Logs, Roads and Wilderness 



way the Dccrlodgc and Lolo forests applied new 

 rules. In Fhilipsburg. the Deerlodge Forest district 

 headquarters governing much of Rock Creek s up- 

 per basin responded to a community dependent on 

 logging and mining jobs. In Missoula, the Lolo 

 Forest district headquarters governing lands in the 

 Rock Creek canyon responded to university scien- 

 tists and environmental activists. 



Already, the Missoulian newspaper was 

 becoming a forum for the environmental interests 

 of its readers. In March of 1970, it published a series 

 of articles that helped arouse opposition to Forest 

 Service logging plans for the Rock Creek drainage." 

 In these, Lolo Forest Supervisor Jack Large called 

 for public participation in planning but also insisted 

 timber harvests could continue along Rock Creek 

 without w~ater quality studies. The Missoulian then 

 published a photograph of Sierra Club member 

 Robert Bassett's hand coated with oil leaking from 

 cans left by logging truckers near Rock Creek. 

 When the Missoula District of the Lolo National 

 Forest held what it called a public meeting, 

 Missoulian reporter Dale Burk wrote that par- 

 ticipants were selected by Forest Service invitation 

 only. 



In other articles, the Sierra Club and the En- 

 vironmentalists demanded water quality studies and 

 at least a partial moratorium on logging. The West 

 Slope Chapter of Trout I'nlimited called Rock Creek 

 the smallest, most vulnerable and aesthetically 

 finest of Montana's seven blue ribbon fishing 

 streams. The Montana Wildlife Federation said 

 recreational use should take precedence over com- 

 modity extraction. And finally, Frank H. Dunkle, 

 director of the Montana Fish and Game Depart- 

 ment, was quoted in support of a logging 

 moratorium until citizens could help plan manage- 

 ment that would" preserve good water, fishing and 

 hunting. By contrast, The Philipsburg Mail defend- 

 ed the timber cutting plans, reflecting the concerns 

 of the majority of more than 2,000 Granite Coun- 

 ty citizens. 



Just as Missoula opposed Philipsburg in the 

 early 1970s, the Montana Fish and Game Depart- 

 ment often clashed with the Forest Service. While 

 the Forest Service controls 80 percent of the land 

 in the drainage, the state Department of Fish, 

 Wildlife and Parks remains responsible for the fish 

 and wildlife that dwell there. State officials worried 

 that elk, deer and a dwindling population of big- 

 horn sheep in the Rock Creek drainage would be 

 hurt by new logging roads. The>- were also, of 



course, concerned about the fish in their blue rib 

 bon trout stream. State officials believed thai logg 

 ing planned for the drainage might pollute or 

 reduce the amount of water in R(x:k Creek, and that 

 improved roads and Forest Service campgrounds 

 would attract too many people to fish the creek 



The idea that land should be managed ac- 

 cording to natural boundaries, such as watersheds, 

 rather than arbitrary bureaucratic jurisdictions, was 

 gaining currency and Montana wildlife experts were 

 among those who vigorously promoted it. Fish and 

 Game officials met with representatives of both na- 

 tional forests in March of 1970 and proposed coor- 

 dinated planning for the Rock Creek drainage as a 

 whole. The Forest Service agreed in principle that 

 planning should be shared even more broadly, 

 among private landowners, county sanitarians, 

 county commissioners, the state Board of Health, 

 the Bureau of Land Management and others. But 

 Forest Service representatives still opposed a 

 moratorium on logging. 



It was the conservation groups that were to 

 bring the controversy about Rock Creek logging to 

 a head. In June, 1971, the Montana Sierra Club 

 Group and the West Slope Chapter of Trout 

 Unlimited, Inc., filed an appeal with Forest Super- 

 visors Jack Large, on the Lolo, and Bob Lancaster, 

 on the Deerlodge.'" The appeal argued that plans 

 for logging Rock Creek were subject to NEPA and 

 therefore the two forests must write Environmen- 

 tal Impact Statements.^'' Considering how new the 

 law was, the Forest Service responded with 

 remarkable agility and avoided going to court to 

 contest the appeal. 



"You have to understand, of course, that 

 nobody in the Forest Service knew what NEPA 

 was," says Tom Huff, of Trout Unlimited. The ap- 

 peal was referred, unofficially, to the regional and 

 then the national office, where NEPA appeals from 

 all over the country were making their way" "Final- 

 ly, the Chief (of the Forest Service) was forced to 

 acknowledge that forest managers were responsi- 

 ble at the forest level for providing a written En- 

 vironmental Impact Statement," says Huff ""Once 

 thev' provided an Environmental Impact Statement, 

 one could challenge it or, in light of it, could 

 challenge the decision." This reading of NEPA was 

 to strengthen the hand of the public in challeng- 

 ing timber sales throughout the country. 



The appeal also accused the Forest Service 

 of distorting the idea of "multiple-use" manage- 

 ment. The Multiple-Use Sustained-'^'ield .\ct of I960 



