MONTANA W"ILDERNESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS ~rn PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2473 

TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST LANDS IN THE STATE OF 

MONTANA AS WILDERNESS, TO RELEASE OTHER NATIONAL FOREST 

LANDS IN THE STATE OF MONTANA FOR MULTIPLE USE MANAGEMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

71H181 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

JULY 20, 1993 

Serlal No. 103-44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1994 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-043431-9 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Rankilf8 Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota. ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, V"trgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD lL LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New M9ico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota. SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, AfkaruJas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi!l 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW ni, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETl', Wiaeonain 

JOHN LAWRENCE, St4/f Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Cou1Uiel. DANIEL VAL KlsH, Republican Steff Director 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FoRESTS AND PuBLIC LANDs 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chaimum 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Mauachuaetta JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Vtrginia 1lDnlring Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii , JOHN T. DOOLITl'LE, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Rico KEN CALVERT, California 

KARAN ENGLISH, Afizona JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New MeUeo 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, St4/f Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Pro{ell8WMl St4/f Member 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Cler* 

KuRT CluuSTENSEN, Republiccn ~ oo Public lAnds 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Republican Cou.118el oo National Parks, Forests and Public lAnds 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: July 20, 1993 ................................................................................... . H.R. 2473: 

1. Text of the bill ............................................................................................. . 2. Background memorandum .......................................................................... . Member statements: 

Hon. Bruce F. Vento ........................................................................................ . Hon. James V. Hansen .................................................................................... . 

M~~: ~~~fin~::s .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Hon. Larry LaRocco ......................................................................................... . Witness statements: 

Hank Montrey, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, accompanied by Thomas Donohue, staff, Wilderness 

Recreation and Heritage Program, Northern Region ............................... . Panel consisting of: 

Michael D. Scott, Northern Rockies Regional Director, The Wilder- ness Society, Bozeman, MT .................................................................. . Norm Newhall, Montana Wilderness Association, Dillon, MT ............. . Stan Frasier, Vice-President of Operations, National Wildlife Federation, Missoula, MT ................................................................................ . Mike Bader, Executive Director, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Missoula, MT ............................................................................................... . Panel consisting of: 

Jerry Bush, President, Lumber Production and Industrial Workers 

Union ..................................................................................................... . Harvey Reikofski on behalf of the Montana Trail Bikeriders Association, Montana 4X4 Association, Montanans for Multiple Use, and 

Montana Snowmobile Association ....................................................... . Bill Ballard on behalf of the Montana Petroleum Association and 

the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association ....................................... . Jay Chamberlin, Manager, East Bench Irrigation Unit, and President, Montana Water Resource Association ....................................... . James S. Riley, Executive Vice President, The Intermountain Forest 

Industries Association .......................................................................... . Material submitted for the hetlling record from: 

Norm Newhall, Montana Wilderness Association: 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition: Prepared statement ............................. . Wild Divide Chapter, Montana Wilderness Association: Prepared 

statement ............................................................................................... . News article, "Logging boom hits Bear's Paws" .................................... . 

stanNh:sia:,c~~~bewhdlif:S~~e~J;~: ·~t~~··r;;;~··M:·~~~~~··o;;~ partment of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and from Montana sportsmen 

and sportsmen's groups ............................................................................... . Jerry Bush, Lumber Production and Industrial Workers Union: 

1. Letter to Chairman Vento from Montana State AFL-CIO dated 

July 15, 1993 .............. ··········································· ............................ . 2. Letter to Chairman Vento from Local Union No. 2581, United 

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, dated July 

16, 1993 .............................................................................................. . 3. Letter to Chairman Vento from Western Council of Industrial 

Workers dated July 16, 1993 ........................................................... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

2 

44 

1 

50 

50 

50 

59 

61 

79 

94 

145 

172 

187 

202 

223 

244 

253 

95 

116 

125 

127 

153 

189 

192 

194 
IV 

APPENDIX 

JULY 20, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Norman L. Newhall, Esq., Lindquist & Vennum, Minneapolis, MN: Letter 

to Chairman Vento dated JUly 9, 1993, and attachinents regarding 

Middle Fork. Judith River ............................................................................ . Lewis and Clark County Board of County Commissioners: 

Letter to Chairmari Vento dated July 30, 1993 .................................... .. Harvey D. Reik.ofski, Jr., Chairman, Public Lands, Flathead Snowmobile 

Association: Letter to Chairman Vento dated July 30, 1993 ................... . Jim LeBar, Billings, MT: Letter to Chairman Vento dated July 20, 1993, 

and attached maps ....................................................................................... . Selected letters from concerned citizens regarding various parts of the 

Montana wilderness legislation .................................................................. . 

Pap 

279 

295 

300 

302 

313 
H.R. 2473, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN NATIONAL 

FOREST LANDS IN THE STATE OF MONTANA 

AS WILDERNESS, TO RELEASE OTHER NATIONAL FOREST LANDS IN THE STATE OF 

MONTANA FOR MULTIPLE USE MANAGEMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMrrrEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room 1324, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF BON. BRUCE F. VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will be in order. Today we are meeting to hear testimony on H.R. 2473, the Montana wilderness bill, introduced by our 

colleague on the subcommittee, and friend, Pat Williams. 

[Text of the bill, H.R. 2473, and background information follow:] 

(1) 
2 

I 

103D 1ST CONGRESS SESSION H R 2473 

• • 

To designate certain National Forest lands in the State of Montana as 

wilderness, to release other National Forest lands in the State of Montana for multiple use In&llllpment, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 1993 

Mr. WILLLUIS introduced the following bill; wbich was refeiTed jointly to the 

Committees on Agriculture and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate certain National Forest lands in the State 

of Montana as wilderness, to release other National Forest lands in the State of Montana for multiple use management, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and H()USe of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembkd, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be referred to as the "Round 16 of 

5 the Montana Wilderness Act 1993". 

6 SEC. I. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that-
3 

2 

1 (1) Many areas of undeveloped National Forest 

2 System lands in the State of Montana possess out3 standing natural eharacteristics which give them 

4 high value as wilderness and will, if properly pre5 served, contribute as an enduring resource of wild 

6 land for the benefit of the American people. 

7 (2) The existing Department of .Agriculture 

8 Land and Resource Management Plans for Forest 

9 System lands in the State of Montana have identi10 fied areas which, on the basis of their land form, 

11 ecosystem, associated wildlife, and location will help 

12 to fulfill the National Forest System's share of a 

13 quality National Wilderness Preservation System. 

14 (3) The existing Department of .Agriculture 

15 Land and Resource Management Plans for National 

16 Forest System lands in the State of Montana and 

17 the related congressional review of such lands have 

18 also identified areas that do not possess outstanding 

19 wilderness attributes or possess outstanding energy, 

20 mineral, timber, grazing, dispersed recreation, or 

21 other values. Such areas should not be designated as 

22 components of the National Wilderness Preservation 

23 System but sflould be available for multiple uses 

24 under the Ian'd management planning process and 

25 .other applicable law. 
4 

3 

1 (4) Montanans and those interested in Mon2 tana's wildlands have been fully involved in the for3 mulation of this wilderness proposal. That the wil4 derness designations recommended in this legislation 

5 have been developed with the support of Montana 

6 wilderness advocates and is therefore the product of 

7 years of negotiations. 

8 (b) PuRPosES.-The purposes of this Act are to9 (1) designate certain National Forest System 

10 lands in the State of Montana as components of the 

11 National Wilderness Preservation System, in fur. 

12 therance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 

13 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), in order to preserve the wilder14 ness character of the land and to protect watersheds 

15 and wildlife habitat, preserve scenic and historic re16 sources, and promote scientific research, primitive 

17 recreation, solitude, and physical and mental chal18 lenge; and 

19 (2) ensure that certain other National Forest 

20 System lands in the State of Montana ,will be man21 aged under the national forest land and resource 

22 management plans. 

23 SEC. 8. WILDDNBSS DESIGNATIONS. 

24 (a) DESIGNATION.-In furtherance of the purposes of 

25 the Wilderness Act of 1964, the following lands in the 
5 

4 

1 State of Montana are designated as wilderness and, there2 fore, as components of the National Wilderness Preserva3 tion System: 

4 (1) Certain lands in the Beaverhead, Bitterroot, 

S and Deerlodge National Forests, which comprise ap6 proximately 31,660 acres, as generally depicted on a 

7 map entitled ".Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness AddiS tions--Proposed" (North Big Hole, Storm Lake, 

9 Upper East Fork), dated June 1993, and which are 

10 hereby incorporated in and shall be deemed to be a 

11 part of the .Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness. 

12 (2) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National 

13 Forest, which comprise approximately 29,200 acres, 

14 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Italian 

15 Peaks Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993, 

16 and which shall be known as the Italian Peaks Unit 

17 of the Great Divide Wilderness. 

18 (3) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National 

19 Forest, which comprise approximately 79,600 acres, 

20 as generally depicted on a map entitled "East Pio21 neer Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993, and 

22 which shall be known as the East Pioneer Wilder23 ness. 

24 ( 4) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National 

25 Forest, Montana, comprising approximately 35,000 
6 

5 

1 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled ''West 

2 Big Hole Wlldemess-Proposed", dated June 1993, 

3 and which shall be known as the West Big Hole 

4 Unit of the Great Divide Wlldemess. 

S (5) Certain lands in the Bitterroot, Deerlodge, 

6 and Lolo National Forests, which comprise approxi· 

7 mately 64,800 acres, as generally depicted on a map 

8 entitled "Stony Mountain Wlldemess-Proposed", 

9 dated J'ime 1993, and which shall be known as the 

10 Stony Mountain Wlldemess. 

11 (6) Certain lands in the Bitterroot and Lolo 

12 National Forests, which comprise approximately 

13 55,600 acres, as generally depicted on maps entitled 

14 "Selway-Bitterroot Wlldemess Additions-ProIS posed", dated June 1993, and which are hereby in16 corporated in and shall be deemed to be a part of 

17 the Selway-Bitterroot Wlldemess. 

18 (7) Certain lands in the Custer National For19 est, which comprise approximately 9,400 acres, as 

20 generally depicted on a map entitled "Lost Water 

21 Canyon Wlldemess-Proposed", dated June 1993, 

22 and which shall be known as the Lost Water Canyon 

23 Wlldemess. 

24 (8) Certain lands in the Custer National For2S est, which comprise approximately 28,000 acres, as 
7 

6 

1 generally depicted on a map entitled "Custer .Absa2 roka Beartooth Wlldemess Additions-Proposed" 

3 (Burnt Mountain, Timberline Creek, Stateline, Line 

4 Creek Plateau, and Mystic Lake), dated June 1993, 

5 and which are hereby incorporated in and shall be 

6 deemed to be a part of the .Absaroka Beartooth WJ.l7 demess. 

8 (9) Certain lands in the Deerlodge and Helena 

9 National Forests, which comprise approximately 

10 19,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti11 tled "Blackfoot Meadow-Electric Peak WJ.ldemess--

12 Proposed", dated June 1993, and which shall be 

13 known as the Blackfoot Meadow Unit of the Great 

14 Divide WJ.ldemess. 

15 (10) Certain lands in the Flathead and 

16 Kootenai National Forests, which comprise approxi17 mately 118,000 acres, as generally depicted on a 

18 map entitled "North Fork Wlldemess--Proposed 

19 (Tuchuck, Thompson-Seton, and Mount Hefty)", 

20 dated June 1993, and which shall be known as the 

21 North Fork WJ.ldemess. 

22 (11) Certain lands in the Flathead, Helena, 

23 Lolo, and Lewis and Clark National Forests, which 

24 comprise approximately 254,600 acres, as generally 

25 depicted on maps entitled "Arnold Bolle Additions to 
8 

7 

l the Bob Marshall Wdderness-Proposed" (Silver 

2 King-Falls Creek, Renshaw, Clearwater-Monture, 

3 Deep Creek, Teton High Peak, Volcano Reef, Slip4 pery Bill, Limestone Cave, Choteau Mountain, and 

S Crown Mountain), dated June 1993, which shall be 

6 known as the Arnold Bolle-Bob Marshall Wdderness 

7 Additions and are incorporated in and shall be 

8 deemed to be a part of the Bob Marshall Wdderness. 

9 (12) Certain lands in the Flathead National 

10 Forest, which comprise approximately 960 acres, as 

11 generally depicted on a map entitled "Mission Moun12 tains Wilderness Additions-Proposed", dated June 

13 1993, and which are hereby incorporated in and 

14 shall be deemed to be a part of the Mission MountS tain Wilderness. 

16 (13) Certain lands in the Flathead and Lolo 

17 National Forests, comprising approximately 175,500 

18 acres, as generally depicted on maps entitled "Jewel 

19 Basin/Swan Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 

20 1993. Those lands contiguous to the west slope of 

21 the Bob Marshall Wilderness referred to in this 

22 paragraph are hereby incorporated in and shall be 

23 deemed to be a part of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, 

24 while the remaining lands shall be known as the 

2S Swan Crest Wilderness. 
9 

8 

1 (14) Certain lands in the Gallatin National 

2 Forest, which comprise approximately 14,440 acres, 

3 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Gallatin 

4 Absaroka Beartooth Wlldemess Additions-ProS posed" (Dexter Point, Tie Creek and Mt. Rae), 

6 dated June 1993, and which are hereby incorporated 

7 in and shall be deemed to be a part of the Absaroka 

8 Beartooth Wlldemess. 

9 (15) Certain lands in the Gallatin and Beaver10 head National Forests, which comprise approxi11 mately 20,100 acres, as generally depicted on a map 

12 entitled "Lee Metcalf Cowboys Heaven Addition13 Proposed", dated June 1993, and which are hereby 

14 incorporated in and shall be deemed to be a part of 

15 the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. 

16 (16) Certain lands in the Gallatin National 

17 Forest, which comprise approximately 18,300 acres, 

18 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Earthquake 

19 Wlldemess-Proposed", dated June 1993, and 

20 which shall be known as the Earthquake Unit of the 

21 Great Divide Wlldemess. 

22 (17) Certain lands in the Helena National For23 est, which comprise approximately 19,900 acres, as 

24 generally depicted on a map entitled "Camas Creek 

25 Wlldemess-Proposed", dated June 1993, and 
10 

9 

1 which shall be known as the Camas Creek Wilder2 ness. 

3 (18) Certain lands in the Helena National For4 est, which comprise approximately 15,000 acres, as 

5 generally depicted on a map entitled "Mount Baldy 

6 Wilderness--Proposedn, dated June 1993, and 

7 which shall be known as the Mount Baldy Wilder8 ness. 

9 (19) Certain lands in the Helena National For10 est, Montana, which comprise approximately 10,000 

11 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled 

12 "Gates of the Mountains Wilderness Additions13 Proposed'' (Big Log), dated June 1993, and which 

14 are hereby incorporated in and shall be deemed to 

15 be part of the Gates of the Mountain Wuderness. 

16 (20) Certain lands in the Helena National For17 est, which comprise approximately 10,700 acres, as 

18 generally depicted on a map entitled "Black Moun19 tain Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993, and 

20 which shall be known as the Black Mountain Unit 

21 of the Great Divide Wilderness. 

22 (21) Certain lands in the Kootenai National 

23 Forest, which comprise approximately 34,840 acres, 

24 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Cabinet 

25 Mountains Wilderness Additions-Proposed", dated 
11 

10 

1 June 1993, and which are hereby incorporated in 

2 and shall be deemed to be part of the Cabinet Moun3 tains Wilderness. 

