, “Debate over Forest Economics Heats Up,” The Oregonian (Portland), 16 December 1984Google Scholar; Ervin, Keith, “On a New Front in the Wilderness War,” Seattle Weekly, 12–18 December 1984Google Scholar; and Sadler, Russell, “Public, Private Forest Values Differ,” The Oregonian, 18 May 1984.Google Scholar

For specifics as to environmental objectives, see “Conservationists' Alternatives,” parts 1 and 2 in Newsletter, Idaho Conservation League, 8 October and 8 November 1981). Cameron LaFollette, A Pilot Plan for Forest Diversity: Bureau of Land Management at Coos Bay (Eugene, 1981); Mahlein, Dieter, he Spotted Owl and Old Growth Forests: A Political Gamble (Eugene, 1985Google Scholar; Frey, Wilma E., “Scenic and Aesthetic Values in National Forest Planning,” Forest Watch 7 (September 1986); 25–29.Google Scholar For the entire range of environmental forest objectives as outlined in the National Forest Management Act of 1976, see Club, Sierra et al. , A Conservationist's Guide to National Forest Planning (Washington, D.C., 1981; 2d ed., 1983).Google Scholar

20. For detailed accounts of the issues in the case of the Bridger-Teton National Forest in western Wyoming, see ]ackson Hole News, clippings in AF, and statements from the group Upper Green River Forest Consensus, which brought together a wide range of environmental forest users to protest higher levels of timber cutting (AF). For the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming, see news clippings from Wyoming newspapers and miscellaneous items from the Bighorn Forest Users Coalition (AF).

21. The environmental opposition in forest planning sought to freeze the planning process until more leverage could be secured for support of increased timber harvest. See Johnson, Rick, “Forest Plans Held Up for Timber Study” and “McClure Holds Mock Hearings,” Idaho Conservation League News 3 (October 1986): 4–5.Google Scholar

22. For a review of forest litigation see Axline, Michael and Bonine, John, “Watching the Forests Through the Courts,” Forest Watch 7 (September 1986): 20–24Google Scholar; Schwartz, Lisa, “Public Interest Attorneys Protecting the Forests,” Forest Watch 7 (September 1986): 9–15.Google Scholar

23. For O'Toole's work, all published by the Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants (Eugene), see Forest Planning (later Forest Watch) (1980–); “CHEC Research Bulletin,” (1982–); O'Toole, An Economic View of Rare II (1978); O'Toole, The Citizens' Guide to FORPLAN (1983); The Citizens' Guide to Forest Planning (1982); Fletcher, Ken, Williams, Cynthia, and O'Toole, Randal, Forest Planning Bibliography (1985).Google Scholar

24. See publications of the Wilderness Society (Washington, D.C.): Protecting Roadless Lands in the National Forest Planning Process: A Citizen Handbook (1985); Norse, Elliott A. et al. , Conserving Biological Diversity in Our National Forests (1986)Google Scholar; Protecting Water Quality in the National Forest Planning Process: A Citizen Handbook (1986); How to Appeal a Forest Plan: A Citizen Handbook (1986); Issues to Raise in a Forest Plan Appeal (1986).

25. The earliest interest of the NRDC in forest management came from Tom Barlow, who led the environmental coalition that worked with Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia to obtain strict guidelines for forest planning in the 1976 act; for coalition activities, see miscellaneous material in AF. Barlow then took up the analysis of timber sales on national forest land and argued that most sales were unprofitable. See Barlow, Thomas J., Helfand, Gloria E., Orr, Trent W., and Stoehl, Thomas B. Jr, Giving Away the National Forests: An Analysis of U.S. Forest Service Timber Sales Below Cost (Washington, D.C., 1980).Google Scholar

26. Disturbed by the public response to its plans in the form of court challenges, the Forest Service tried to analyze what was happening. Most of its response, however, involved strategies for better communications rather than coping with substantive issues. See Communications/Awarness Discussions from Regional Foresters and Directors Meeting (Fort Collins, Colo., August 1985).

27. Organizations that tabulated voting records of legislators to distribute to their members and the dates of reports in AF are: Colorado Open Space Council, 1973–78; 1980–82; 1984; Wyoming Outdoor Council, 1974–85; Montana Environmental Information Center, 1975, 1977; Idaho Conservation League, 1976–78, 1981; Idaho Conservation Voters, 1980; Washington Environmental Council, 1980; Oregon Environmental Council, 1971–73; 1975, 1977, 1983, 1985; California League of Conservation Voters, 1979–80.

