Logs, R(.)ads and Wilderness 



nn)iiin)r each sale Bctbrc the year was out, Deer- 

 lodge otTieials were monitt)ring 22 st;itions."^ (Lolo, 

 which monitored just four stations, reported no 

 perceptible impact from logging and roading.) The 

 Deerlodge ;ilso wrote a new plan for water monitor- 

 ing whose goals included "restore public trust."'* 

 In I98C) and 198^, the Lolo and Deerlodge 

 Forests finally published National Forest Plans that 

 included a joint section on Rock Creek in which 

 they agreed to protect water quality in accordance 

 with the Rock Creek Advisory Committee's 

 monitoring guidelines." Both forests pledged to 

 maintain outstanding fisheries as well as the beau- 

 ty of the landscape. Then, an unusual settlement 

 of two appeals of the Deerlodge Forest Plan further 

 strengthened protections for old growth forest, elk 

 habitat and fisheries. The appeals resurrected the 

 spirit of creative cooperation pioneered by the Rock 

 Creek Advisory Committee. Filed by a coalition of 

 conservation groups and a coalition of timber con- 

 cerns, they were settled jointly in 1989 without 

 resort to normal administrative or judicial channels. 

 "What was different about this settlement was that 

 we accepted an initial move by the Forest Service 

 to sit down and talk about our concerns," says Sean 

 Sheehan, who represented the conservation groups, 

 led by the National Wildlife Federation. The timber 

 companies also accepted the offer to talk. "It's one 

 of the first times— if not the first— a Forest Plan ap- 

 peal was settled that way," says Sheehan. Both 

 groups went to the table with the understanding 

 that if the talks failed they would return to the nor- 

 mal appeal process. Instead, they came up with a 

 39-page document — the settlement agreement — 

 and a pledge to continue working together on forest 

 management.^* In 1991, representatives of both 

 groups were workitig with Deerlodge Forest plan- 

 ner Ron Hanson to minimize the impact of logging 

 roads."' "The bottom line is, we're still talking to 

 each other, " say-s Hanson. There will be plenty more 

 opportunity for such public participation in Rock 

 Creek planning: 2^ percent of the lands in the 

 drainage are to be managed for timber and grazing 

 and nearly "0 million board feet of timber are 

 scheduled to be offered during the 1990s. *° 



A High-Tension Trade-off 



From the very beginning, those concerned 

 about Rock Creek's scenic and biological values 

 recognized how hard it is for an agenc>^ to police 

 it-, own activities. John McCabe. the attorne\- who 



filed the 19''1 appeal, remembers the Forest Service 

 response as surprisingly flexible, but adds, "One of 

 the things we decided was that we don't trust any- 

 body We've got to enforce monitoring." State wild- 

 life officials in 1987 agreed that the "battle " ff)r 

 wildlife and prLstine fisheries would never end on the 

 marginal timber lands of the Rock Creek drainage.*' 



Although nobody foresaw it, the debates 

 over power lines that began in the early 19*^05 were 

 to yield an independent agency capable of guarding 

 Rock Creek's scenic and biologic \"alues for the long 

 term. First, a Montana Power Company request to 

 run a transmission line— and 80-foot-wide 

 clearing — from Hamilton to Anaconda across the 

 drainage near Skalkaho Pass was denied. Then, after 

 years of discussions about various proposals, a con- 

 sortium of five power companies led by the federal 

 Bonneville Power Administration had better luck. 

 They asked permission to stretch a high-tension line 

 across the canyon near the mouth of Rock Creek, 

 carrying electricity west from Garrison, Montana. 

 Federal agencies including the U.S. Forest Service 

 gave permission in May, 1983 for the five companies 

 to run the line across Rock Creek canyon. ^^ 



Conservationists protested that the power 

 lines would spoil the wild beauty of the canyon. 

 The West Slope Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the 

 Montana Wildlife Federation and the National 

 Wildlife Federation appealed the decision.** The ap- 

 peal complained that a Forest Service Environmen- 

 tal Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed 

 transmission lines had failed to consider that the 

 lines would cross five roadless areas eligible for con- 

 sideration as wilderness.*'' The appeal argued that 

 the EIS gave inadequate consideration to the effects 

 of the lines and access roads on big game and wild- 

 life habitat, hunting and future logging. And the ap- 

 peal alleged the Forest Service failed to consider al- 

 ternatives to the roadless area crossings and to the 

 crossing of Rock Creek, a "special recreational re- 

 source" for Montanans and visitors and the states only 

 blue ribbon trout stream west of the Great Divide. 



The state Department of Natural Resources 

 filed its own appeal soon after, complaining about 

 the crossing at Rock Creek.*' The Forest Service 

 granted a suy of construction and in August, 1983, 

 the parties reached a compromise.*" The high- 

 tension lines would cross Rock Creek, and in mitiga- 

 tion, the power companies would give J1.65 million 

 to a trust for the conservation of Rock Creek. The 

 lines were completed in 1985, stretching across 

 Rock ("reek ^(in feet above the canvon floor 



