| North Cascades |
|
Chapter 8 (continued):
STEHEKIN: LAND OF FREEDOM AND WANT
In time, the Park Service's management practices -- from snow plowing to land acquisition -- became the subject of intense and acrimonious debate, legal disputes, and an investigation by the General Accounting Office. This state of affairs has been well-documented, for it prompted the Park Service to clarify its management policies in Stehekin, to launch a comprehensive planning effort for the recreation area, and to address a number of changes in the national park system's management philosophy and regulations, including stricter guidelines in the protection of natural values in recreation areas and land acquisition policies. Most of these administrative developments appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the complex entered its second decade of management, and are the subject of part three of this study.
From the beginning, however, Stehekin's management problems stemmed in part from its isolation. Stehekin's remoteness may have made it a special place for tourists and residents, but it was a quality that impeded management. Communications were slow. There were no phones in the early years or dependable radios, and management decisions came by mail brought by boat. Both superintendents Contor and White encountered these difficulties in their tenures. Community relations played an important role in selling the Park Service's administration to local constituents. Allaying fears of what the new administration would bring, quieting concerns produced by the hard-fought park campaign, and implementing policies and management programs became the daily routine of agency managers in Stehekin. [24]
One approach the agency took early on was to keep the Stehekin community informed about agency activities through a monthly newsletter. The newsletter answered any concerns residents might have expressed to park staff or the superintendent. But what park managers soon learned was that Stehekin, a place where people valued their independence, was a community divided. [25] Achieving consensus on any one matter proved to be nearly impossible, and most management actions received mixed reviews. What added to the problem was the Park Service's own tendency to seek popular approval for its management decisions, something the service had long done since it depended on public approval and federal appropriations for its survival.
At first, North Cascades officials tried to address the community's concerns by urging them to organize, to speak as one voice, it seems. The Park Service dealt with some issues through the Stehekin Property Owners Association (SPOA), which had formed in 1970. Through SPOA residents expressed their discontent with agency policies from parking restrictions at the landing to road maintenance. By the mid-1970s, it was clear that this approach had fallen short of its goal. The newsletter was suspended; community relations were uneasy at best, and not for any one particular reason. [26]
Perhaps the best examples of this condition were Grant McConnell, Guy Imus, and Robert Byrd. McConnell had impressive credentials for critiquing the Park Service's management. He was both a professor of political science and a property owner in Stehekin; he had lived in the valley full-time for several years after World War II, and was one of its most ardent supporters for preservation during the park campaign. Naturally, he welcomed and praised the park complex and the Park Service's presence. The creation of North Cascades ended the threat of logging in the Stehekin Valley and the threat of a road being built into the valley from Highway 20. The Park Service also reduced the threat of new private developments -- a vacation-home boom underway before the park was established -- through its active land acquisition program. To a lesser degree, park managers were working to remove the threat of mining, but here, too, the agency's presence put preservationists more at ease. [27]
Other aspects of the Park Service's presence worried McConnell and even caused him to question the agency's commitment to the protection of the valley's natural systems. The service's decision to keep the valley road open all the way to Cottonwood and its improvements to the road surface itself, especially paving it from the landing to Harlequin Bridge, presented serious threats to the valley's wild and historic character. An improved road invited more cars to travel at higher speeds and portended more improvements -- more widening, cuts and fills -- and thus more encroachments on the wilderness of the North Cascades. McConnell also criticized the agency's decisions not to manage or regulate preexisting practices or what he deemed were incompatible uses. Woodcutting, while a genuine need, should be managed more effectively, particularly to prevent the construction or creation of more roads farther into the valley's forests. The airstrip, on the other hand, should be eliminated altogether, for it was not only unsafe but not used for emergencies but rather fishing trips, among other things. In addition, McConnell thought airplanes were incompatible with the solitude of the valley and surrounding wilderness. But rather than take a stand, the Park Service built a campground of sorts near the airfield to accommodate an existing practice and to prevent unsanitary conditions. [28]
In this regard, McConnell's list went on, noting that the agency was unwilling to oppose unsightly or inappropriate new houses built on private property because the permitting process was Chelan County's responsibility. In McConnell's view, this was simply an excuse to avoid conflict and for irresponsible governmental behavior. At bottom, this was McConnell's main point. The agency's management "problems" in Stehekin might have stemmed from the ambiguities associated with the purpose and management of a recreation area, but these were not trivial matters. In an article for The Wild Cascades, McConnell expanded on this observation.
Most alarmingly they indicate a general passivity in confrontation with threats that cannot be dismissed by simple orders. The lack of power to give such orders on many matters or to compel compliance with the purposes for which the NPS was brought into the area is not a sufficient excuse. Compulsion, far from being the whole of government, is only its last resort. What is essential is clarity of vision and a sense of purpose. [29]
If McConnell thought that the Park Service was not doing enough to assert its authority, others in the valley, like Guy Imus and Robert Byrd, believed it had gone too far. Like many westerners in isolated locations, their main contact with the federal government came in the form of regulations. In one instance, the Park Service attempted to restrict the numbers of horses allowed in the backcountry; other policies sought to place concessions and other services, such as guided horse pack trips, under one operator. All of this smacked of government interference with private enterprise. "They got so many damn regulations," Imus stated in 1973, that "they're gonna drive all us horsemen out of the valley." In other words, the Park Service's traditional way of operating concessions -- placing them under one concessioner -- altered the Stehekin tradition of "small, independent family operations." While one outfitter benefited, others were left to look for new sources of income. The most notable example of this, of course, was the agency's move to place the landing's lodges and restaurant under one operator, Robert Byrd. At first Byrd welcomed the opportunity, but in time he, too, came to resent agency regulations and bureaucratic red tape. [30]
What Byrd and others whose families had lived in the valley for generations objected to overall was the sense that they had become dependent on the National Park Service. That is, their independence was subsidized by this government agency. Many in the valley were tied to the Park Service economically, either directly employed by the agency as laborers, technicians, or other staff members; or they were under contract for construction and maintenance projects, had special use permits to conduct businesses like guided pack trips, or a concession permit to run a business at the landing. What engendered the most criticism was that the Park Service's presence, through its land acquisition program, had increased property values and thus property taxes. Although this was itself a complicated issue, since the county set property values and property taxes, it raised the notion that many had feared before the park was established: the Park Service's long-range goal was to buy all the private land in the valley and remove the residents. Rising land taxes thus alarmed some and led to protests over the Park Service's land acquisition policies in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Ironically, both residents and preservationists, those who generally opposed the Park Service and those who generally favored it, were responsible for the ensuing investigation by the General Accounting Office and demonstrating the need for a comprehensive management plan in the next phase of the parkland's administration.
http://www.nps.gov/noca/adhi-8e.htm