4 (22) Certain lands in the Kaniksu and Kootenai 

S National Forest, which comprise approximately 

6 50,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti7 tied "Scotchman Peaks Wilderness-Proposed", 

8 dated June 1993, which shall be known as the 

9 Scotchman Peaks Wilderness. 

10 (23) Certain lands in the Kootenai National 

11 Forest which comprise approximately 22,000 acres, 

12 as generally depicted on a map entitled ''Yaak Wil13 derness-Proposed" (Roderick Mountain), dated 

14 June 1993, which shall be known as the Yaak WillS derness. 

16 (24) Certain lands in the Kootenai and Lolo 

17 National Forests, which comprise approximately 

18 17,900 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti19 tied "Catarack Peak Wilderness-Proposed", dated 

20 June 1993, which shall be known as the Cataract 

21 Peak Wilderness. 

22 (25) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest, 

23 which comprise approximately 17,900 acres, as gen24 erally depicted on a map entitled "Cube Iron/Mount 

25 Silcox Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993, 
12 

11 

1 which shall be known as the Cube Iron/Mount Silcox 

2 Wilderness. 

3 (26) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest, 

4 which comprise approximately 94,700 acres, as gen5 erally depicted on a map entitled "Great Burn Wil6 derness-Proposed", dated June 1993, which shall 

7 be known as the Great Burn Wilderness. 

8 (27) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest, 

9 which comprise approximately 60,100 acres, as gen10 erally depicted on a map entitled "Quigg Peak Willi derness-Proposed", dated June 1993, which shall 

12 be known as the Quigg Peak Wilderness. 

13 (28) Certain lands in the Kootenai National 

14 Forest, which comprise approximately 25,000 acres, 

15 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Trout 

16 Creek Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993, 

17 and which shall be known as the Trout Creek WillS derness. 

19 (29) Certain lands in the Helena National For20 est, which comprise approximately 19,000 acres, as 

21 generally depicted on a map entitled "Nevada Moun22 tain Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993, and 

23 which shall be known as the Nevada Mountain Unit 

24 of the Great Divide Wilderness. 
13 

12 

1 (30) Certain lands in the Helena National For2 est, which comprise approximately 44,900 acres, as 

3 generally depicted on a map entitled "Elkhorn Wil4 derness-Proposed", dated June 1993, and which 

5 shall be known as the Elkhorn Wilderness. 

6 (31) Certain lands in the Gallatin National 

7 Forest, which comprise approximately 500 acres, as 

8 generally depicted on a map entitled "North Absa9 roka Wilderness Addition-Proposed (Republic 

10 Mountain)", dated June 1993, and which are hereby 

11 incorporated in and shall be deemed a part of the 

12 North Absaroka Wilderness. 

13 (32) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National 

14 Forest, which comprises approximately 90,000 acres, 

15 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Snowcrest 

16 Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993 and shall 

17 be known as the Snowcrest Wilderness. 

18 (33) Certain lands in the Beaverhead National 

19 Forest, which comprise approximately 4, 700 acres, 

20 as generally depicted on a map entitled "Mount Jef21 ferson Wilderness-Proposed", dated June 1993 

22 and shall be known as the Mount Jefferson Unit of 

23 the Great Divide Wilderness. 

24 (34) Certain lands in the Deerlodge National 

25 Forest which comprise about 30,300 acres, as gen-
14 

13 

1 erally, depicted on a map entitled "Flint Creek Wil2 demess-Proposed", dated June 1993 and shall be 

3 known as the Flint Creek Wilderness. 

4 (35) Certain lands in the Gallatin and Lewis 

5 and Clark National Forests, which comprise appro:xi.-

6 mately 35,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map 

7 entitled "Crazy Mountain Wilderness-Proposed'', 

8 dated June 1993 arid shall be known as the Crazy 

9 Mountain Wilderness. 

10 (b) MAPs AND LEGAL DESCRIPTlONS.-(1) The Sec11 retary of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the "Sec12 retary") shall file the maps referred to in this section and 

13 legal descriptions of each wilderness area designated by 

14 this section with the Committee on Energy and Natural 

15 Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee 

16 on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States House 

17 of Representatives, and each such map and legal descrip18 tion shall have the same force and effect as if included 

19 in this Act. 

20 (2} The Secretary may correct clerical and typo21 graphical errors in the maps and the legal descriptions 

22 submitted pursuant to this section. 

23 (3) Each map and legal description referred to in this 

24 section shall be on file and available for public inspection 

25 in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Washing-
15 

14 

1 ton, D.C. and at the office of the Regional Forester of 

2 the Northern Region. 

3 (c) ADMINISTRATION.-Subject to valid existing 

4 rights, each wilderness area designated by this section 

5 shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in 

6 accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 

7 1964, except that, with respect to any area designated in 

8 this section, any reference to the effective date of the WII9 derness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date 

10 of enactment of this Act. 

11 (d) WILDERNESS AREA PERIMETERS.-Congress 

12 does not intend that the designation of wilderness areas 

13 in this section will lead to the creation of protective perim14 eters or buffer zones around such areas. The fact that 

15 nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from 

16 areas within a wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude 

17 such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilder18 ness area. 

19 (e) GRAZING.-The grazing of livestock, where estab20 lished prior to the date of enactment of this Act, in wilder21 ness areas designated in this section shall be administered 

22 in accordance with section 4( d)( 4) of the Wilderness Act 

23 of 1964 and section 108 of an Act entitled "An Act to 

24 designate certain National Forest System Lands in the 

25 States of Colorado, South Dakota, Missouri, South Caro-
16 

. 15 

1 lina, and Louisiana for inclusion in the National Wtlder2 ness Preservation System, and for other purposes" (94 

3 Stat. 3271; 16 U.S.C. 1133 note). 

4 (f) STATE FISH AND GAME AUTHORITY.-In accord5 ance with section 4(d)(7) of the Wtldemess Act of 1964, 

6 nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the ju7 risdietion or responsibilities of the State of Montana with 

8 respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests of Mon9 tana. 

10 (g) HUNTING.-Nothing in this Act or the Wtlder11 ness Act of 1964 shall be construed to prohibit hunting 

12 within the wilderness areas designated in this section. 

13 (h) COLLECTION DEVICES.-(1) Within the wilder14 ness areas designated in this section, the installation and 

15 maintenance of essential hydrological, meteorological, or 

16 climatological collection devices and ancillary· facilities is 

17 permitted, subject to such conditions as the Secretary 

18 deems desirable. 

19 (2) Access to the devices and facilities described in 

20 paragraph {1) shall be by the means historically used, if 

21 that method is the least intrusive practicable means avail22 able. Access, installation, and maintenance shall be com23 patible with the provisions of the Wtldemess Act. 

24 (i) The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 

25 Act not withstanding, the wilderness managing agencies 
17 

16 

1 are hereby authorized to use citizen advisory groups, task 

2 forces, and ad hoc committees among the public involve3 ment techniques employed to assist the agencies in the de4 velopment of wilderness management direction. 

5 SEC. 4. WATEIL 

6 (a) FINDINGS, PuRPoSE, AND DEFINITIONS.-(1) 

7 Congress finds that8 (A) the lands designated as wilderness by this 

9 Act are located at the headwaters of the streams 

10 and rivers on those lands, with no actual or pro11 posed water resource facilities located upstream 

12 from such lands and no opportunities for diversion, 

13 storage, or other uses of water occurring outside 

14 such lands that would adversely affect the wilderness 

15 values of such lands; 

16 (B) the lands designated as wilderness by this 

17 Act are not suitable for use for development of new 

18 water resource. facilities, or for the expansion of ex19 isting facilities; and 

20 (C) therefore, it is possible to provide for prop21 er management and protection of the water-related 

22 wilderness values of such lands in ways different 

23 from those utilized in other legislation designated as 

24 wilderness lands not sharing the attributes of the 

25 lands designated as wilderness by this Act. · 
18 

17 

1 (2} The purpose of this section is to protect the 

2 water-related wilderness values of the lands designated as 

3 wilderness by this Act by means other than those based 

4 on a Federal reserved water right. 

5 (3) As used in this section6 (A) the term "water resource facility" means ir7 rigation and pumping facilities, reservoirs, water 

8 conservation works, aqueducts, canals, ditches, pipe9 lines, wells, hydropower projects, and transmission 

10 and other ancillary facilities, and other water diver· 

11 sion, storage, and carriage structures; and 

12 (B) the term "historic", used with reference to 

13 rates of flow, quantities of use, or timing of use of 

14 water, means the pattern of actual use or operation 

15 of a facility over a representative period of time to 

16 the date of enactment of this Act. 

17 (b) RESTRICTION ON RIGHTS .AND DISCLAIMER OF 

18 EFFECT.-(1) Neither the Secretary nor any other officer, 

19 employee, or agent of the United States shall assert any 

20 claim, and no court or agency of the United States shall 

21 consider any claim asserted by any other person, to any 

22 right with respect to any waters in the State of Montana 

23 based on any construction of any portion of this Act or 

24 the designation of any lands as wilderness by this Act as 
19 

18 

1 constituting an express or implied reservation of water or 

2 water rights. 

3 (2)(A) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a 

4 creation, recognition, disclaimer, relinquishment, or reduc5 tion of any water rights of the United States in the State 

6 of Montana existing before the date of enactment of this 

7 Act. 

8 (B) Nothing in this Act shall be constmed as con9 stituting an interpretation of any other Act or any destO ignation made by or pursuant thereto. 

11 (C) Nothing in this section shall be constmed as es12 tablishing a precedent with regard to any future wilder13 ness designations. 

14 (c) NEW OR ExPANDED PRoJ'ECTS.-Notwithstand15 ing any other provision of law, on and after the date of 

16 enactment of this Act neither the President nor any other 

17 officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall fund, 

18 assist, authorize, or issue a license or permit for19 (1) the development of any new water resource 

20 facility within the lands designated as wilderness by 

21 this Act; or 

22 (2) the enlargement of a water resource facility 

23 or the expansion of the historic rate of diversion, 

24 quantity of use, or timing of use of a water resource 
20 

19 

1 facility within the lands designated as wilderness by 

2 this Act. 

3 Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, noth4 ing in this Act shall be construed to affect or limit oper5 ation, maintenance, repair, modification, or replacement 

6 of water resource facilities in existence on the date of en7 actment of this Act within the boundaries of the lands des8 ignated as wilderness by this Act. 

9 (d) ACCESS AND OPERATION.-(1) Subject to the 

10 provisions of this subsection, the Secretary shall allow real! sonable access to water resource facilities in existence on 

12 the date of enactment of thii:! Act within lands designated 

13 as wilderness by this Act, including motorized access 

14 where necessary and customarily employed on routes exist15 ing as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

16 (2) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the 

17 Secretary shall allow the present diversion, carriage, and 

18 storage capacity of water resource facilities existing on the 

19 date of enactment of this Act within wilderness areas des20 ignated by this Act, and access routes to such facilities 

21 existing and customarily employed as of such date, to be 

22 operated, maintained, repaired, and replaced as necessary 

23 to maintain the present function, design, and serviceable 

24 operation of the facilities, so long as such activities have 
21 

20 

1 no greater adverse impacts on wilderness values than as 

2 of the date of enactment of this Act. 

3 (3) Water resource facilities, and access routes serv4 ing such facilities, existing on the date of enactment of 

5 this Act shall be maintained and repaired when and to 

6 the extent necessary to prevent increased adverse impacts 

7 on wilderness values. 

8 (4) The historic rate of diversion, quantity of use, or 

9 timing of use of water resource facilities existing on the 

10 date of enactment of this Act within lands designated as 

11 wilderness bythis Act shall not be increased. 

12 (e) MONITORING AND lMPLEMENTATION.-The Sec13 retaries of Agriculture and the Interior shall monitor the 

14 operation of and access to water resource facilities within 

15 the boundaries of the lands designated as wilderness by 

16 this Act and take all steps necessary to implement the pro17 visions of this section. 

18 SEC. 15. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS. 

19 (a) DESIGNATIONS.-For the purposes of conserving, 

20 protecting and enhancing the exceptional scenic, fish and 

21 wildlife, biological, educational and recreational values of 

22 certain National Forest System lands in the State of Mon23 tana, the following designations are made: 

24 (1) The Mount Helena National Education and 

25 Recreation Area located in the Helena National For-
22 

21 

1 est, comprising approximately 5,120 acres, as gen2 erally depicted on a map entitled "Mount Helena 

3 National Education and &creation Area-Pro4 posed", dated September 1992. 

S (2) The Hyalite National Education and Beere6 ation Area located in the Gallatin National Forest, 

7 comprising approximately 18,900 acres, as generally 

8 depicted on a map entitled "Hyalite National Edu9 cation and Recreation Area-Proposed", dated Sep10 tember 1992. 

11 (3) The Northwest Peak National Recreation 

12 Area located in the Kaniksu and Kootenai National 

13 Forests, comprising approximately 16,700 acres, as 

14 generally depicted on a map entitled "Northwest 

15 Peak National Recreation and Scenic Area-Pro16 posed", dated September 1991. 

17 (4) The Buckhorn Ridge National Recreation 

18 Area located in the Kaniksu and Kootenai National 

19 Forests, comprising approximately 20,000 acres, as 

20 generally depicted on a map entitled "Buckhorn 

21 Ridge National Recreation Area-Proposed", dated 

22 September 1991. 

23 (5) The West Big Hole National Recreation 

24 Area located in the Beaverhead National Forest, 

25 comprising approximately 90,000 acres, as generally 
23 

22 

1 depicted on a map entitled ''West Big Hole National 

2 Recreation Area-Proposed", dated September 

3 1992, and which shall be known as the West Big 

4 Hole National Recreation Area. 

5 (6) The LeBeau Natural Area located on the 

6 Kootenai and Flathead National Forests comprising 

7 approximately 6,000 acres, as generally depicted on 

8 a map entitled "LeBeau Natural Area-Proposed", 

9 dated June 1993. 

10 (7) The Ross Creek Cedars Natural Area loll cated on the Kootenai National Forest comprising 

12 approximately 600 acres, as generally depicted on a 

13 map entitled "Ross Creek Cedars Natural Area14 Proposed", dated June 1993. 

15 (b) MAPS.-The Secretary shall file the maps re16 ferred to in this section with the Committee on Energy 

17 and Natural Resources, United States Senate, and the 

18 Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States 

19 House of Representatives, and each such map shall have 

20 the same force and effect as if included in this Act: Pro21 vided, That correction of clerical and typographical errors 

22 in such maps may be made. Each such map shall be on 

23 file and available for public inspection in the office of the 

24 Chief of the Forest Service and the office of the Regional 

25 Forester of the Northern Region. 
24 

23 

1 (c) MANAGEMENT.-(1) Except as otherwise may be 

2 provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall administer 

3 the areas designated in subsection (a) so as to achieve the 

4 purposes of their designation and in accordance with the 

5 laws and regulations applicable to the National Forest 

6 System. 

7 (2) Subject to valid existing rights, all federally 

8 owned lands within the areas designated in subsection (a) 

9 are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropria1 0 tion and disposal under the mining and public land laws, 

11 and disposition under the geothermal and mineral leasing 

12 laws. 

13 (3) Commercial timber harvesting is prohibited in the 

14 areas designated by this section with the following excep15 tions: 

16 (A) Nothing in this Act shall preclude such 

17 measures . which the Secretary, in his discretion, 

18 deems necessary in the event of fire, or infestation 

19 of insects or disease. 

20 (B) Fuel wood, post and pole gathering may be 

21 permitted. 

22 (C) Commercial timber harvesting may be per23 mitted in the Hyalite National Recreation and Edu24 cation Area, but must be compatible with the pur25 poses of its designation. 
25 

24 

1 ( 4) Where the Secretary detennines that such use is 

2 compatible with the purposes for which an area is des3 ignated, the use of motorized equipment may be permitted 

4 in the areas subject to applicable law and applicable land 

5 and resource management plans. 

6 (5) The grazing of livestock, where established prior 

7 to the date of enactment of this Act may be permitted 

8 to continue subject to applicable law and regulations of 

9 the Secretary. 