28. A number of state environmental councils also issued special reports on the progress of legislation during legislative sessions. See, for example, Colorado Open Space Council, Legislative Bulletin, 1981–84 (AF).

29. For Montana, see Fischer, Hank, “Montana's Yellowstone River: Who Gets the Water?” Sierra 63 (July/August 1978): 13–16Google Scholar; Tawney, Robin, “The Yellowstone Will Run Free,” Montana Magazine 9 (March/April 1979): 32–36.Google Scholar

30. Gehrke, Craig, “Timber Industry Sabotages Water Standards,” Idaho Conservation League News 3 (October 1986): 5Google Scholar; Oregon Environmental Council, Earthwatch Oregon (Summer 1985).

31. O'Connell, Susan McDowell, “Uranium Mine Tailings … Heaps of Trouble,” National Wildlife 18 (June/July 1980): 24B–24Google Scholar; Parker, Vawter, “Sierra Club Forest Action on Radioactive Tailings,” Sierra 68 (November/December 1983): 58–59.Google Scholar

32. In 1979 the Montana court ruling that the state air quality plan was unenforceable led to an intense debate over revision of the state's air quality law, in which the older standards, more stringent than the federal ones, were retained. More significant, however, were the new general objectives approved in 1980 to prevent air pollution that “interfere[s] with normal daily activities” and specifically identified lower lung function in school children as an “adverse effect” that should be prevented. See clippings in the Missoulian (Missoula) in AF; Down to Earth (Helena) Mar/April, May/June, and September/October 1980. For the relevant documents, see Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, State of Montana, Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards Study: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Helena, 1980).Google Scholar

33. For Arizona air pollution issues, see GASP, newsletter of Groups Against Smelter Pollution (Bisbee, Ariz., 1984–).

34. Regional northwest activities can be covered in The Northwest Environmental Journal (Seattle, 1984).Google Scholar For a major northwestern regional environmental initiative, see Goldrich, Daniel, “Democracy and Energy Planning: The Pacific Northwest as Prototype,” Environmental Review 10 (Fall 1986): 199–214.Google Scholar

35. For California parks, see Engbeck, Joseph H. Jr, State Parks of California from 1864 to the Present (Portland, 1980)Google Scholar; the specific case of toxics in the Silicon Valley can be followed in Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Silicon Valley Toxics News (San Jose, 1983–). For the California Forest Practice Act, see Arvola, T. F., Regulation of Logging in California, 1945–1975 (Sacramento, 1976)Google Scholar; The Man Who Walks in the Woods, “The California Forest Practices Act; Is It Tough Enough?” Forest Watch 7 (July 1986): 7–10.Google Scholar For a more general treatment of state forest practice acts, see Beuter, John, “Are State Forest Practice Acts Constitutional?” Forest Watch 6 (March 1986): 15–18Google Scholar; Golde, Marcy, “Protecting Riparian Zones on Private Lands,” Forest Watch 6 (March 1986): 19–21Google Scholar; Stahl, Andy, “Regulating Harvests on Steep Slopes,” Forest Watch 6 (March 1986): 22–23.Google Scholar

36. Fadeley, Nancie, “Oregon's Bottle Bill Works,” Sierra Club Bulletin 61 (July/August 1976): 9–10.Google Scholar For Oregon land-use law, see Leonard, H. Jeffrey, Managing Oregon's Growth The Politics of Development Planning (Washington, D.C., 1983)Google Scholar; Landmark, publication of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a citizen group formed in 1975 and devoted primarily to the implementation of the Oregon land-use planning act (Portland, 1984–).

The Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, based in Eugene, was formed in 1977 to restrict the use of pesticides and herbicides in the Northwest, but it soon took on national leadership. See NCAP News, later Journal of Pesticide Reform (Eugene, 1977–). The group produced a wide range of documents with a high degree of scientific and technical quality. See, for example, Mary H. O'Brien, On the Trail of a Pesticide: A Guide to Learning About the Chemistry, Effects, and Testing of Pesticides (Eugene, 1984).

