Logs, Roads and Wilderness 



requires the Forest Service to manage recreation, 

 range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish resources 

 to "best meet the needs" of the American people.^'' 

 "One of my theories was that multiple use as a no- 

 tion was misinterpreted in the Forest Service rules 

 and regulations, ' says John McCabe, the former 

 assistant dean of the University of Montana Law 

 School who drafted the appeal for the conservation 

 groups. "They tended to interpret that every inch 

 of ground was subject to multiple use so that you 

 could log one time and then recreate another. We 

 said some uses were inconsistent and should be 

 separated, that not every square inch of ground was 

 for every use. '^' Like the Fish and Game Depart- 

 ment, McCabe says the appellants sought to por- 

 tray the drainage as a "total entity" which ought not 

 be managed piecemeal. Although lawyers from 

 Sierra Club headquarters in San Francisco assisted 

 in writing the appeal, McCabe was not sure con- 

 servationists could finance a court case arguing for 

 treatment of Rock Creek as a single ecosystem. "If 

 we'd had to litigate, we would have needed lim- 

 nologists and a whole lot of expert assistance," says 

 McCabe, who was just two years out of law school 

 when he wrote the appeal. "Nobody had that kind 

 of money." 



Regional Forester Steve Yurich was equally 

 reluctant to litigate. Although the appeal was 

 discussed at higher levels, Yurich says it officially 

 went no further than the forest offices where he 

 and the two supervisors worked out a plan that 

 satisfied the conservation groups. "We didn't wait 

 for any directive from the Chief or from the 

 Secretary of Agriculture," says Yurich. 



"Do It Right"— The Public Strilses a Deal 



In October of 1971, Yurich ordered a 

 moratorium on timber sales. He told conserva- 

 tionists that no new contracts for logging, road con- 

 struction or other development would be under- 

 taken until planning under NEPA, including En- 

 vironmental Impact Statements, was completed.^* 

 He appointed representatives from the state Fish 

 and Game Department, the Montana Wildlife 

 Federation and the University of Montana to meet 

 with the Forest Service and review the controver- 

 sy; this ad hoc group recommended creating what 

 was to become the Rock Creek Advisory Commit- 

 tee, an unprecedented and unwieldy approach to 

 Forest Service planning that nonetheless proved 

 fruitful beyond the expectations of most 



participants. 



"What we felt was that in order to get peo- 

 ple to recognize what it takes to plan an area and 

 manage it, we should get them involved,"^^ says 

 Yurich. Yurich says he first realized the value of 

 public participation in government planning early 

 in his career when he cut down a big Ponderosa 

 that the Forest Service considered a hazard. "1 got 

 so much hell for cutting that, I decided whenever 

 I could 1 would go around to neighbors and ask 

 what we should do rather than just doing it." 



By the early 1970s, the cutting of trees 

 was becoming a political act. While lawyers and 

 lobbyists challenged the power of the post-war 

 timber industry, a conservation ethic was taking 

 root in popular culture, even in timber-dependent 

 regions. Yurich, like most Regional Foresters to this 

 day, was trained in timber extraction rather than 

 wildlife biology. But he also had a highly developed 

 sense of public service and knew many of his 

 neighbors wanted more out of forests than lumber 

 Above all, Yurich realized an increasingly strident 

 public debate was getting in the way of rational 

 decision-making. 



Yurich explained to the supervisors on the 

 Lolo and Deerlodge forests that a public advisory 

 committee was needed because a "polarization of 

 attitudes and opinions" among interest groups had 

 "stalemated" planning in the Rock Creek watershed 

 they managed. The polarization was so strong, he 

 wrote, that "philosophical" discussions overshadow- 

 ed talk about "capabilities" of the land. Public par- 

 ticipation was "mandatory, " he wrote, to provide ad- 

 vice and consider the needs of the people.^« 



Yurich told the Lolo and Deerlodge super- 

 visors that final management decisions for Rock 

 Creek would be theirs alone. But he also assured 

 the conservation groups that the committee's 

 recommendations would be followed, and this was 

 crucial to their decision to drop the appeal. ^^ 



In the summer of 1972, the two forest super- 

 visors sent a letter of invitation to 18 organizations 

 representing timber, mining, agriculture, recreation, 

 real estate, residential and conservation interests, as 

 well as state and federal government. *° The letter 

 asked the groups to participate in a committee that 

 would plan data collection and devise management 

 alternatives. It explained that complying with NEPA 

 was an "extremely complex job" on Rock Creek." 

 Reflecting the spirit of the times, the letter also urg- 

 ed the groups to appoint representatives of various 

 age groups and "well-qualified women." 