10 (d) NATIONAL RECREATION AREAs AND NATURAL 

11 AREAS.-(1) The Secretary shall manage the Mount Hel12 ena and Hyalite National Education and Recreation Areas 

13 with a focus on education. All management activities shall 

14 be conducted in a manner that provides the public with 

15 an opportunity to become better informed about natural 

16 resource protection and management. 

17 (2) The Secretary shall manage the LeBeau and Ross 

18 Creek Cedars Natural areas for the enhancement of 

19 biodiversity and scientific study. These forests' unique 

20 natural qualities are to be the focus of the area's manage21 ment. 

22 (e) LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANs.-

23 Those areas established pursuant to subsection (a) shall 

24 be administered as components of the national forests 

25 wherein they are located. Land and resource management 
26 

25 

1 plans for the affected national forests prepared in accord2 ance with the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

3 Planning Act, as amended by the National Forest Man4 agement Act, shall achieve the purposes for which the 

S areas are designated. The provisions of the national forest 

6 land and resource management plan, relating to each area 

7 designated by this section, shall also be available to the 

8 public in a document separate from the rest of the forest 

9 plan. 

10 SEC. 8. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS. 

11 (a) DESIGNATION.-The following areas are hereby 

12 designated as wilderness study areas and shall be man13 aged in accordance with the provisions of this section: 

14 (1) Certain lands on the Gallatin National For15 est, comprising approximately 21,500 acres, as gen16 erally depicted on a map entitled "Sawtooth Moun17 tain Wllderness Study Area-Proposed", dated Sep18 tember 1992. 

19 (2) Certain lands in the Lolo National Forest 

20 which comprise approximately 22,000 acres, as gen21 erally depicted on a map entitled "Sheep Mountain 

22 Wllderness Study Area-Proposed", dated Novem23 ber 1991. 

24 (3) Certain lands in the Lewis and Clark and 

25 Gallatin National Forests, which comprise approxi-
27 

26 

1 mately 115,000 acres, as generally depicted on a 

2 map entitled "Crazy Mountain Wlldemess Study 

3 Area-Proposed", dated October 1992. The Forest 

4 Service shall complete a study of public and private 

5 land consolidation alternatives for this area which 

6 shall be submitted to the appropriate committees of 

7 Congress 2 years after the date of the enactment of 

8 this Act. 

9 (4) Certain lands in the Gallatin National For10 est, which comprise approximately 4,500 acres, as 

11 generally depicted on a map entitled "South Cotton12 wood Wlldemess Study Area-Proposed," dated 

13 September, 1992, and shall be managed as part of 

14 the Gallatin Wlldemess Study Area in accordance 

15 with Public Law 95--150. 

16 (b) REPORT.-When the forest plans are revised, the 

17 Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on En18 ergy and Natural &sources of the United States Senate 

19 and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the 

20 United States House of Representatives containing rec21 ommendations as to whether the areas designated in sub22 section (a) should be added as components of the National 

23 Wlldemess Preservation System. 

24 (c) MANAGEMENT.----8ubject to valid existing rights, 

25 the wilderness study areas designated in subsection (a) 
27 

1 shall be ~ to protect their suitability for inclusion 

2 in the National Wllderness Preservation System. 

3 (d) MAPS.-The Secretary shall file the maps re4 ferred to in this section with the Committee on Interior 

S and Insular Affairs, United States House of Representa6 tives, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Re7 sources, United States Senate, and each such map shall 

8 have the same force and effect as if included in this Act: 

9 Provided, That correction of clerical and typographical er1 0 rors in these maps may be made. Each map shall be on 

11 file and available for public inspection in the office of the 

12 Chief of the Forest Service and the &gional Forester of 

13 the Northern &gion. 

14 SEC. 7. BADGER-TWO MEDICINE AREA. 

15 (a) WITHDRAWAL.-(1) Subject to valid existing 

16 rights including rights held by the Blackfeet nation under 

17 existing treaties and statute, all federally owned lands as 

18 depicted on a map entitled "Badger-Two Medicine Area", 

19 dated September 1991, comprising approximately 116,600 

20 acres, are withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropria21 tion, and disposal under the mining and public land laws 

22 and from disposition under the geothermal and mineral 

23 leasing laws. Until otherwise directed by Congress, the 

24 Secretary shall manage this area so as to protect its wil25 derness qualities. 
29 

28 

1 (2) Nothing in this section shall preclude the gather2 ing of timber by the Blackfeet Tribe (the "Tribe") in exer3 cise of valid treaty rights within the Badger-Two Medicine 

4 Area. 

5 (3)(A) With respect to oil and gas leases on Federal 

6 lands within the Badger-Two Medicine Area, no surface 

7 disturbance shall be pennitted pursuant to such leases 

8 until Congress detennines otherwise. 

9 (B) Notwithstanding any other law, the term of any 

10 oil and gas lease subject to the limitations imposed by this 

11 section shall be extended for a period of time equal to the 

12 term that such limitation remains in effect. 

13 (b) REviEw.-The Secretary shall conduct a review 

14 of the area referred to in subsection (a) in accordance with 

15 the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the provisions of this sub16 section. Not later than 5 years after the date of el!actment 

17 of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress. In con18 ducting this review: . 

19 (1) The Secretary shall establish a committee 

20 composed of 1 representative each from the Black21 feet Tribal Business Council, the Blackfeet Tribal 

22 traditionalists, and the National Park Service, as 

23 well as at least one representative of various con24 cemed user groups, including proportional represen25 tation for environmental groups and industry 
30 

29 

1 groups. The Committee shall not exceed eleven mem2 bers. The Blackfeet Tribal Business Council shall 

3 choose the 2 Tribal representatives. The Blackfeet 

4 Tribal Business Council shall conduct a public meetS ing to receive recommendations of the community re6 garding the selection of these members. The commit7 tee shall regularly advise the Secretary during the 

8 preparation of the report required in this subsection 

9 and submit its findings to Congress concurrently 

10 with those of the Secretary. 

11 (2) Special consideration shall be given to the 

12 religious, wilderness and wildlife uses of the area, 

13 taking into account any treaties the United States 

14 has entered into with the Blackfeet Nation. 

15 (3) In consultation with the committee, the Sec16 retary shall establish a process to provide infonna17 tion to the Tribe and interested public about options 

18 for future designation of the Badger-Two Medicine 

19 Area. 

20 (c) RIGHTS.-Nothing in this section shall be con21 stmed to diminish, prejudice, add to, or otherwise affect 

22 the treaty rights of the Blackfeet Tribe or the rights of 

23 the United States. 
81 

30 

1 SEC. 8. LANDS ADMlNISTERED BY BUREAU OF LAND MAN· 

2 AGDIENT. 

3 (a) FINDINGS.-(1) The Congress has reviewed the 

4 suitability of a portion of the Axolotl Lakes Wilderness 

5 Study Area (MT-076-069, BLM Wilderness Study Num6 her) as generally depicted on a map entitled "&leased 

7 portion of Axolotl Lakes WSA", dated September 1992, 

8 for wilderness designation and finds that this portion has 

9 been sufficiently studied for wilderness pursuant to section 

10 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

11 1976 (43 u.s.c. 1782}. 

12 (2) The Congress has reviewed the suitability of the 

13 Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area (MT-BLM Wilder14 ness Study Number) as generally depicted on a map enti15 tled "Bitter Creek WSA", dated June 1993, for wilderness 

16 pursuant to section 603 of the Federal Land Management 

17 and Policy Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782). 

18 (b) DIRECTION.-The area described in subsection 

19 (a) shall no longer be subject to the requirement of section 

20 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

21 of 1976 pertaining to management in a manner that does 

22 not impair suitability for preservation as wilderness. 

23 (c) ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION.-Those lands 

24 designated as wilderness pursuant to paragraphs (3) and 

25 (27) of section 3(a) of this Act, which, as of the date of 

U? .emmment of this Act, are administered by the Secretary 
32 

31 

1 of the Interior as public lands (as defined in the Federal 

2 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976), are hereby 

3 transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agri4 culture, and shall be added to and managed as part of 

5 the National Forest System, and the boundaries of the 

6 adjacent National Forests are hereby modified to include 

1 such lands. 

8 (d) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.-For 

9 purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation 

10 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-9), the boundaries 

11 of affected National Forests, as modified by this section, 

12 shall be considered to be the boundaries of such National 

13 Forests as if they were the boundaries of the National 

14 Forests as of January 1, 1965. Money appropriated from 

15 the Land and Water Conservation Fund shall be available 

16 for the acquisition of lands, waters, and interests therein 

17 in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. 

18 SEC. 9. MONTANA ECOSYSTEM AND ECONOMICS STUDY. 

19 (a) PuRPOSE.-The purpose of this section is to pro20 teet and enhance ecological values of the Northern Rockies 

21 Ecosystem within the State of Montana and to assure that 

22 disruptions to communities and local economies are mini23 mized through the sustainable use of the natural resources 

24 in the State of Montana: Provided, That the scope of the 
33 

32 

1 study shall be limited to the State of Montana. To accom2 plish the purpose, the Secretary shall3 (1) assess current environmental and economic 

4 conditions in the Montana ecosystem; 

5 (2) evaluate the recent and likely trends in 

6 those conditions under current management; 

7 (3) determine sustainable environmental condi8 tions and economies dependent thereon; and 

9 ( 4) identify opportunities and requirements to 

10 achieve and improve sustainability of the natural re11 sources and the economy. 

12 (b) STUDY.-(1) The Secretary of .Agriculture, acting 

13 through the Forest Service Research Branch, shall under14 take a Montana Ecosystem and Economics Study 

15 ("Study''). In conducting the study, the Forest Service 

16 shall draw from expertise throughout the Research Branch 

17 and cooperate with other Federal agencies, relevant State 

18 agencies, local governments, Tribal governments, and the 

19 relevant departments (such as biology, ecology, forestry, 

20 range, wildlife and fish, recreation, business, economics, 

21 law, etc.) of public universities in the State of Montana. 

22 (2) The Secretary of .Agriculture shall establish an 

23 Advisory Panel consistent with the Federal Advisory Com24 mittee Act to meet to review and comment on: (A) the 

25 study plan; (B) contractor, background, and interim re-

•BR 1471 m 
33 

1 · ports, if any; and (C) the final report. The Advisory Panel 

2 shall represent a balance of groups and individuals inter3 ested in or affected by natural resource management, in 

4 an equitable manner. 

5 (3) The Study shall address the following topics: 

6 (A) The current ecological trends and condi7 tions, environmental sustainability within the State 

8 of Montana, including but not limited to9 (i) air and water quality; 

10 (ii) timber quantity, quality, and growth; 

11 (iii) rangeland quality; 

12 (iv) riparian areas; 

13 (v) diversity of native plant and animal 

14 

15 

species; 

(vi) 

16 ecosystems; 

connectivity among isolated 

17 (vii) uncommon, rare, threatened, and en18 dangered species; 

19 (viii) populations of animals for consump20 tive and nonconsumptive uses; 

21 (ix) wilderness areas; 

22 (x) dispersed recreation opportunities; and 

23 (xi) developed recreation facilities. 

24 (B) The current contribution of commodity and 

25 non-commodity uses and output of natural resources 
35 

34 

1 to the local and regional economies, including, but 

2 not limited to--

3 (i) distinguishing among the various re4 source uses and outputs; 

5 (ii) examining the distn'bution of resource6 related economic activities among local commu7 nities; and 

8 (ill) distinguishing the contributions from 

9 each landowner class: Federal, State, Tribal, 

10 other government, forest industry, other major 

11 private corporations, and other private (non-in12 dustrial) landowners. 

13 (C) The sustainable contribution of commodity 

14 and non-commodity uses and outputs of natural re15 sources, using the same distinctions specified in sub16 paragraph (B), and assuming: 

17 (i) achievement of State air and water 

18 quality standards; and 

19 (ii) maintenance of or increase in the qual20 ity of natural resources in the State of Mon21 tana, including: the timber available; range 

22 lands grazed by livestock; riparian areas; the di23 versity of plant and animal species; connectivity 

24 among isolated ecosystems; uncommon, rare, 

25 threatened, and endangered native species; pop-

•BR 1471 m 
36 

35 

1 ulations of animals for consumptive and 

2 nonconsumptive uses; wilderness areas; dis3 persed recreation opportunities and developed 

4 recreation facilities. 

5 (D) Opportunities to improve environmental 

6 conditions that could permit an expansion of the 

7 sustainable contribution of commodity and non-com8 modity uses and outputs of natural resources. The 

9 assessment shall identify the financial and non-fi10 nancial costs for the various opportunities, and the 

11 likely or possible incidence of those costs. Opportuni12 ties shall include each of the following: 

13 (i) Increasing desirable natural vegetative 

14 growth including: reforestation with native spe15 cies, thinning and other timber stand modifica16 tions, prescribed burning, and seeding or plant17 ing native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

18 (ii) Improving the quality of other biologi19 cal resources (such as species diversity and ani20 mal populations), including: habitat restoration, 

21 extended timber rotations, alternative timber 

22 harvesting systems and grazing regimes, re23 serves to protect and improve connectivity 

24 among isolated ecosystems, and different stand-
37 

36 

1 ards and methods for road construction, main2 tenance, closure, and eradication. 

3 (iii) Enhancing the quality of non-biologi4 cal resources (such as recreation trails and fa5 eilities, wilderness areas, and watersheds and 

6 streams), including: site restoration and reha7 bilitation, demand management (user regulation 

8 and enforcement, marketing to shift timing and 

9 location of uses, etc.) and different standards 

10 and methods for road construction, mainte11 nanee, closure, and eradication. 

12 (E) Recommendations on investments and prae13 tiees for agencies responsible for natural resource 

14 management. 

15 (e) ScHEDULE.-(1) The study plan shall be ready 

16 for review by the Advisory Panel within one year after the 

17 enactment of this Act. 

18 (2) Contractor, background, and interim reports shall 

19 be presented to the Advisory Panel as they are completed. 

20 (3) The draft report shall be ready for review by the 

21 Advisory Panel within 2 years after the Panel's meeting 

22 to review the study plan. With Advisory Committee input, 

23 the Secretary shall arrange peer review of the draft report 

24 among appropriate independent experts in the relevant 

25 fields. 
38 

37 

1 (4) The final report shall be presented to the Com2 mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States 

3 House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and 

4 Natural Resources of the United States Senate, to the 

5 Chief of the Forest Service, and to the heads of other Fed6 eral and State agencies who have jurisdiction over wild 

7 land management or are responsible for regulating manS agement practices or impacts in the State of Montana. 

9 SEC. 10. MISCELlANEOUS PROVISIONS. 

10 (a) REDESIGNATION.-(1) Those lands comprising 

11 the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness, 

12 as designated in Public Law 96-4 76 are hereby redesig13 nated as the "Rattlesnake National Education and Recre14 ation Area and Wilderness". 

15 (2) Those lands comprising 200 acres, as generally 

16 depicted on a map entitled ''West Pioneers Study Dele17 tion-Proposed", are hereby released from study under 

18 Public Law 95-150. 

19 (b) WITHDRAWAL.-Those lands comprising approxi20 mately 27,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map enti21 tied uGibson Reservoir Mineral Withdrawal Area-Pro22 posed", dated October 1992, are hereby withdrawn from 

23 all forms of entry, appropriation and disposal under the 

24 mining and public land laws, and disposition under the 

25 geothermal and mineral leasing laws. 
39 

38 

1 (c) ACREAGES.-All acreages cited in this Act are ap2 proximate and in the event of discrepancies between cited 

3 acreage and the lands depicted on referenced maps, the 

4 maps shall control. 

5 (d) ACCEss.-It is the policy of Congress that the 

6 Forest Service acquire and maintain reasonable public ac7 cess to National Forest System lands in the State of Mon8 tana. 