37. For Washington State activities, see Alert (1980–), newsletter of the Washington Environmental Council, and Wildfire (1980–), newsletter of the Washington Wilderness Association.

38. Idaho sources include newsletters of the Idaho Conservation League and the Idaho Environmental Council and a newspaper, the Idaho Citizen (Boise, 1978–). Montana events can be followed in Down to Earth, publication of the Montana Environmental Information Center; see also the annual reports of the Montana Council on Environmental Quality as well as the clippings from the Missoulian in AF. For Colorado, see the newsletters of the Colorado Open Space Council and its successor, the Colorado Environmental Council. Wyoming events can be followed in the ]ackson Hole News and publications of the Wyoming Outdoor Association.

39. For the case of Montana, see Burnett, G. Wesley, “Montana State Lands; Their Nature and Prospect,” Western Wildlands (Winter 1978): 15–17.Google Scholar

40. Patric, William C., Trust Land Administration in the Western States: A Study of the Laws, Policies and Agencies under Which State Lands are Managed in Ten States (Denver, 1981).Google Scholar

41. For the Arizona exchanges, see Bruce Babbitt, “Saving Habitat in the Desert: Arizona Is Bolstering the Future of Riparian Wildlife with Imaginative Land Trades,” Defenders (September/October 1986): 20–29, and Charles Bowden, “Miracle on the San Pedro: How Citizens, a Hawk Watcher, a Governor and a Federal Agency Pulled Off a Conservation Coup,” Defenders (September/October 1986): 31–33.

42. Western opposition to the Sagebrush Rebellion can be followed in issues of PLI Newsletter (Public Lands Institute, Denver and Washington, D.C.) and Outdoor News Bulletin (Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.) during 1979–81. See also Bill Gilbert and Robert Sullivan, “Inside Interior: An Abrupt Turn” and “Alone in the Wilderness,” Sports Illustrated, 26 September 1983), 6O-7Off. and 3 October 1983), 96–lOOff.; see also Shay, Russ, “The Sagebrush Rebellion,” Sierra 65 (January/February 1980): 29–32.Google Scholar

43. Ken Robinson, “Sagebrush Rebellion Could Mean ‘This Land Was Your Land,’ ”Idaho Citizen (February 1980), 4.7.

44. For “Project Bold,” see Matheson, Scott M., Out of Balance (Layton, Utah, 1986), 129–34Google Scholar; “Major State-Federal Land Trade Being Discussed by Utah, BLM,” PLI Newsletter 4 (September 1981): 3Google Scholar; “Project Bold sponsored by Utah Congressmen,” PLI Newsletter 6 (April 1983): 4.Google Scholar The draft bill would amend the Enabling Act under which Congress granted Utah lands originally by providing “that lands granted for the support of the common schools shall be managed by the state with multiple-use land management practices, which may include use at less than fair market value for public purposes by agencies of the State and its political subdivisions.” See “Utah's Land Exchange About Ready for Congress,” PLI Newsletter 6 (November 1983): 3.Google Scholar

45. Events in this running debate can be followed in Alert, monthly newsletter of the Washington Environmental Council, which covered the work of its Forest Practices Committee; see “Network News: State and Private Forestry,” issued by the committee (1986–) in AF. Much of the council's analysis appears in its publication, Review of Proposed Forest Land Management Program (Seattle, 1983)Google Scholar; see also Washington Environmental Foundation, Proceedings of the Wild Salmon and Trout Conference, 11–12 March 1983 (Seattle, 1983).Google Scholar This debate took place around the issue of planning for state forest management. See relevant documents: State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, Forest Land Management Program, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Olympia, 1979); 2.1Google Scholar Million Acres of Trees, et al. v. Bert L. Cole, Commissioner of Public Lands of the State of Washington, 17 October 1979, the environmental petition in response to the plan; Washington Department of Natural Resources, Classic “U” Timber Sale, Final Environmental Impact Statement (Olympia, 1981), the specific management problem around which innovations in state forest policy were debated.Google Scholar

46. Geppert, Rollin R., Lorenz, Charles W., and Larson, Arthur G.,Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices on the Environment: A State of the Knowledge, prepared for the Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia, 1984.Google Scholar

47. For the response of state fish and wildlife agencies to regional forest plans in the West, see comments on those plans by agencies in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Arizona in AF. For the case of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, see Nichols, Rod, Nellis, Carl H., and , Lonn Kuck, “It's Time to Manage Elk … And People,” and editorial, “Coexistance,” in Idaho Wildlife 6 (September/October 1986): 4–7, 39.Google Scholar

48. See O'Toole's Review of the Grand Mesa–Uncompahgre–Gunnison Forests Plan, Prepared for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (Eugene, n.d.) and comments of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources concerning the San Juan, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests, 30 November 1983, and the settlement agreement between the state and the U.S. Forest Service 17 May 1984 in AF.