9 (e) SCAPEGOAT AND GREAT BEAR WILDERNESS 

10 NAMEs.-In order to consolidate existing contiguous wil11 derness areas, those lands comprising the Great Bear Wil12 derness Area designated by Public Law 95-946 and any 

13 amendments thereto and the Scapegoat Wilderness Area 

14 designated by Public Law 92-395 and any amendments 

15 thereto are hereby incorporated in and deemed to be a 

16 part of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. The designations of 

17 the Great Bear Wilderness and Scapegoat Wilderness 

18 shall refer to units within the Bob Marshall Wilderness. 

19 SEC. 11. AUTBOIUZATION 01.1' APPROPRIATIONS. 

20 There are authorized to be appropriated21 (1) such sums as are necessary for the develop22 ment of a wilderness education and ranger training 

23 complex at the Ninemile Ranger Station, Lolo Na24 tional Forest, Montana; and 
40 

39 

1 {2) such sums as are necessary to carry out this 

2 Act. 

3 SEC. 11. WILDERNESS REVIEW. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that--

5 (1) the Department of Agriculture has studied 

6 the suitability of roadless areas for inclusion in the 

7 National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

8 (2) the Congress has made its own review and 

9 examination of National Forest System roadless 

10 areas in the State of Montana and the environ· 

11 mental impacts associated with alternative alloca12 tions of such areas. 

13 (b) RELEASE.-Those National Forest System lands 

14 in the State of Montana which were not designated as wil15 derness, special management, national recreation, or wil16 derness study areas by this Act shall be managed for mul17 tiple use in accordance with land and resource manage· 

18 ment plans developed pursuant to section 6 of the forest 

19 and Rangeland Renewable &sources Planning Act of 

20 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management 

21 Act of 1976, and other applicable law, and those areas 

22 need not be managed for the purpose of protecting their 

23 suitability for wilderness designation prior to or during re24 vision of the land and resource management plans. 
41 

40 

1 (c) PLAN REv:ISIONS.-In the event that revised land 

2 management plans in the State of Montana are imple3 mented pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland 

4 Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended 

5 by the National Forest Management .Act of 1976, and 

6 other applicable law, areas not recommended for wilder7 ness designation, need not be managed for the purpose 

8 of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation 

9 prior to or during revision of such plans, and areas rec10 ommended for wilderness designation shall be managed for 

11 the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness 

12 designation. 

13 (d) FuRTHER REviEw.-Unless expressly authorized 

14 by Congress, the Department of Agriculture shall not con15 duct any further statewide roadless area review and eval16 nation of National Forest System lands in the State of 

17 Montana for the purpose of determining their suitability 

18 for inclusion in the National W':tlderness Preservation Sys19 tern. 

20 (e) PREvious PLANs.-Exeept as specifically pro21 vided in sections 3, 5, 6, and 7 of this .Act and in Public 

22 Law 95-150, with respect to the National Forest System 

23 lands in the State of Montana which were reviewed by the 

24 Department of .Agriculture under Public Law 94--557, the 

25 unit plans that were in effect prior to completion of RARE 
41 

1 IT, the 1978 Forest Plan for the Beaverhead National 

2 Forest, that such reviews shall be deemed an adequate 

3 consideration of the suitability of such lands for inclusion 

4 in the National WJ.lderness Preservation System, and the 

5 Department of Agriculture shall not be required to review 

6 the wilderness option prior to the revision of the Land and 

7 Resource Management Plans. 

8 (f) REviSIONs.-As used in this section, and as pro9 vided in section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

10 Resources Planning Act, as amended by the National For11 eign Management Act, the term "revision" shall not in12 elude an amendment to a land and resource management 

13 plan. 

14 (g) SIZE.-The provisions of this section shall apply 

15 to those National Forest System roadless lands in the 

16 State of Montana which are less than 5,000 acres in size. 

17 (h) WILDERNESS SUITABILITY REVIEW.-Except as 

18 provided in Public Law 95-150, the wilderness suitability 

19 review and evaluation of national forest system lands in 

20 the State of Montana completed as a part of Land and 

21 Resource Management Plans that were completed prior to 

22 the enactment of this Act, constitute an adequate consid23 eration of the suitability of such lands for inclusion in the 

24 National WJ.lderness Preservation System and the Depart25 ment of Agriculture shall not be required to review the 
42 

1 wildemess option prior to the revision of the plans, but 

2 shall review the wildemess option when the plans are re3 vised, which revisions will ordinarily occur on a 10-year 

4 cycle, or at least every 15 years, unless, prior to such time 

S the Secretary finds that conditions in a unit have signifi6 cantly changed. 

0 
44 

BACKGROUND ON H.R. 2473 

MONTANA WILDERNESS 

The ten National Forests of Montana include over 6 million acres of roadless lands. Not only do they contain minerals, range, 

timber, and oil and gas in varying amounts, but they also include 

wilderness of outstanding scenic and pristine quality. This 

wilderness resource is noted for its high mountain scenery, 

large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped land containing 

opportunities for solitude and abundant wildlife. Moose, deer, 

bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, wolverines and the nation's 

largest elk herds live on these roadless acres. Furthermore, 

several threatened and endangered species are found on these 

lands. Grizzly bears, gray wolves, peregrine falcons, bald 

eagles and the grayling are all residents and survival of these 

species may be dependent on the future management of these 

roadless areas. Commodity resources are also found on the 

roadless lands of Montana's national forests. Timber harvesting, 

mining and oil and gas development are important elements of the 

state's economy. 

Congress has long recognized the importance of the wilderness resource in Montana's national forests. Since the Wilderness Act 

of 1964, Congress has enacted into law ten separate bills that 

designated wilderness in Montana. Today, the State has 

approximately 3.4 million acres of national forest wilderness. 

The largest and best known is the million acre Bob Marshall 

Wilderness. 

H.R. 2473 would put or keep in various degrees of protected 

status approximately 2.6 million acres of national forest 

roadless lands in Montana. This includes 35 new wilderness 

units, 6 new special management areas, 7 new study areas, and 

maintaining in protected status 8 existing study areas. It would 

release approximately 3.4 million acres to non-wilderness uses. The bill is similar to a bill that passed the House and Senate, 

but was vetoed by President Reagan in 1988 and to a bill which 

passed the House in the last Congress. H.R. 2473, puts 100,000 more acres in protected status than the House passed bill of the 

last Congress. 

In 1977, congress enacted Public Law 95-150, the Montana 

Wilderness Study Act. This Act designated one million acres of 

wilderness study areas in 10 areas. H.R. 2473 leaves 8 of these areas totalling approximately 700,000 acres in protected status 

and places five new areas in protected study status. Although 

H.R. 2473 provides designations only for national forest lands 

and does not designate any BLM lands as wilderness, it does 

release two BLM wilderness Study Areas, Bitter Creek and a portion of Axolotl Lakes. Bitter Creek with approximately 60,000 acres is the largest BLM wilderness study area in Montana. 
45 

H.R. 2473 PESIGHATIQNS 

Wilderness: 1.56 million acres in 35 areas or additions 

New Wilderness 

study: 234,000 acres in 5 areas 

Spec. Mqmt. Areas: 157,000 acres in 7 areas 

Existing study 

Areas Left in 

study status: 700,000 acres in 8 areas 

Total Protected 

Areas: 2.6 million acres 

Released Roadless 

Lands: 3.4 million acres 

NEW DESIGNATIONS NOT FQUNQ IN THE 102ND CQNGBESS 

HQUSE PASSED BILL 

New wilderness 

Mt. Jefferson 

Snowcrest 

Line Creek Plateau addition to the Absaroka-Beartooth 

Wilderness (previously in study status) 

Addition to Black Mt. proposed wilderness (Ninemile 

drainage) Addition to the Rocky Mountain front additions to the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness (Elk Pass) 

Addition to the Swan Crest proposed wilderness 

New wilderness studY areas 

No change from House-passed bill of the 102nd Congress. 

New Special Management Areas 

Le Beau Natural Area 

Ross creek Cedars Natural Area 
46 

RELEASE LMIGUAGE 

For several years, statewide national foreat wilderness bills 

have included What has become known as standard release language. This language became necessary after the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals found that the Forest service's second Roadless Area and 

Review EIS (RARE II) inadequately studied roadless areas for 

their wilderness potential. Standard releaea language precludes judicial challenge to the wilderness reca.mendations contained in 

RARE II and releases non--designated roadless lands to uses other 

than wilderness. However, it allows these lands to be 

reconsidered for wilderness in the next round of forest planning. 

With the completion of forest plans with new wilderness 

recomaendations, RARE II and the Ninth Circuit Court decision no longer apply. H.R. 2473 includes release language that 

references the forest plans instead of RARE II, and still 

releases non-designated lands to non-wilderness uses. 

Section 4 of H.R. 2473 deals with water and water rights. Its 

provisions generally resa.ble sa.e water-related provisions of 

H.R. 631 (Colorado wilderness) as favorably reported by the 

Natural Resources Committee, although the provisions of H.R. 631 were developed solely in the context of Colorado water law. 

Asserted Basis for Water Provisions 

Subsection 4(a) recites findings upon Which the section is based, 

states the section's purpose, and provides definition of two 

terms used in the section. 

The stated findings of subsection 4(a) (1) are--

A) that the lands the bill designates as wilderness are located at the headwaters of the streams and rivera located on those lands, with no actual or proposed water resource facilities 

located upstrea., and no opportunities for diversion, storage, or other uses of water that could occur outside these areas that 

would adversely affect the wilderness values of the areas; 

B) that the lands designated as wilderness by the bill are not suitable for use or development of new water resource facilities or the expansion of existing water resource facilitietu and 

C) that therefore, proper management and protection of the 

wilderness values of the specific areas covered by section 2(a) can be provided for in ways different from those utili%ed in 

legislation designating as wilderness lands not sharing these 

particular attributes. 
47 

Purpose of Water Provisions 

Subsection 4(a)(2) states that section 4 is intended to protect the wilderness values of the lands described in section 2(a) by means other than those based on a Federal reserved water right. 

Restriction 

Subsection 4(b) (1) would prohibit any u.s. officer, employee, or agent (including the Secretary of Agriculture) from asserting, and prohibit any u.s. court or agency from considering, any claim 

for water or water rights in Montana based on construing any 

portion of the bill (or the designation by the bill of any lands as wilderness) as constituting either an express or implied reservation of water or water rights. 

Scope and Effect 

Paragraph 4(b)(2) clarifies several aspects of the bill's effects 

with regard to water or water rights: 

--Subparagraph 4(b)(2)(A) states that nothing in the bill is to 

be construed as a creation, recognition, disclaimer, 

relinquishment, or reduction of any water rights of the United 

States in Montana existing before the bill's enactmentr 

--subparagraph 4(b) (2)(B) provides that nothing in the bill is to 

be construed as constituting an interpretation of any other Act or any designation made by or pursuant theretor and 

--Subparagraph 4(b) (2)(C) provides that nothing in section 4 of 

H.R. 2473 is to be construed as establishing a precedent regarding future wilderness designations. 

Water Resource Facilities 

Subsection 4(c) would prohibit any u.s. officer, employee, or agent (including the President) from funding, assisting, 

authorizing, licensing, or permitting the development of any new water resource facility ( i.e., irrigation and pumping facilities, reservoirs, water conservation works, aqueducts, canals, ditches, pipelines, wells, hydropower projects, transmission and other ancillary facilities, and other water 

diversion, storage, and carriage structures) or the enlargement of any existing water resource facility within any of the lands 

the bill designates as wilderness. 

Access and Operation 

Subsection 4(d) addresses access to and operation of existing 

water resource facilities within the lands the bill designates as wilderness. Paragraph 4(d)(l) would direct the Secretary to 

allow reasonable access to such facilities in existence on the 

date of enactment of the bill, including motorized access where 
48 

necessary and customarily employed on routes in existence on that 

date, subject to the provisions of subsection 4(d). 

Paragraph 4(d)(2) specifies that existing access routes within 

the lands the bill designates as wilderness customarily employed as of the date of the bill's enactment may be used, maintained, 

repaired and replaced to the extent necessary to maintain their 

present function, so long as such activities have no greater adverse effects on the wilderness areas' resources and values. 

Paragraph 4(d)(3) would require that water resource facilities, 

and access routes serving such facilities, in existence on the 

date of the bill's enactment within the bill's wilderness areas be maintained and repaired when and to the extent necessary to 

prevent increased adverse impacts on wilderness values. 

Paragraph 4(d)(4) would prohibit increases in the historic rate 

of diversion, quantity of use, or timing of use of water resource facilities existing on the date of the bill's enactment within 

the areas the bill designates as wilderness. 

Monitoring and Implementation 

Subsection 4(f) provides that the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

the Interior are to monitor the operation of and access to water resource facilities within the bill's wilderness areas and are to 

take all steps necessary to implement section 4. 
49 

Mr. VENTO. H.R. 2473 deals with the long-standing controversy 

over National Forest roadless lands in Montana. Over 6 million 

acres of roadless lands are involved in this consideration. 

Through a combination of wilderness areas, special management 

areas and study areas, the bill puts or keeps in various degrees of 

protected status approximately 2.6 million acres of National Forest 

and releases to general Forest Service management 3.4 million 

acres. This bill also deals with some BLM lands. The bill protects 

100,000 more acres than the Montana wilderness bill that the 

House passed in the last Congress. 

This is an important matter for the Montana delegation. It is an 

important national issue of concern to all Members of the Congress. The Montana roadless issue has been debated in the subcommittee 

forum for 7 years. 

In the 100th Congress, we held a 9-hour hearing which produced nearly 700 pages of printed testimony, and last year we held another lengthy hearing on this issue. Those are just two of the numerous hearing records on Montana wilderness. Today's hearing will update and build on the record for 1993. 

In 1988, Congress sent the President a bill to resolve the Montana roadless lands issue. Just before the November election, the 

President vetoed that bill. In 1992, the House passed another Montana wilderness bill only to have it fail in the last days of the Congress because of a problem in the Senate. 

It is my intention to continue to work with all interested parties in an effort to bring this issue to a conclusion that is appropriate in terms of classification of the land. I want to solve what is pos- sible in this Congress and advance down the policy path as far as 

is possible in achieving consensus. 

Only two States, Montana and Idaho, have outstanding RARE II 

National Forest legislation which has not successfully been enacted. The polarization that has ensued has taxed all of our energies as we continue to attempt to resolve this issue, most especially those Members who represent those States. 

We had many more witnesses request to testify today in person than we are able to accommodate. It is not possible to place all on 

the witness list who request such a personal appearance. 

However, anyone interested may submit written testimony within 10 working days and that testimony will be included in the hearing record and will be available for review by Members and staff 

in considering the Montana wilderness bill or any other issues before the subcommittee. 

We have an extensive witness list to , which includes a cross 

section of Montanans representing a rsity of viewpoints. I 

would request that each witness adhere to the committee rules and 

present their testimony in 5 minutes or less so that we may hear 

in a timely manner from all of the witnesses who are scheduled to 

testify. All witnesses' full written statements will be made part of 

the hearing record. 

Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THoMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me submit for the record Mr. Hansen's statement. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:] 
50 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to yet another hearing on Montana wilderness. 

As the author of the 1984 Utah Forest Service Wilderness Act that became law 

and a BLM wilderness bill Mr. Orton and I are working on, I am well aware of the 

difficult balancing act involved with this issue. 

I am a bit concerned that the Montana bill we are hearing today contains twice as much wilderness as was recommended by the Forest Service during the RARE 

II proceu. Although I would have hoped we could stay closer to the recommendations of our _profeuional land managers, I am also pairif'ul1y aware of the pressures 

that Mr. Williams and the rest of the delegation are facing on this issue. 

The water language in this bill appears to be virtually identical to that contained 

in the Colorado wilderneu bill tha:t passed the House yesterday. Although it is a vast improvement over the federal reserved water right we created with the 1989 

Nevada wilderness bill, it needs more refinement and clarification. For example, it 

is not clear to me what role Montana State courts would have under this provision. 

Again, I look forward to hearing today's witneues and hope the entire Montana 

delegation can agree on a bill that will ultimately be enacted this Congress. 

STATE OF BON. CRAIG THOMAS 

Mr. THOMAS. This is not a new issue, as you point out, and I am 

delighted that you are moving forward on it. I think it is being done properly. I think the people from Montana, the delegation from Montana certainly is taking the leadership in it, and that is 

as it should be. 

There are some generic issues, of course, such as water language. 

It is my understanding the language in this bill is similar to that 

in Colorado. It leaves a little something to be desired in terms of 

defining the role of the state court, I think, but reasonably good l~guage. 

The other, of course, is how this extends. In the last bill, there 

were some study areas that extended into the surrounding States, 

and I understand that is not there this time. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing and I am 

pleased that we are moving forward with it. 

Thank you. Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I 

note it does include the Colorado water language, but this isn't Colorado; is it? 

Mr. THOMAS. No, it isn't. But you know, I don't agree with the 

Chairman that every proposition is a new discovery. There are 

some principles involved in Western water and they apply pretty universally, in my view. So if we can get away from that Federal 

reservation, which the Chairman likes so much, and some of the 

other things, then I think that is a good idea. 

Mr. VENTO. The ti~~~eman from Montana is barely established 

in his seat here. I · in deference to the sponsor, if there is no 

objection, I will recognize the gentleman at this time, to share his 

opening statements with his colleagues. 

Mr. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF BON. PAT WILLIAMS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry I am late. I was writing mr opening statement. 

I began this process with determination, impatience, frustration, 

but above all, determination. I didn't introduce this bill and begin 
51 

this process because I, Pat Williams, enjoy this struggle. I didn't 

do it just because I believe the consideration of this legislation is 

important, and it is, vitally important. 

I didn't do it just because our Federal land managers have, for 

more than a decade, said it was critical to future management of 

our forests, or just because our resource-dependent industries realized just a few years ago that we must get this issue behind us, 

if they are to have management certainty in harvest. We aren't 

doing it just because private and public fish and game managers 

believe it is important if Montana is to maintain one of, if not 

America's greatest fishing and hunting seasons. 

Nor am I doing it just because Montanans have had it with the 

debate and the disagreement and the struggle, but rather, because 

of all of those things. So we are assembled here again with a fine 

group of Montanans who traveled out here to testify on this legislation, and I know we will hear testimony that will prompt discussion of amendments. I am supportive of that. 

The proposal that is before you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, is not etched in stone. This isn't a "take-it-or-leave-it proposal." Beginning today, the proposal will be discussed and is open 

for amendments. And I hope will move quickly through this subcommittee, the full committee, the House, and then, although out 

of our hands, I want to enlist my colleagues to help me to get the 

Senate to move with equal haste. 

With this bill, I have now introduced five pieces of legislation 

specifically addressing_the remaining RARE II wilderness lands out 

our way in Montana. This will be the 15th piece of legislation introduced by some Member or other of the Montana congressional delegation. 

This will be the 16th year that Montanans have watched this 

issue move to no success. Even heavywei~ht championship fights 

are limited to 15 rounds. I have titled this bill the "16th round." 

So if this bill is fortunate enough to move through committee and 

be passed by the House, it will be the 6th piece of legislation to 

enjoy passage in one or the other chamber, and one bill passed both 

chambers, and ended up on former President Reagan's desk, and 

in a cynical political gesture, no more, no less, he vetoed it. 

The statistics are impressive, by any legislative standard, and let 

me take a moment to list them for you. As I say, 15 pieces of legislation introduced over as many: years. A Montana wilderness bill, 

various Montana wilderness bills, I should say, have been the subject of 50 congressional hearings. We have sat through 235 hours 

of testimony. 

My library has 20 printed hearing record volumes. We have testimony from several hundred Montanans. We have testimony from 

more than a dozen Montana organizations which, by the way, claim 

to represent a membership within Montana that is double the population of our State. I have counted. Somebody out there is smudging just a tad. 

Since I began consideration of this issue, four Presidents have 

managed our National Forests, and all four, including former President Reagan, have urged resolution of this issue. These were not 

casual partisan requests. They were bipartisan requests. They said 
52 

to us, settle Rare II or we will be unable to manage the Nation's 

resources located within Montana and, I might add, Idaho, in an 

appropriate way. That has been the constant message from the administration to the Congress. 

I am eager today to hear from our agency witnesses, because I 

am confident that the current administration is as dedicated as the 

past administrations, with the exception of the Reagan administration, have been to end this legislative gridlock. We have heard a 

lot about gridlock over the last couple of years, and I want to say, perhaps parenthetically, that wilderness and the inability to resolve it in Montana and Idaho are among the chief examples of 

how destructive political gridlock can be to the Nation's economy and civility. 

Were our land managers right about the importance of resolving this issue? Well, even a casual observer of tlie land management record in Region One of the Forest Service, which covers Idaho and 

Montana, can now see the land planning chaos, and the cost-pity the poor taxpayer. If one was to add up all of the money involved in just the print- ing of documents needed to accompany these bills, that would run 

into hundreds of thousands of dollars, just the printing costs. If one 

were to include the wages and expenses of Congress, its employees; the administration, its employees, and those who travel around 

Montana and back to Washington, DC, to lobby on this issue, the 

cost is several million dollars, and nothing to show for it. Nothing. Congress knew a lot less about and had spent a lot less time in 

examining our commitment to troops in the Middle East, and more 

lately in Somalia, than we have spent on this issue in Montana 

and, I might add, Idaho. 

We like to call Montana the "last best place," and we do it both 

with pride and some sadness. We are proud of the job we have 

done as stewards of the natural resources out our way. Montanans 

have always understood that some of the wild lands, wild lands 

that protect our game herd and give birth to our great rivers, fuel 

our economies and, yes, restore our souls, would need to be pro- tected as wilderness. And so it was a Montana Senator who was 

there at the beginning in the 1964 Wilderness Act, Lee Metcalf, 

and Montana legislators have tried to lead the way in applying that law to the protection of our impotj;ant wild land heritage. 

We have had some success. We think that some of the places out 

our way are flagships of the national protected system, the Bob 

Marshall, the Great Bear, the Selway/Bitterroot, the Absaroka 

Beartooth. We also know that there are less grand and well-known 

but equally important places like the Welcome Creek, the Rattlesnake and the Pintlar and the Scapegoat, and they, too, are a heritage of which Montanans and Americans are rightfully proud. 

Now, 28 other States have preceded Idaho and Montana in the 

future course of management on their Federal lands. Perhaps it is 

the value and importance of the lands in Idaho and Montana that 

have made the delay in this process inevitable. Think about it. Fifteen million acres of the last of it, unroaded, wild lands across two 

States, the largest wild landmass in the Lower 48; the last remaining home of some of the great roaming land animals, including the 
53 

grizzly, home of the Nation's largest herds of elk and big hom 

sheep, mountain goats; the Nation's healthiest population of lynx, 

mountain lion and cougar. Montana is the gatekeeper of two of 

America's great national parks, its first one, Yellowstonei and the 

one that Charles Kuralt calls America's greatest comer, G acier. 

Although some folks in the Midwest aren't so pleased with this, 

we nonetheless are the headwaters for the Missouri, and to our 

west, the Columbia. Private, State and national efforts have made 

the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana the largest game recovery 

effort in the history of the Nation. It is America's Serengeti. There 

is no question but that the stakes are high and the losses are high, 

if we do nothing. There is no wilderness in this legislation, none, not an inch, that 

has not been advocated by Montanans. I have spent 14 years in 

their front rooms and I have reviewed every comment, without exception, over 15 years; every comment made by Montanans, whether on the phone, by fax, letter, or whatever, and this legislation reflects that work by Montanans. 

This legislation, finally-, is very similar to last session's bill, but 

it is not identical. This 1s an issue that continually evolves in this 

legislation as each bill that has come along addresses changing circumstances. For example, in this one, the Bureau of Land Management, as you know, has completed its wilderness inventory, and because of peculiar management arrangements, has recommended 

Forest Service lands for wilderness which were not inventoried by 

that agency in its wilderness review. Mount Jefferson is an example in this situation. 

Montanans have made a good case for the protection of ~;pecies 

diversity, a goal that specifically is addressed in the 1964 Wilderness Act. There are changes in this legislation that reflect my desire to meet those goals, such as the Snow Crest Ran~e',in Southwestern Montana which I would place in wilderness With this bill, 

but have not in others. 

There have been land consolidation efforts in Montana that have 

opened the opportunity for the first time to designate wilderness 

where just a few years ago checkerboard ownership, private checkerboard ownership, virtually stopped the possibility of wilderness 

designation, and the example of tliat is the designation here in the 

Crazy Mountains. 

So as I said, Mr. Chairman, I anticipate that we will hear testimony today that may bring some issues into clearer focus and I am 

certain those suggestions may lead to other changes; there certainly will be a call for other changes. The appropriate management of our Federal lands is not something that is solved by one 

piece of legislation or one action of Congress. Good stewardship requires vigilance and dedication, and we have people in this room 

that I could introduce you to who have practiced that vigilance and 

dedication for more than a decade or two out in Montana. 

This hearing being held quickly, Mr. Chairman, is another commitment by you to try to do this subcommittee's and your part in 

resolving what has become a critical issue, not only for Montana, 

for folks out there who need jobs, particularly in the timber industry, or folks who want to protect some of the last "best places" 
54 

without harming the natural resource extractive job base, and I ap- preciate you holding the hearing. 

Mr. VEN'ro. Thanks for your comments, Pat, and your work. I 

hope that we can bring this to a conclusion in this session. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 
PAT WILLIAMS MOHT55 

€onltt't•i of tbt Wnittb 6tatti 

•oust of !Uprtltntatibd 

lld!Jingtu, JK .205t5-2j)()t 

STA'I'EMBNT CONGRESSMAN PAT WILLIAMS 

RBGAlUllliG H.R. 2473 

COMMCTTIU; 

IOUCATION AND I.ABOJI 

o\ONCUlTUA' HA~HSfWIICH 

tu•COMM11'TUS: 

v.J~MANAGIMtN't~ _....,._ HATIQHAC. ~~'""" --· ANCI MUC ~ 

N..._Ttvt AMPICAN AFF,t,!M; 

ROtnro 16 OP THB MONTANA WILDDNBSS ACT OF 1993 

J'O'LY 19, 1993 

Mister Chairman, I begin this process with determination, ~atience, frustration •• but above all else determination. 

I did not introduce this bill and begin this process because 

I, Pat Williams, enjoy this struggle ·· not because I so1ely believe this consideration is ~ortant, although it is •• but 

because our federal land managers believe it is critical to 

future management of our forestal because our resource dependent industries cry out for resolution and management certainty; because our state and private game managers believe it is ~ortant if we want continued quality hunting without a lottery; and because our local communities are demanding an end to the 16 

years of disagreement and controversy. 

Today we have assembled again a fine group of Montanans to 

testify on this legislation and I am certain we will hear 

testimony which will prompt the discussion of amendments. The 

proposal I have presented ie not etched in stone and this is not a take-it or leave-it proposal like the Senate offered the House 

last session. Seginning today this proposal will be discuseed 

and open for amendment and I hope quickly passed through the 

House. We can only hope that the Senate shares our concern and 

will also let the proness work. 

With this bill I have introduced five pieces of legislation specifically addressing the remaining RARE II wilderness 

designation in Montana. This will be the 15th piece of 

legislation introduced by some member of the Montana delegation on this issue of roadless designations. If this bill ·is 

fortunate enough to move through comMittee and be passed by the 

House it will be the sixth piece of legislation to enjoy passage in one or the other chamber, with one bill gaining acceptance in 

both chambers only to be vetoed by fo~r President Reagan. 

The statistics are ~ressivs by any legislative standard. 

Fifteen pieces of legislation introduced over as many years. The 

Montana Wilderness bill has been the subject of so Congressional hearings. we have heard 235 hours of direct testimony. We have 

twenty printed hearing records. We have testimony from hundreds 

of MOntanans from organizations claiming, by the way, to 

represent double the State's entire population. 
Statement by Pat Williams 

Page 2 

56 

Since I began consideration of this issue, four Presidents 

have managed our national forests. All four have urged resolution of this issue as this region's highest priority for 

job protection. These were not casual partisan requests. They were bipartisan requests in response to direct teseimony before 

several cammietees. •setele RARB II or we will be unable eo manage this nation • s resources in an appropriate way• has been 

the constant message sent to Congress by the Forest Service. 

This face is somewhat: surprising because afeer calling for its 

passage, President: Reagan as I have said vetoed the Montana bill 

Congress presented to him in 1988. This remains the only sustained veto in the history of the Wilderness Act. I am eager today eo hear from our agency witnesses because I am confident 

that: the current Administration is dedicated to ending ' 

legislative gridlock and wilderness in Montana. I might add that 

t:hese issues are among the chief examples of how destructive 

bickering gridlock can be. 

Were our land managers right about the imporeance of 

resolving this issue? Even a casual observer of the land 

ma.nag811181lt record in Region One of the Forest Service, which covers Moneana and Idaho, can see land-planning chaos. And the 

cost -- pity the poor taxpayer. 

If we were to add up all the money involved in just the 

printing of the documents needed to accompany bills of this type, it would run into ehe hundreds of thousands of dollars. If one were to include the wages and expenses of Congrees, Congreseional employeee, and the IMlly folks who have lobbied this issue, it 

would run eaeily into the millions of dollars. All of this with 

nothing to show for ie. 

Congrese knew less about, and spent: less eime examining, our commitment of troops to Somalia than we have to the designation of wild lands in Montana. 

We do call Montana the "last beat place• and as Montanans we are proud of the job we have done as the stewards of this 

nation's natural resources. Montanans have always understood 

that some of the wild lands - • wild lands that protect our game herds, give birth to our rivera, fuel our economies, and restore our souls • • would need to be protected as wilderness. It -s a Monl:ana Senator that oversaw the beginnings of the 1964 

Wilderness Ace and Montana legislators have led the way in 

applying that law to the protection of our important wild land 

heritage. Their successes are the flagships of our na.eiona.l 

vildernees system • • The Bob Marshall, The Great Dear, The 

Sel-y/Bieeerroot, The Abaaroka/Beartooeh. They undersl:ood ehe 

less grand or less well-known wild places as well, places like 
Statement by Pat Williams 

Page 3 

57 

Welcome Creek, the Rattlesnake, the Pintlar and the Scapegoat. This is a heritage of whiCh all Americans can be proud. 

Twenty-eight other states have, however, now proceeded Idaho 

and Montana in setting the future course of management on their 

federal lands. Perhaps the value and importance of these lands 

made this process inevitable. Think of the resources we are dealing with; 15 million acres of unroaded wild lands across two 

states, the largest wild land base in the lower 48 states; the 

last remaining home of the grizzly outside of Alaska; the home of 

this nation's largest herds of elk, big horn sheep, mountain 

goats as well as this nation's healthiest populations of lynx, mountain lion, and cougar. Montana is the gatekeeper of two of 

this nation's most popular National Parks, and we are tae 

purifiers of some of this nation's most important rivers like the 

Missouri and the Columbia. Private, state, and national efforts 

have made the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana the largest game 

recovery effort in the history of this nation and now many consider the Front the Serengeti of the American west. There is no question that the stakes are high, but the losses even higher 

if we do nothing. 

There is no wilderness in this legislation that has not been 

advocated by local Montanans and Montana citizen groups. I have 

spent 14 years in the frontrooms of the homes of too many Montanans to name and I have reviewed every comment submitted over that time by Montanans about my proposal for wilderness. 

This legislation reflects those efforts and those suggestions. 