49. There were some cases of “direct action” on the part of the commodity resource opposition. At an “emergency meeting” at Moab, Utah, 25 June 1980, the Grand County, Utah, commissioners announced that on Independence Day they would celebrate by bulldozing a road into a wilderness study area proposed by the BLM “to show BLM that our county commissioners are going to take control of the land within our boundaries.” See “The Moab Firecracker That Fizzled, ”PLI Newsletter 3 (August 1980): 2.Google Scholar A few months later the County Commissioners of Mineral County, Nevada, authorized the use of county equipment to bulldoze thirteen miles of roads into the Gabbs Valley Range Wilderness Study Area, one hundred miles southeast of Carson City, as a result of pressure from local miners, who demanded that the county provide access to mining claims. PLI Newsletter 4 (March 1981): 2.Google Scholar

50. Soon after he became Secretary of the Interior in 1981, James Watt made clear to western governors that he would shift from cooperative strategies with the states on public land development issues to a federal supremacy approach. On 3 April 1981, for example, Governor Schwinden of Montana sent a letter to Watt expressing his desire “to promptly develop, through cooperative agreements a productive partnership between Montana and Interior. With Montana taking an active part in the development of policies, rules and plans, there is no question that state needs will be considered. … With Montana sharing approval authority of federal plans, projects, and management decisions, state laws and rights will not be overlooked.” In July, three months later, Watt replied with a “noncommittal letter,” including: “You suggest the use of cooperative agreements, which may be appropriate in some areas to reduce overlap or duplication of responsibilities. However, we must ensure that responsibilities delegated by statute to either the Federal Government or the State are not diluted.” Schwinden and his staff interpreted that qualification as a sign that Watt was relucant to grant Montana the type of partnership it wanted. See David Lambert, “Line of Fire: Montana's Transmission Corridor Controversy,” part 2, Montana Magazine, December 1981, 31–37.

51. Details of the continuing debate over oil drilling on California offshore lands can be followed in the newsletter Coastal Zone Management (Washington, D.C., 1970–).Google Scholar See also Brownstein, Ronald and Easton, Nina, “Watt and the California Coast: Opening Shots in the OCS War,” Amicus Journai 3 (Fall 1981): 12–18.Google Scholar

52. In October 1986 a coalition of wilderness opponents was formed in Utah to oppose any more wilderness in that state. It consisted of the Utah Farm Bureau, the cattlemen's and woolgrowers' associations, the mining and petroleum associations, the Utah Forest Industry Council, the Utah Association of Counties, the state Taxpayers Association, and the Utah Manufacturers' Association. The organization supported earlier, similar calls for an end to wilderness designations in Utah by Governor Bangertner, elected in 1985 to succeed Matheson, and by the National Public Lands Advisory Council, which was prompted to take such action by one of its members, San Juan County Commissioner Calvin Black. See Utah Wilderness Association mailing, November 1986.

53. For the Birds of Prey area, see “Birds of Prey Conservation Plan Ready for Congress,” PLI Newsletter 3 (May 1980): 3Google Scholar; and “Andrus Land Order Protects Enlarged Birds of Prey Area,” PLI Newsletter 4 (January 1981): 4Google Scholar; Robbins, Jim, “Birds of Prey: Raptors and Habitat,” Sierra 66 (July/August 1981): 44–47, 57.Google Scholar

54. For one account of the perennial conflict over the grizzly bear, see Fritz, Paul, “Will the Grizzly Survive?” Newsletter, Idaho Conservation League (October 1986): 1, 8.Google Scholar

55. For the MX missile issue, see Marsh, Susan and Shay, Russ, “An Enormous Weapon System Comes to the Old West,” Sierra 65 (July/August 1980): 8–11Google Scholar; on air-quality matters, see Hamilton, Bruce, “Northern Great Plains: Indians, Ranchers and Environmentalists Fight for Clean Air,” Sierra Club Bulletin (November/December 1977): 34–36.Google Scholar In 1978 a joint discussion group of ranchers and environmentalists was formed under the auspices of the Northern Rockies Action Group to seek common ground on such issues as predator control and wilderness. In 1982 it was co-chaired by John Faulkner of Gooding, Wyoming, and Laney Hicks, environmental leader, Dubois, Wyoming.