If you want to know the bill that has taken into account the 

snowmobile concerns of the West Yellowstone Chamber of Commerce · • it is this one. If you want to know if a bill takes into 

account the proposal put forward by the Big Hole ranchers and the 

Beaverhead County Commissioners •• this one does. If you are concerned that the Clearwater Monture still reflects the historic 

agreements between timber and conservationists •• my bill does. 

If you support wilderness and mining in the Cabinet Mountains 

then you will want to know that the mining-wilderness agreements still stand on Scotchmen Peak •· in my legislation they do. 

There are many, many examples making this a very precise piece of 

legislation. I still, believe that Montanans know what is best 

for the stewardship of the lands that surround them. I submit 

this legislation as a reassertion that Montanans can best 

deter.mine management of our roa~ess lands. 

Does this mean that everyone is in agreement, no. we will 

hear disagreement in testimony today. There are far too many opinions on this subject for everyone to completely agree. There are far too many paid dissenters to believe that legislation won't have its group of opposition. But if you strip away the 
Statement by Pat Williams 

Page 4 

58 

dogmatic rhetoric and address specific concerns within the 

precedent carefully set and developed by this committee then you arrive at something close to this legislation. 

This legislatiOI1 is very similar to last session's bill, but not identical. This is an issue that continually evolves and 

this legislation addresses the new circumstances we have today. 

For example, the Bureau of Land Management has completed it's 

wilderness inventory and because of peculiar management 

arrangements has recommended Forest Service lands for wilderness 

which were not inventoried by that agency in its wilderness 

review. Mount Jefferson is an example of this situation. 

Montanans have made a good case for the protection of species diversity, a goal not specifically addressed in the 1964' 

Wilderness Act. There are changes in this legislation that 

reflect my desire to meet these goals, areas like the Snowcrest 

range in southwestern Montana. There have been land 

consolidation efforts in Montana that have opened the opportunity to designate wilderness where just a few years ago checkerboard 

ownership would have stopped designation, the Crazy Mountains is an example of this situation. 

I anticipate that we will hear testimony today that may bring some issues into clearer focus and I am certain those 

suggestions will lead to other changes. ~e appropriate 

management of our federal lands is not something that is solved 

by one piece of legislation or one action of Congress. Good 

stewardship requires vigilance and dedication. This hearing is 

another examp~ of the committee's commitment to this belief and 

I look forward to hearing from those who have travelled to share 

their thoughts. 
59 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman LaRocco from Idaho is mentioned 

prominently among our colleagues, and I know he is working hard 

on a different set of problems in his own State. 

Congressman. 

STATEMENT OF BON. LARRY LAROCCO 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief opening statement. 

First of all, I want to commend you for holding these hearings. 

This committee is to be commended as well in the work that we 

do to move legislation along dealing with natural resources issues, 

and that is why I am a proud member on this committee and why 

I sought a seat on this committee when I first came to Congress. 

I also want to commend my colleague from Montana. This is not 

an easy issue for anybody who comes from a public lands State and 

his perseverance and the history of this issue over the period of 

years has been dramatic, and I think speaks to the difficulty in resolving these types of issues. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned in your opening remarks that you 

were working towards a conclusion, and I agree with that, because 

I think we need some finality on these long-simmering issues. It 

has been talked about today regarding the polarization that these 

issues bring, and sometimes I think they bring out the worst in us 

instead of the best. But I think it is our job to plow ahead to get 

resolution, and as I say, to get certainty, stability for our timberdependent communities, for our State, and for the Nation as a 

whole. 

Like my colleague from Montana, I am working on a similar 

issue. There are 15 million roadless acres between our two States. 

Nine million acres in Idaho I believe are headed towards resolution, and I am certainly doing all I can in that regard. 

The gentleman from Montana and I are working on areas such 

as the Scotchman Peaks in the Great Bum area which are contiguous potential wilderness areas. At least I feel that those two areas 

are suitable for wilderness, and I propose those in H.R. 1570. But 

there has been a great deal of communication between my colleague and me on these issues. 

I would like to speak. a little bit to the polarization, because I 

think it is appropriate at this time. We are going to hear later on 

from the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and I look forward in this 

forum to hear somebody speak in a hearing setting about these wilderness bills because recently, Mr. Chairman, there has been something floating around my district, at least in Idaho, from the Alliance for the Wild Rockies called an "Urgent Ecosystem Alert," really saying I think inappropriate things about me and my colleague 

from the State of Montana. 

I am looking forward to hearing how these two bills are going to 

cost hundreds of millions of dollars, as stated here. I am excited 

and anxious to hear how this is a public forest giveaway. I am interested in hearing how this is containing hits on citizens and judicial review and how our bills are only rocks and ice. 

I am interested in hearing how this is even an act when it only 

has four sponsors, and that just happened recently, and I think 
60 

that the language in this alert demonstrates how polarized and 

nonproductive these two debates can be. 

For example, this says see other side for details. The details are 

listed in five parts here of a 42-page bill that my colleague has 

worked so hard on and hundreds of Montanans have commented 

on. I think that this has been used to raise money for these efforts 

to destroy our reputations as Members of Congress and the work 

that we do on the natural resources issues. 

I think that these fliers are meant to be hysterical, emotional appeals to people, and I decry them. So I look forward to the testimony today from people whom I think are trying to derail our efforts of coming to some conclusion that is rational, that is proper 

for the Nation and for our regions, and these are not easy issues, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to state for the record that I plan to hold meetings 

as a way of getting some testimony out in Idaho in the latter part 

of August so that we can then move on to Washington, DC hearings on an all-Idaho bill. 

I know that Pat Williams and I are committed to resolving these 

issues and do the best we can for the Nation and for our States. 

That is our job. 

We took an oath of office to work on these types of issues. There 

are many things that we could be working on that don't bring out 

so much emotion and such polarization. Many, many things. But 

we have chosen, Pat Williams and I, and I am new to the process, 

but with his leadership, I have somehow summoned, not courage, 

but the desire to resolve this issue as well in Idaho. 

So I commend the gentleman, because I think he is leading the 

way in the 103d Congress to resolve these issues for Idaho and 

Montana. I think he is leading the way in these hearings so that 

we can get some testimony on the critical water rights language. 

He is leading the way on certainty and the way on release language. He is leading the way on special management areas, and he 

is leading the way in Section 9 of this bill for an ecosystem and 

economic study. And I think that he has shown the leadership that 

is necessary to resolve these issues. 

I look forward to the administration's statements, too, on this 

bill, because this is the new administration, and I look forward to 

hearing what they have to say. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing as a 

precursor to what we can do in the two States that have so much 

at stake, and I am pledged to try to resolve this with a balanced 

consensus. Compromise is never easy, especially with people like 

the Alliance for the Wild Rockies who want it all. And I don't think 

they are going to get it all. So I look forward to hearing what they 

have to say and everybody else. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I would note that Congresswoman Shepherd was 

here and has been, I think, very insistent in terms of appearing at 

hearings and participating, and I regret that we couldn't get to her 

opening or other comments. Perhaps she will return. 

In any case, I am pleased that the Members are participating 

and working hard. As you say, these issues don't get any easier, 
61 

as they remain unresolved. So I hope that we will find a path that 

builds a solid consensus and good policy. 

Mr. VENTO. I am pleased to welcome Hank Montrey, the Associate Deputy Chief of the Forest Service to present the administration's testimony. 

Mr. Montrey, welcome. Your testimony has been made a part of 

the record. We appreciate receiving it yesterday so that we could 

review it. 

Please proceed with your statement, and you might want to introduce your associate who is to be seated with you. 

STATEMENT OF HANK MONTREY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, 

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS DONOHUE, STAFF, WILDERNESS 

RECREATION AND HERITAGE PROGRAM, NORTHERN REGION 

Mr. MoNTREY. Thank you. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Agriculture concerning Round 16. 

With me today is Mr. Thomas Donohue from the Wilderness, 

Recreation, and Heritage Program staff at the headquarters of our 

Northern Region in Missoula, and he will be available to help me 

answer any questions you and the other members of the subcommittee may have, Mr. Chairman. 

We commend the committee and the Montana delegation for 

their efforts to complete a statewide wilderness bill for the National Forests in Montana. The debate has gone on for many years 

and the difficulty in resolving the issue has resulted in considerable uncertainty for Montanans and has greatly limited our ability 

to implement Forest Plans. In brief, we are ready to move ahead. 

The Department of Agriculture recommends enactment of this 

bill, if it is amended in a few ways, which I will briefly summarize. 

By way of summary, H.R. 2473 would designate 35 additions to 

the National Wilderness Preservation System, 7 special management areas and 4 wilderness study areas. The bill would also release remaining National Forest roadless areas in Montana to management under the Forest Plans, except for those study areas 

which were previously designated as study areas under the Montana Wilderness Study Act. 

These would continue to be managed and maintain their wilderness character. The bill also addresses the issue of water and water 

rights, management of the Badger-Two Medicine area, and would 

provide for a study of environmental and economic conditions in 

Montana. 

Section 8 of H.R. 2473 addresses lands under the jurisdiction of 

the BLM. We would of course defer to the Department of the Interior regarding that section. 

The bill also includes standard wilderness administrative provisions concerning State jurisdiction for management of fish and 

wildlife, hunting, buffer zones, and livestock grazing. 

Now a few comments and a few concerns. First of all, we recognize that wilderness designation in Montana is controversial. However, the administration supports this effort to resolve the issue, 
62 

for among other reasons, so that we can move forward with implementing our National Forest Plans. Even though the bill would 

designate more wilderness and special management areas than recommended in the Forest Plans, we are able to support the bill and 

feel strongly that we can, because the areas involved would still 

provide wnat to us is an acceptable balance between wilderness 

and non-wilderness uses in the National Forests in Montana. 

The balance contained in this bill is important. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Montana delegation to weigh resource information that we have provided to the delegation, as well as public 

input from a variety of sources. We congratulate them on achieving 

a balance that we believe is both acceptable and workable. 

Our support for the bill would then be contingent on retaining 

this balance between wilderness designation and release of areas 

to other uses. 

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that passage of this bill would 

end the roadless area debate in Montana, but that is not likely to 

be the case. There are, roughly, 6 million acres of roadless lands 

within the National Forests in Montana, and this bill would directly affect a little over one-third of those. 

While other lands would be released to non-wilderness uses, implementation of the Forest Plans when implementation would 

change the roadless nature of those released lands are certain to 

be controversial and subJect to what will undoubtedly be administrative appeals and judictal review. 

But for us, as well as other land managers operating within a 

multiple-use charter, controversy is a way of life and we believe 

that moving ahead at this time within the framework provided by 

the bill is in the best interest of all involved. 

Let me just briefly address a small handful of concerns that we 

have under four categories: Some of the wilderness boundaries designated; the water language on the bill; comments on the wilderness study areas identified; and some comments on the release language. 

First of all, relating to the wilderness boundaries, we will recommend several minor, we think minor, boundary adjustments to 

resolve some potential management conflicts which can be easily 

avoided. In the aggregate, the adjustments that we recommend will 

not significantly change the acreage recommended for wilderness 

designation, and we will of course be willing to provide these adjustments and our rationale for recommending them to you. 

Related to the water language, we read the language to, in effect, 

fix water developments and uses at current levels. We strongly 

support this approach, because we believe it would protect waterrelated wilderness values. 

The approach works in this case because the areas in the bill are 

all headwaters areas, and the combination of that unique geography and the language in the bill will, we believe, assure that additional upstream diversion or storage will not be allowed to occur. 

We do have some concerns about the clarity of the language in a 

few provisions in the water language section, because of some ambiguities conr.eming responsibilities of the owners of existing facilities and how those relate to administrative responsibilities. We will 
63 

be seeking amendments to clarify those responsibilities in this section and we will provide those to the subcommittee. 

Also, the use of language similar to this in other legislation, specifically this session's Colorado bill has raised at least one constitutional question, which we will defer to the Department of Justice 

to comment on. 

Related to the wilderness study areas, in the past and still, we 

generally oppose creating new wilderness study areas within a 

State wilderness bill, because we believe a statewide bill should resolve the wilderness issue across-the-board. But in this case, because of the length and intensity of the debate, we believe that the 

issue is too complex to be resolved at this time. So we support the 

designation of these new wilderness study areas, and particularly because recommendations related to wilderness for these study 

areas are to be made through the forest planning process rather 

than by separate process, and that we support. Related to release language, we don't object to the language in 

the bill. The bill language ties release of areas not designated to 

the analysis and recommendations in the Forest Plans. But in addition to that language, we would like to include the areas which 

have been studied in accordance with the Montana Wilderness 

Study Act, and I believe there are, roughly, 500,000 acres of those 

identified in the bilL 

We would like to see those areas released from the study area 

status to be managed in accordance with the Forest Plans in those 

areas. We can, of course, provide language that addresses those 

concerns. 

So in summary, we commend efforts on the part of the committee, particularly the delegation, to develop a statewide wilderness 

bill. We believe the bill provides a framework for resolving a long- standing issue and we stand ready to work with the committee and 

the delegation to sort out our concerns and enact a wilderness bill 

for the State of Montana. 

We will suggest a couple of minor technical edits, but we are 

ready to move ahead, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Montrey follows:] 
STATBMBNT OF 

HANK MONTR.EY I ASSOCIATE DBPUTY CHIEF 

UNJ:TBD STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parka, Forests, and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning H.R. 2473. the •Rqund 16 of the Montana Wilderness 

Act 1993• 

July 20, 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MBMBBRS OF THB SUBCOMMITTEE: 

I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the 

Department of Agriculture concerning H.R. 2473, "Round 16 of 

the Montana Wilderness Act 1993.• 

Mr. Chairman, we commend the Committee and the Montana 

delegation for their efforts to complete a statewide wilderness 

bill for National Forests in Montana. The debate over 

wilderness designation in Montana has gone on for many years. 

The difficulty in resolving the issue has resulted in 

considerable uncertainty for Montana and has limited our 

ability to implement Forest Plans. We are ready to move ahead 

on the question of wilderness in Montana. 

The Department of Agriculture recommends enactment of 

H.R. 2473, if amended as suggested herein. 

H.R. 2473 would designate 35 additions to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System totaling 1.6 million acres, 

7 special management areas totaling 142,600 acres, and 
65 

2 

4 wilderness study areas totaling ~49,800 acres. The bill 

would release the remaining National Forest roadless areas in 

Montana to management under Forest Plans, except for study 

areas designated under PUblic Law 95-150. These wilderness 

study areas total about 501,100 acres, and would continue to be 

managed to maintain their wilderness character. The bill also 

addresses the issue of water and water rights, management of 

the Badger-Two Medicine area, and would provide for a study of 

environmental and economic conditions in Montana. 

section 8 of H.R. 2473 addresses lands under the jurisdiction 

of the Bureau of Land Management. We defer to the Department 

of the Interior regarding that section of the bill. 

The bill also includes standard wilderness administrative 

provisions concerning State jurisdiction for management of fish 

and wildlife, hunting, buffer zones around wilderness, and 

livestock grazing. 

We recognize that wilderness designation in Montana is 

controversial. However, the Administration supports this 

effort to resolve the issue, so we can move forward with 

implementing the National Forest Plans. Even though H.R. 2473 

would designate more wilderness and special management areas 

than were recommended in Forest Plans, we are able to support 

the bill because the areas involved still pro~ide an acceptable 

balance between wilderness and nonwilderness uses in the 

National Forests of Montana. 
3 

The balance contained in this bill is important. To achieve 

this balance, the Montana delegation has weighed resource 

information provided by the Forest Service, as well as public 

input from a variety of sources. Our support for the bill is 

contingent on retaining a balance between wilderness 

designation and release of areas to other uses. We remain 

willing to work with the Committee and the Montana delegation 

towards passage of a bill that is acceptable to both the 

Congress and the Administration. 