56. “In Pursuit of Mediocrity,” Earthwatch Oregon (Spring 1986): 3–5Google Scholar; “Get Oregonized,” Earthwatch Oregon (Summer 1986): 5Google Scholar; “Get Oregonized Controversy Generates Paper, New Ideas,” Earthwatch Oregon (Summer 1986: 14–15).Google Scholar

In Wyoming the opposition was led by the Wyoming Heritage Society and its related group, the Wyoming Heritage Foundation, which promoted economic development in the state and took up public lands issues. See miscellaneous material about the two organizations in AF. See also report of a foundation meeting, 6 December 1985, in which speakers attacked environmentalists. Andrew Melnykovych, writer for the Caspar Star-Tribune, reported that “the concept of multiple use of federal lands is being threatened by environmentalists who want to drive ranchers, loggers and oilmen off those lands.” At the forum Senators Malcolm Wallop and Alan Simpson and Representative Richard Cheney attacked environmentalists in the same manner; said Cheney, “What is really at stake … is a desire to drive the livestock producer off the range.” PLI Newsletter 9 (January/February 1986): 2.

Rural leaders in Utah complained of the urban influence in their areas; hearings on projects there, they argued, were held in the Salt Lake City region, but hearings on relaxing air standards in the Wasatch Front were not held in rural areas. See Joseph Bauman, “Ruralite Goes After Urban Environmentalists,” Deseret News, 13 March, 1985.

57. Selected state voting on environmental issues, by party, House of Representatives, for Colorado, Wyoming and Oregon:

58. Western governors sought to take initiatives to soften some of the harsh opposition to environmental objectives by emphasizing multiple use as a broad concept that would permit such uses. They established in the National Governors Association a Range Resource Management Task Force, co-chaired by Governors John V. Evans of Idaho and Ed Herschler of Wyoming. Their focus was a legislative proposal to expand an “experimental stewardship program,” authorized under the Public Rangelands Improvement (PRIA) Act of 1978, that had been tried in three places: the Challis area in Idaho, the East Pioneer area in Montana, and the Modoc-Washoe area in northeastern California. The governors looked with favor on the program because it involved the state governments in a more active role in public rangeland management and provided a method of resolving conflicts between livestock grazing, wildlife management, public recreation, and other “multiple-uses” of the public lands. In interpreting the meaning of the venture, one observer suggested that the governors were weary of being caught in the middle without having an effective voice in the resolution of rangeland controversies. See PLI Newsletter 7 (1984): 1.Google Scholar

59. Regional environmental voting scores of members of the House of Representatives, based on tabulations issued by the League of Conservation Voters:

60. Because of the pressure from western Wyoming constituents concerning oil drilling in potential wilderness areas, Senator Malcolm Wallop, who ranked very low in environmental voting on the League of Conservation Voters annual scores, warned the oil and gas industry that it should not apply to drill in such areas. See “Speech Before the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association, Oct. 8, 1981, Denver, Colorado,” in news release from the senator's office. Concerning the response of Jackson Hole to proposed drilling in nearby Cache Creek, Wallop reported: “All of us—Al Simpson, Dick Cheney, and 1—were struck by the unprecedented consensus which the town exhibited in opposing the proposed drilling, especially up Cache Creek. Virtually everyone in that valley from the County Commissioners … to oil industry people with second homes up there … to the environmentalists, strongly, and I mean strongly, opposed a well up Cache Creek because of the area's recreational utility, wildlife and scenery.”

61. For a popular account of the fallout problem and its effects, see Fuller, John G., The Day We Bombed Utah: America's Most Lethal Secret (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Tamplin, Arthur R., “Cancer in Utah: The Aftermath of Nuclear Weapons Testing,” Amicus Journal 1 (Fall 1979): 13.Google Scholar The issue was covered extensively in the Deseret News (Salt Lake City), clippings in AF; see issues for 1983–84 during the time the court ruled favorably for the victims, which in turn led to action for compensation. For articles dealing specifically with Hatch's interest, see White, Gordon Eliot, “Hatch Assures Fallout Victims,” 3 December 1983Google Scholar; “House Version of Fallout Bill Is Introduced,” 15 June, 1984; Bauman, Joseph, “Radiation Risk Study Is Biased, Group Says,” 17 September 1984Google Scholar; White, , “Scientists Say Charts for Fallout Victims Still Need Some Work,” 18 September 1984Google Scholar; “Report Showing the Link of Radiation to Cancer Is Finally Released,” 26 February 1985.

62. Convenient sources for following BLM issues are PLI Newsletter, Public Lands News (Washington, D.C., 1978–)Google Scholar, and Land Letter (Washington, D.C., 1982–), all of which cover the NRDC actions concerning public lands.

63. For BLM wilderness reviews, see “Interview: Director Gregg on BLM Wilderness,” Living Wilderness (April/June 1978): 22–23; McComb, John, “The BLM Begins Its Wilderness Review,” Sierra (January/February 1979): 46Google Scholar; and Hart, John, “Deciding the Future of BLM Wilderness,” Sierra (November/December) 1979: 16–19Google Scholar; for a regional focus, see Wheeler, Ray, “Last Stand for the Colorado Plateau,” High Country News (14 and 28 October 1985).Google Scholar

64. For accounts of the grazing committees, see issues of PLI Newsletter in 1985–86 and Callison, Charles H., “Partisan Advice Strictly Preferred,” Amicus Journal 7 (Fall 1985): 9–11.Google Scholar

65. For oil and gas drilling in wilderness and wilderness candidate areas, see Sumner, David, “Oil and Gas Leasing in Wilderness—What the Conflict is About,” Sierra 67 (May/June 1982): 28–34.Google Scholar For general drilling issues, see “Conservationists Challenge Oil and Gas Leasing by Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management” Land Letter Special Report 5 (15 May 1986).Google Scholar

66. See “Andrus Names 17 to National Advisory Council for BLM” PLJ Newsletter 2 (December 1979): 1Google Scholar; “Watt Loads BLM Advisory Council with Ranchers, Miners, Oil People,” PLI Newsletter 5 (March 1982): 4.Google Scholar

67. For the “modern” stage of the long-time grazing-fee controversy, see “Grazing Fee Controversy Moves Up Front Again,” PLI Newsletter 9 (January/February 1986): 1–2Google Scholar; “President Orders Grazing Fee Subsidy Extended Indefinitely,” PLI Newsletter 9 (March 1986): 1.Google Scholar

68. “Dr. Jay Hair Quits Public Lands Advisory Council,” PLI Newsletter 9 (June 1986): 4Google Scholar: the item describes Hair as “the only member of the 21-member panel qualified or inclined to represent wildlife, recreational and wilderness users of the public lands,” and that in “his letter of resignation to Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel, Dr. Hair said he considered the Advisory Council useless and a waste of money and recommended it be abolished.” As a replacement, Secretary Hodel appointed Gerald J. Creasy of Garibaldi, Oregon, a county commissioner of Tillamook County and president of the Keta Corporation, a salmon aquaculture enterprise. See PLI Newsletter 9 (August 1986): 4.Google Scholar

69. Hamilton, Bruce, “The Overthrust Belt: Oil and Gas Development in Opposition to Wilderness Once Again,” Sierra 63 (November/December 1978): 8, 10–11.Google Scholar

70. A useful four-part series on western water is in High Country News 18 (29 September, 13 and 27 October, and 10 November 1986).