We also wish to point out that passage of H.R. 2473 will not 

end the roadless area debate in Montana. There are 6 million 

acres of roadless lands within the National Forests of 

Montana. This bill would directly affect about one-third of 

the roadless lands. While other lands would be released to 

nonwilderness uses, timber sales, roads, and other projects 

that would change the roadless nature of the released lands are 

certain to be controversial and are subject to administrative 

appeals and judicial review. However, we believe that moving 

ahead within the framework provided by H.R. 2473 is in the best 

interests of all involved. 

Briefly, I will address several concerns we have regarding the 

bill. 
67 

4 

Wilderness Boundaries 

Although significant progress has been made compared to past 

bills, we still recommend several minor boundary adjustments to 

resolve potential management conflicts which can be easily 

avoided. The adjustments would not significantly change the 

acreage of the areas. We are willing to provide the 

adjustments and the rationale for recommending them to the 

Committee. 

Water Language 

A key to resolution of the Montana wilderness issue is the 

water language in this bill. This language in effect fixes 

water developments and uses at current levels. We support this 

approach because we believe it would protect water-related 

wilderness values. It works because the areas in this bill are 

all headwaters areas and this unique geography coupled with the 

bill language assures that additional upstream diversions or 

storage will not occur. We have concerns about the clarity of 

several provisions in this section concerning responsibilities 

of the owners of existing facilities and administrative 

responsibilities. We will be seeking amendments to clarify 

roles and responsibilities for implementation of this section. 
68 

5 

The use of similar water language in other,legislation has 

raised constitutional questions. We defer to the Department of 

Justice concerning the constitutionality of this section. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

We generally oppose creating new wilderness study areas, 

feeling that a statewide Q!ll should resolve the wilderness 

issue. However, considering the debate over these areas, we 

believe that the issues may be too complex to be resolved at 

this time. We also note that the recommendations concerning 

wilderness for the study areas are to be made through forest 

planning, rather than by a separate process, and we support 

this approach if a study is to be done. 

Release Language 

We do not object to the release language in H.R. 2473. The 

bill language ties release of areas to the analysis and 

recommendations in the Forest Plans. We would also like to see 

the areas which have been studied in accordance with the 

Montana Wilderness Study Act (Public Law 95-150) released from 

their study area status to be managed in accordance with the 

forest plan direction developed for these areas. We can 

provide language that addresses these concerns. 
69 

6 

summary 

In summary, we commend these efforts to develop a statewide 

wilderness bill for MOntana. We feel this bill provides a 

framework for resolution of the issue and would like to work 

with the Committee and the delegation to enact a wilderness 

bill for the State of Montana. We will suggest several minor 

technical edits to the bill. We understand that the Department 

of the Interior has some comments on this bill and will submit 

a report on H.R. 2473 soon. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement and I would 

be pleased to answer the Subcommittee's questions concerning 

H.R. 2473. 
70 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Let me say, and I didn't say in my opening statement, that I recognize what is in this bill, and I think the gentlemen from Montana and Idaho and others know my concerns on the water and the 

release questions. But I also recognize what isn't in the bill. 

In other words, in terms of the sunsets and other things on studies that were a controversy, I think that is a concern. So my inclination is, I think, based on the fact that we had worked so hard 

on this, and based on the guidance, basically the administration is 

saying yes, on the water language we did this in Colorado, why 

can't I do it in Montana, sort of a suggestion to the Chairman, even 

though we say these things, obviously if it worked for one State; 

does it work here? 

Well, it might work. Insofar as all of this is headwaters, I think 

that the Wilderness Society testimony, Mr. Montrey, and we suggest one small portion isn't wilderness. So that is something we 

have to address. 

Then on the second issue, in terms of the release language, I will 

ask some questions again on that, which get into why we should, 

since it is not a RARE II study anymore, but really operating on 

Forest Plans, you know, what is the effect of this language. 

But I think that the testimony that occurs to me with regards 

to Forest Service here, points out that this does not end the 

roadless debate in Montana; in a sense, it releases 6 million acres 

into general forest management. Is that correct, Mr. Montrey? 

Mr. MoNTREY. A little bit less than 4 million acres. 

Mr. VENTO. A little bit less than 4 million acres in the general 

forest management. This actually releases 3.5 million, doesn't it, 

this particular bill? 

But then you have other general forest in the area that have already been released. What is the total amount of general forest 

that you would have, excluding special management wilderness 

areas in Montana, at that point? Can you give me that number? 

Mr. MONTREY. I will refer to my local expert on that. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. Donahue. 

Mr. DONAHUE. I am not real sure how many acres are in there 

right now. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we know it is in the bill, it is 6 million here, 

we are giving up 3.4 for general forest management. You have 

some other portions of the various forests in Montana that are released, so that there are just generally millions of acres. 

The concern that is being brought to us by some of the principal 

critics is dealing with the stewardship of the Forest Service. I 

mean, I think we may as well just put it right out here in the open. 

They are saying the only way to protect these lands in terms of 

preservation and the other qualities we think important is to make 

them wilderness. I mean, that is really the proposition that is 

being made to the Members of Congress, to the policymakers in 

this instance. And, of course, that gets back to whether we are 

going to maintain policies of clear cut, watersheds, grazing and a 

lot of other questions, Mr. Montrey. 
71 

How would you generally respond to that type of criticism, since 

it is being made of the Forest Service in terms of its management, 

general management of the forest plans? 

Mr. MONTREY. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could refer to the Forest 

Plans in Montana, we have, as you know, recommended a considerable acreage for wilderness designation in those plans. I think the 

total of what has been recommended in those plans in the aggregate is about 800,000 acres for wilderness designation. What is 

identified in this bill for wilderness designation is 1.6 million, 

roughly twice that resulting from a public participation process, 

which entails collecting perspective, opinions, input, direction, advice, counsel, from a variety of sources representing the users and 

the beneficiaries of those National Forests. Those Forest Plans then 

represent our best effort at projecting the multiple use of those forests, given the broad variety of input sources, and out of that came 

more wilderness designation. Mr. VENTO. Well, I think, Mr. Montrey, that keeping that system 

inviolate, the participatory process, the appeals process, and so 

forth, is a very great concern. Obviously, we modify that to some 

extent in the legislation. 

But my point is, and I think I understand why you are saying 

we are accepting twice the amount that we recommended for study, 

but the real question here is the integrity and the ability and the 

stewardship of the Forest Service in terms of not just saying we 

have a process, but making that process work. I think we all recognize that Montana and Idaho, the eastern cascades, are coming 

under increasing pressure. As we make changes in policy direction 

west of the cascades in Region Six, we see greater and greater 

pressure being put on our public forests, all the way, I suppose, 

even to Minnesota and Michigan. 

So the question here is, Can you take the pressure? Can you implement new forestry? Do we have a policy path that is going to 

basically build the type of credibility and competence that is going 

to suggest to individuals that we don't have to put this in a classification of wilderness in order to protect the integrity of these general forest lands? 

In other words, we aren't going to be clearcutting in every instance, that we are going to be looking at new forestry and other 

types of management techniques. Right now that confidence level, 

frankly, doesn't exist. 

But I would like to point out, the Forest Service today has the 

authority to allow logging, mining and road building in Montana's 

roadless lands right now without this legislation, even in areas 

that are RARE II areas. Because if the planning process .has gone 

through the cycle, if we do not pass legislation, does the Forest 

Service have the right to enter those areas with the exclusion of 

the 800,000 acres that have been recommended for wilderness? 

Does the Forest Service have that authority today, Mr. Montrey? 

Mr. MONTREY. Mr. Chairman, we believe that we do. But, on the 

other hand, we do believe that providing some release language in 

the bill serves a number of useful purposes. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I understand the release language in the bill, 

and you don't want to have to go through it. I think the purpose 

for that is not to go back into the planning cycle to, in essence, pre-
72 

elude the utilization of lands or to keep going through administrative appeals, again in a cycle like that. 

My point is, if the Forest Service wanted to act in a way that 

was simply divisive and/or a full utilization of this, it wouldn't respect the fact that Congress hasn't acted on this particular issue, 

but simP.lY could and would implement its plan. But I am not recommending that you do that. I am just trying to offer that as a defense of the Forest Service in terms of the fact that they are not 

necessarily acting completely arbitrary, either in the past administration, which may have had a different view of what the forest 

policies ought to be, or certainly in the current administration. 

Let me get back to my questions. You know, trying to serve you 

up some healthier defense, Mr. Montrey, is not my role, but I think 

these questions must be answered and resolved, and others must 

understand what the options are in terms of reasonable policy. Reasonable policy is not declaring millions of acres wilderness, simply because we have a deficiency in terms of the Forest Service 

planning and management process, in my judgment. And that is 

my concern. 

But let me get to the specifics of this. Now that the Forest Service in Montana has completed Forest Plans," do we really need release language? 

You say it would serve a purpose based on the plans. Why do we 

want to do that in this instance? You said it would serve a good 

purpose. 

Mr. MoNTREY. It eliminates any ambiguities in a number of 

ways, Mr. Chairman. We think release language provides a clear 

statement from you, the Congress, that the wilderness question has 

been adequately considered. It has been our experience that no one 

has attempted to challenge release language in previous bills. Any such release language would prohibit statewide wilderness reviews 

unless they were authorized by you, the Congress. 

It would release from consideration as wilderness those areas 

that are less than 5,000 acres in size, which are not included in the 

RARE II definition, and also states roadless areas would not have 

to be managed to maintain their wilderness character while being considered for recommendation as wilderness. 

Mr. VENTO. But doesn't the Forest Service under its plan again 

have the authority to enter lands not designated wilderness without release language? 

Not that I want you to do that. In fact, I would like to be able 

to say that you weren't going to do it, without necessarily trying 

to prohibit it. I think the problem comin~ from the other standpoint 

is it precludes the opportunity for administrative appeals, and so 

forth, that might come forth. That is at least the reason that it is 

being put in there. 

Is that a problem, or do you have confidence enough in your plans that you don't believe that you would be tied up in appeals? 

Mr. MONTREY. Well, Mr. Chairman, it has been our experience in the National Forests in Montana that projects whose implementation would involve entry into roadless areas, and these are pri- marily, as you know, timber harvest projects, that 90 percent of 

those are being appealed. 
73 

Mr. VENTO. But aren't you through a lot of the planning process 

right now. Even with appeals, haven't you worked most of that 

through at this point? 

Where are you at in terms of the plans? You have got the plans 

in place; are many of them under appeal right now? 

Mr. MONTREY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Donahue? 

Mr. DONAHUE. Right now, of the 10 National Forests, all of them 

were appealed and we have worked through the appeals on all but 

4 of those Forests. Mr. VENTO. There are 4. When would the planning cycle be? I 

think the real concern here of my colleagues is not the current plan 

status, I might say in fairness, but the new cycle that might be 

coming up, which obviously could result in a lot of unwarranted appeals? 

The Forest Service I think is getting a lot better at handling 

these appeals, too. When is the next series? Could you give us some 

idea of that? 

Mr. DONAHUE. We probably will be looking at the forest planning 

process again at revising the forest plans in, roughly, 5 years from 

now. 

Mr. VENTO. About 5 years. How many forests has it completed 

then that we are dealing with here? For 6 of the 10? 

Mr. DoNAHUE. Four of the plans aren't complete, but we haven't 

completed or answered all of the appeals on those plans yet. 

Mr. VENTO. Ten have completed plans, is that correct? How 

many have completed plans? 

Mr. DONAHUE. Six. 

Mr. VENTO. Six, okay. Four have completed plans, but they are 

revolving--

Mr. MONTREY. Mr. Chairman, if I could interject, another category of appeals of course are appeals on project decisions, and the 

Forest Plans in these Montana forests outlined, in most cases, projected timber sales in what would be----

Mr. VENTO. But I mean the problem is what does that mean? If 

we get through one cycle or we give you so many years that as soon 

as you get back into this you are going to have the same appeal 

process. 

Mr. MONTREY. No, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about 

the regulations which allow a project decision at the Forest Supervisor level to be appealed which, in essence, then stays implementation of that decision until the appeal is resolved and then appealed at the next level. 

Mr. VENTO. I will have some other questions here. Let me change 

the topic. The bill directs the Forest Service to do a Northern Rockies ecosystem study, but that is only limited to Montana. The National Forest Service scientists think this study should include 

more of the ecosystem than just Montana, such as Idaho, Wyoming. 

Mr .. MONTREY. Mr. Chairman, our research branch of the Forest 

Service is at the moment planning a fairly comprehensive array of 

ecosystem studies. The plan calls for an inventory, an assessment 

of natural resources by ecoregion which would cut across the geographic boundaries of our administrative units. 
74 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know the reason my colleague didn't include 

this is because he wanted to have deference towards the study but 

wanted to enlist the support on a positive or voluntary basis of 

those that might be affected, including Idaho and other States. So 

I respect what the effort here is, but 1 want to make certain that 

we don't preclude the opportunity for an existing or an ongoing 

type of analysis that would prove most beneficial. 

Let me yield to my colleague from Montana. I have taken more 

than my five minutes. 

Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This marks the first time in all these years that the Forest Service has come here and supported the Montana wilderness bill. So 

it is more than a breath of fresh air. It is very, very welcome. And 

I appreciate the administration and the Forest Service's support of 

this legislation and of ending what has been this interminable controversy in Montana. 

I hear the changes that you would like. Let me comment on each 

of them. 

The wilderness boundary changes I am aware of. They are not, 

in fact, significant but involve adjusting for some trailheads and 

the like, and it would amount to probably less than 1,000 acres. We 

will continue to make adjustments as we have all these years and 

certainly appreciate your good counsel in continuing to do that. 

The water language as you know has been worked out in another 

Western bill, the Colorado bill, and I understand there are some 

technical·Ianguage changes that at least at this sitting appear not 

to affect the policy of the water language, and so we will be seeking 

your advice on that as well. 

One of the differences, though, from other Forest Services and 

under other administrations is that you are not opposing the wilderness study areas, and I think that that makes political good 

sense. As a policy issue I, too, think it is a close call, but it makes 

political sense because we can't resolve those areas and that Congress would like to reserve them for future consideration. 

I personally am not very supportive of reserving their study capacity open-ended forever, but that is a controversy within this 

subcommittee, and we will deal with that as we go. 

On the release language, let me not so much comment on what 

you have said in your statement with regard to release as to ask 

you a question about it. Am I correct that the Forest Service believes that it could be susceptible to lawsuits, particularly capri- cious herbalist lawsuits, unless it is buffered with the release language that is in this bill? Is that why the Forest Service supports the continuation of release language? 

Mr. MONTREY. I would say, Mr. Chairman, we believe our exposure to legal action is higher without the release language than 

with it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Without the release language? 

Mr. MONTREY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So, basically, my assumption is correct. 

Mr. MONTREY. That is correct. Although we cannot assess how 

high the risk is, nonetheless, we believe it is a little higher. 
75 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You can't get in the heads of the appealers so that 

is the reason you don't know. 

When the former President Reagan vetoed the only bill, the Montana wilderness bill that had resulted thereto that had ever 

reached a President's desk, he cited as one of the main reasons for 

doing it, it would set the plans back, that you have to start the 

planning process over again, that that was the effect of not following the Forest Service's recommendations specifically. As I understand it, this Forest Service does not hold to that. 

Mr. MONTREY. That is correct. We would not hold to that. No, sir. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Some folks within industry, not just in Montana 

but out West, have indicated their belief that the Forest Service 

cannot prepare sites for timber harvest and then move to harvest 

without hard release language. Many of us have disagreed with 

that. Would you comment on it? 

Mr. MoNTREY. I believe we can implement without the hard language. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Say it again. 

Mr. MoNTREY. We can implement without hard language. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You can. You can move to harvest without--

Mr. MONTREY. But proceed, I should say, rather than implement. 

Because proceed means a project decision-proposed project-with 

public involvement in the NEPA process, the project decision. 