71. “Is Water Resource Reform in the Cards?” CF Letter (Washington, D.C., December 1976).Google Scholar

72. Interior Should Ensure Against Abuses from Hardrock Mining, GAO Report RCED-86-48 (Washington, D.C., 1986)Google Scholar; “GAO Records BLM's Failure Under Obsolete Mining Law,” PLI Newsletter 9 (July 1986): 1–2Google Scholar; Sheridan, DavidHard Rock Mining on the Public Land (Washington, D.C, 1978).Google Scholar

73. “Numerous Encroachments Threaten National Parks,” PLI Newsletter 3 (July 1980): 3.Google Scholar

74. “Governors Can Act to Protect National Monument from Smog,” PLI Newsletter 2 (October 1979): 1Google Scholar; “Air Quality Study Under Way in Mesa Verde National Park,” PLI Newsletter 3 (September 1980): 2Google Scholar; “Interior Secretary Won't List Park Vistas for Protection,” PLI Newsletter 8 (November 1985): 2Google Scholar; “Pollution in Parks: Natural Resources Program, National Park Service,” Park Science 3 (Summer 1986)Google Scholar, includes an extensive description of the National Park Service air-quality research program, a major part of which is visibility research.

75. “Park Protection Bill,” Land Letter (November 1983): 1–2. When this bill stalled, Senator Chaffee of Rhode Island introduced a similar bill, which was confined to the adverse impacts of adjacent development on park wildlife. See “Chaffee Launches Initiative to Protect Park Wildlife from Federally Financed Activities,” Land Letter Special Report 3 (15 April 1984).Google Scholar See also “Adjacent Lands Still the Toughest Issue,” in “National Parks at a Turning Point: Will Mott Make the Difference?” Land Letter Special Report 4 (15 July 1985)Google Scholar, which describes the opposition to these measures: “… over the past several years, a loose coalition of real estate, energy, mining and forest-industry interests have worked fiercely to block action on the matter—apparently fearing the economic impacts of any extension of NPS influence beyond the park system's physical border.”

76. The concepts of the “Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem” covered the most specific application of the idea. See Hocker, Philip M., “Yellowstone: The Region Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parks,” Sierra 64 (July/August 1979); 8–12.Google Scholar See also Reese, Rick, Greater Yellowstone: The National Park and Adjacent Wildlands (Helena, 1984)Google Scholar: “The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: An Introduction to an Area and Its issues,” Western Wildlands 12 (Fall 1986): 2–29.Google Scholar See also publications of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition: Threats to Greater Yellowstone (Billings, 1984)Google Scholar, Challengers to Greater Yellowstone, 1986 (Billings, 1986)Google Scholar, and A Model for Information Integration and Management for the Centennial Ecosystem (Billings, 1986).Google Scholar

77. Barnbaum, Bruce, “Breaking the Stronghold of National Park Concessioners,” Sierra Club Bulletin 62 (May 1977): 20–22Google Scholar; Frome, Michael, “Park Concessions and Concessioners,” National Parks 55 (June 1981): 16–18.Google Scholar The concessionaires issue played an important role in the dismissal in 1980 of National Parks Service Director William Whalen, who had attempted to tighten the contracts with the concessionaires. “Both press reports and PLI's grapevine suggested that the principal factor behind Whalen's dismissal was political pressure brought to bear by National Park concessionaires, through influential members of Congress.” See “Whalen Fired, Russell Dickinson Named Park Service Director,” PLI Newsletter 3 (June 1980): 3.Google Scholar

78. In a specific case in point, the county commissioners of Lewis and Clark County, Montana, favored wilderness designation of the Rocky Mountain Front in 1986 because of its tourist potential; see Chadwick, Douglas H., “Rocky Mountain Front: A Question of Wilderness,” Defenders 61 (July/August 1986): 20–29.Google Scholar

79. Some environmental organizations have been formed in the West to focus on specific national parks, and the National Parks and Conservation Association has made some (though halfhearted) attempts to bring them together through its National Park Action Project. For a list of groups involved throughout the nation, see “National Park Action Project Members” in AF; for related activities, see the project's newsletter, Exchange (Washington, D.C., 1983–); for a newsletter of one group, see Mount Rainier National Park Associates Newsletter (Sumner, 1985).Google Scholar These efforts have been limited and have had only limited success.

80. See, for example, Culhane, Paul J., Public Lands Politics: Interest Group Influences on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Baltimore, 1981)Google Scholar; Nelson, Robert H., “The Subsidized Sagebrush: Why the Privatization Movement Failed,” Regulation 8 (July/August 1984): 20–26, 39–43.Google Scholar Although American Forests, the monthly magazine of the American Forestry Association, published several focused debates about forest management, it gave little inkling of the objectives and intensity of public criticism of the Forest Service; see issues from 1976 to the present.