Then what happens next, as I said, from our experience-hopefully, my local expert will bear me out-is that when those decisions relate to timber sales that our experience is, with 90 percent 

of them, the project decisions are immediately followed by one or 

more appeals. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. MoNTREY. Many of those with subsequent legal proceedings. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Say that again. 

Mr. MONTREY. Many of those accompanied also with some legal proceedings. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Finally, Mr. Donahue, let me thank you for coming to Washington to be with us, but I specifically want to thank 

you for your technical help through the years through your good offices. You have been very helpful to us and have been a staff person not of ours but of the public and the United States who has 

lent considerable expertise to this issue. 

Mr. DONAHUE. Thank you. 

Mr. WILLIAMs. We don't blame you that we haven't been able to 

resolve it through all these years, but you have certainly done your 

part, and we are very grateful for that. 

And, finally, now having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

point out what I said at the beginning and that is this is the first 

time the administration has come forward and supported a bill, 

very first time in all of these years. That is despite the fact that 

individual forest supervisors, Region 1 forest supervisors, people on 

the ground in Montana and Wyoming, have privately and, to the 

best they could, publicly supported the effort and the bills that 

have been introduced here in the Congress because they knew the 

alternative eventually would bring us to the day we are at now, 

which is chaos, particularly economic chaos. 
76 

And despite the fact that people on the ground in both Montana 

and Idaho, Forest Service folks, were supportive of the various 

pieces of legislation, supportive not of all of them but of the mainline pieces that were moving through the Congress, they were unable to convince people here in Washington at the Forest Service 

to support what they knew to be best. 

American people last November, Mr. Chairman, voted for change, 

and in this committee room today I see change in this administration, and I am grateful for it. 

Mr. VENTO. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Montrey, what we are all striving for with release or with 

the special management areas is certainty. I don't think it is any 

secret that there is a great deal of distrust of the Forest Service 

by many of the user groups. And that has come out in all of the 

town meetings that I have had. And what people have said, use 

science$ use an ecosystem approach, but use the wilderness bill as 

a vehicle for providing the certainty on the areas outside of the wilderness boundaries. 

Certainly the release language has been fairly standard and can 

have a difference in our bills with regard to the five-year tenure 

issue. But, nevertheless, in many portions of my bill what I have 

done is simply taken all of the work that has been done to the 

planning process and simply put it into the statute because that 

deals with the mistrust-distrust issue. 

I might add anecdotally and parenthetically_ ~at this has gotten 

to such a point that it has this acronym of SMA, and it has gotten 

to such a point that we now use it as a verb, and everybody knows 

what you are talking about. So we have tried to determine whether 

we are going to SMA the world and everything outside the wilderness boundary to provide this certainty. 

My question to you is, How does the Forest Service feel about 

that? I mean, at the headquarters of the Forest Service office, if we 

were to make use of these SMAs and really- take advantage of the 

planning process-to provide for that certamty. I think the delega- tion in Idaho has said that this is where we are ought to be headed. 

In fact, we have a task force right now that is working with Stephen Mealy, the supervisor of the Boise National Forest, and a timber supply task force to deal with the language that we are calling prescnptive language. The challenge to us is not to be overly prescriptive to tie your hands and not to be less prescriptive so that 

SMAs are not really meaningful in terms of what we are trying to 

do on the ground. 

How do you feel about those SMAs as a tool as they exist in the 

statute? 

Mr. MONTREY. If you would allow me to get back to you with an 

answer to that question I would appreciate it because that is a 

question that we have talked about around here in the headquarters office, the chief and his immediate staff-but in terms of 

a collective position how we feel about that, I could not give that 

to you right now. 

But you will give me impetus to go back and get an answer to 

that which I will report back. 
77 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. You might take a look at my bill because 

that is where I am headed anyway. But there are other things that 

will be forthcoming, as a product of the timber supply task force 

and its prescriptive language. And it is not, as some people have 

said, a way of clear-cutting. It is a way of getting to the certainty question. 

My only admonition or suggestion to you as you are!.reparing that is that this committee moves with lightening spee . We will 

go to another hearing of the full committee or go to markup very quickly, so try and get that to us before the bill is passed. 

Mr. MONTREY. We will try to move much more quickly than we 

did in catching up with the sentiment of our Montana forest supervisors on this bill. 

Mr. VENTO. I will just say in comment, I know Ms. Shepherd was 

here earlier. You know, the Chairman and I think the Members 

should have some concern about when we designate national recreation areas or SMAs when they are done for conservation purposes 

or for other purposes. Generally, they are done for conservation 

purpose. · What the impact is in the forest management impact and our experience in the reports we got back from GAO on this are that the 

Forest Service is not necessarily delineated a different management scheme from any of those. In fact, they are managed like gen- eral forest. 

I know here with regards to the SMAs and some of those that 

we did in Colorado and others they are very restrictive so that 

hasn't been as much of a problem, but we are getting to NRAsI know that the gentleman has a different purpose I should say for 

some that he is proposing so we are playing close attention. 

I just wanted to comment on some of these special designations that we have done so th(;ly do carry a meaning. It is not something 

done administratively. We certainly want them to follow through 

on it. 

I know Pat especially has worked in terms of educational focus 

on some of these. Those are still in the bill, I presume, Pat. 

I am pleased Congresswoman Karen Shepherd from Utah, who 

was here earlier and, as I said, has been very diligent in terms of 

appearing at these meetings. I am pleased that she has returned 

to focus on this issue. 

Ms. Shepherd. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be 

here and I am here to learn. I don•t have any questions at this time 

or a statement. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much. I know we have got a busy 

schedule today. Of course, it is a concern back in Minnesota as well as in other 

States like Montana, but how will the administration's plan to 

phase out below-cost timber sales affect the management of Montana's roadlesslands? 

Mr. Montrey or Mr. Donahue, can you comment? Would those 

areas specifically that are roadless also be the areas that might be 

also impacted by below cost, presuming, I guess, normal market 

conditions and there are no great spikes in terms of increase of 

price on timber? 
78 

Mr. MONTREY. Mr. Chairman, the administration's proposal, 

which at the moment we are trying to figure out how to implement. 

would phase out all below-cost timber sales in the National Forests 

across the Nation over the next 4-year period, as you know. Also, 

to the extent that some of the timber sales planned within roadless 

areas of Montana are deemed to be below-cost timber sales then 

they would be affected. 

Mr. VENTO. I think we can do a little better than that. I think 

as I recall, looking at the list of phased out, that Montana was particularly hit hard. Am I incorrect in that? 

Mr. MoNTREY. Well, we have not made any final judgments. 

Mr. VENTO. I know that. The New York Times has reported this. 

We haven't waited for you to make a recommendation. They have 

had the whole list of the 90-some forests I believe that are affected. 

I didn't bring that with me today, but in · any case, is there a significant impact in Montana without having made any fmal recommendations, Mr. Montrey? Any new news through the news 

media who has already reported everything you have done? Is 

there a significant impact in Montana? 

Mr. MoNTREY. Mr. Chairman, lacking some incredibly insightful 

and effective cost-effectiveness measures, we would right now view 

8 of the 10 National Forests in Montana as quote--

Mr. VENTO. So it has found impact in this State, and I think it 

points out as perhaps in my State I know there are 2 forests, the 

Chippewa and Superior, which are marginally below cost. I don't 

know what the magnitude is here. I don't suspect, knowing the 

State of Montana, that they would be pretty close calls, I guess, in 

the process. I don't know. 

But I wanted to ask that question not to point out the difficulties 

but to point out the contentious nature of these policies that could 

visit change irrespective of what the classification in this bill does. 

You know, the Forest Service has actually looked at this question 

of water policy or water rights for wilderness areas. What is the 

Forest Service's policy toward Federal reserve water rights for wilderness areas that have not had such rights explicitly reserved in 

the legislation? If there is water release language such as found in 

this bill would the Forest Service claim a reserved water right for 

wilderness or not? In other words, what is your view towards reserve water rights for wilderness and the reservation and what 

would you do with the language you find in this bill? 

Mr. MONTREY. In the case of this bill, Mr. Chairman, we don't 

feel any additional language is needed to provide necessary protection, but, in general, our policy related to this is to seek necessary 

water rights under State procedures. We recommended in the past 

and still do that the Congress express what its wishes are regarding wilderness water rights. 

You have the authority to reserve water for wilderness, and we 

think it is desirable for you or the State to attempt in that regard, 

absent that the courts would interpret it. 

Mr. VENTO. We are trying to take a path here where we are saying that it is not necessary because these are headwaters. There 

is a contention here that one portion of this wilderness is not headwaters. Would you be concerned if that were, in fact, the case? 
79 

Mr. MONTREY. We would have to sit down and talk about that. 

Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. You do reserve a caveat on that. 

Mr. Williams, do you have any further questions of Agriculture? Anyone else have any further questions? 

If not, Mr. Montrey I appreciate the fact that you said there are 

a number of minor map problems that we have and that you want 

to work with us on that, and I suspect that the principal sponsor would also be interested in that, so we look forward to working 

with you as we try to move forth expeditiously on this important 

measure. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Donahue. 

We are pleased to welcome the first panel which includes Michael Scott, The Wilderness Society, from Bozeman, Montana; 

Norm Newhall, The Montana Wilderness Association, from Dillon, 

Montana; Stan Frasier, The National Wildlife Federation, from 

Missoula; and Mike Bader, the Executive Director of the Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies, Missoula, Montana. Gentlemen. 

Your statements have been made part of the record. I would like 

each of you to take no more than five minutes to summarize your 

statement. We appreciate getting the statements yesterday from 

most of you, and I think that we have looked them over and have 

a few questions for you. So if you could summarize your statements 

it would help us to expedite our hearing. 

We have, each of us, other responsibilities, I know, with regards 

to important measures before the Rules Committee and on the 

Floor. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF MICHAEL D. SCOTT, NORTHERN ROCKIES REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

BOZEMAN, MT; NORM NEWHALL, MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION, DILLON, MT; STAN FRASIER, VICE PRESIDENT 

OF OPERATIONS, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, MISSOULA, MT; AND MIKE BADER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES, MISSOULA, MT 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Scott, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. SCOTT 

Mr. Sco'IT. Chairman Vento, Congressman Williams and members of the subcommittee, my name is Michael Scott. I am the 

Northern Rockies Regional Director of the Wilderness Society, 

based in Bozeman, Montana. I am here today representing both the 

Society and the Sierra Club. 

We are pleased to be here today to testify on H.R. 2473. We want 

to express our sincere appreciation to Representative Williams for 

introducing the bill. It is an excellent start. 

Representative Williams, wilderness is a difficult and contentious 

issue in Montana. We applaud Congressman Williams for his courage in taking the lead on this thorny issue and also, Mr. Chairman, 

kudos to you as well for not only sitting through all the hearings 

that Congressman Williams described, virtually all of them, but 

also doing it with such tenacity and grace. 

H.R. 24 73 contains some significant improvements over last 

year's bill, S. 1696. Several areas such as the Snowcrest Ridge, 
80 

Line Creek Plateau and Elk Creek have been added as wilderness. 

We want to thank Congressman Williams for these and other areas 

he has added. 

We also app~ate the fact that Congressman Williams has lett 

the Montana Wilderness Study Act areas intact and entirely alone. 

These areas deserve close examination on their own. 

We note our opposition to the Forest Service recommendation to 

release these areas-not only has the Forest Service recommended 

some of them for wilderness, but many others such as the Gallatin 

range are not ready to be examined closely. 

Ai:tother bill, parallel, that Congressman Williams passed 

through this body just a couple of months ago, attempts to do that, 

consolidate land ownership patterns in the Gallatin range so that 

Congress will have the opportunity to examine that area in the future. Both the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Wilderness 

Society would oppose that decision to release S. 393 areas. I would like to focus my testimony in three areas: release language, water rights, and the ecosystem and economic study contained in the bill. 

Mr. Chairman, release language: H.R. 2473 contains a version of 

release language developed in the waning days of the last Congress. It is different from the form of release language this committee included in last year's bill. We urge the committee to delete the 

release language contained in H.R. 2473. We continue to believe 

that release language is outmoded. 

Perhaps just a brief background would be helpful in this issue. 

Release is an issue whose time has gone, especially for Montana. 

The release provisions of the 1984 compromise were designed to 

solve a partiCular problem: to move beyond the stalemate caused 

by the Forest Service's difficulties in preparing an adequate EIS 

supporting its wilderness recommendations. 

By 1987, wilderness was irrelevant in Montana. Because of the 

inability to pass a Montana wilderness bill or at least having passed one, having had it vetoed, the Forest Service restudied the 

wilderness suitability in the forest plans of all the proposed areas 

and consolidated those in something called Appendix C. There has 

been no equivalent lawsuit invalidating Appendix C of the Forest 

Plans. This was tried in ICL v. Mumma and failed. So, thus, there 

is no legal reason to include release language in wilderness bills 

any longer. 

The fact that release keeps turning up indicates both a lack of 

understanding that it is no longer necessary and that the timber 

industry regards it as a terrific wedge for wholesale changes in 

NFMA. 

As I mentioned earlier, the release language in the bill is similar 

to that developed by this committee except in this one fundamental 

respect. Section 12(h) has been added which states that wilderness 

review in Forest Plans is deemed an adequate consideration of the 

suitability of roadless lands for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. This section charts dangerous ground and should be removed, even if this committee decides that release 

language should be included in a Montana wilderness bill. 

Separating out Forest Plans by insulating parts of them from 

challenge sets a dangerous precedent. Congress should not be in 
81 

the business of selectively judging the adequacy of all or parts of 

Forest Plans, especially where there has been no demonstrated 

need. 

While at first the Congress might limit its scope of review to the 

wilderness review portion of forest plans, it is clearly is not the 

long-term agenda of industry. In subsequent Congresses, industry 

will try to broaden the adeq\lacy determinations to include other 

problems like forest health. This is something that the timber industry is now vigorously pursuing in its negotiations in the Idaho 

wilderness bill. .~ ....... . Another ·serious problem for Forest Plan release is how the 

courts may interpret it. This problem stems from the fact that Forest Plans, unlike the RARE II EIS, are multipurpose documents. 

They plan for a broad range of activities. 

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate out from 

a Forest Plan and its EIS its wilderness study elements and insulate them. This is because the EIS and plan are interwoven documents. The same environmental analysis that is used to justify a 

non-wilderness recommendation for a particular roadless area is 

also the basis for the decision to allocate the area to a development 

prescription. 

Thus, a court is likely to conclude that, absent its original need, 

newly constructed release language must mean something new and 

move us into new realms of interpretation of release language that 

could very well be dangerous. 

Rather than face these and other problems, we recommend the 

committee reject the approach, that language associated with language in Section 12(h). We urge the committee to reject this approach. 

Release language is no longer needed, but if this committee decides to put release language in we recommend that Section 12(h) 

be removed from that release language. 

Now let me tum to water rights for a moment. 

H.R. 2473 contains water language modeled after that found in 

this year's Colorado wilderness bill. It is our position, arrived at 

after careful analysis, that an explicit reservation of water is needed for Montana wilderness areas and all wilderness areas. The reason we prefer an explicit reservation is that it operates to protect wilderness water rights regardless of hydrology, geography or the 

vagaries of State water law. 

A Colorado-style approach has to be tailored specifically to comport with the facts situation in each area and in accordance with 

State water law. At a minimum, relying on this approach-that is, 

the Colorado approach-rather than an express reservation demands much more attention to detail by the Congress than has 

been received in the context ofH.R. 2473. 

In addition, one issue that was raised a little earlier by the Forest Service is that if we were to adopt this approach in Montana 

we would set up a dual system of water rights in the State of Montana or a dual system of wilderness. The existing areas in Montana 

enjoy a federally reserved water right. The new areas that might 

be created by this bill in fact would not enjoy such a right. They 

would be subject to the new provisions of this law. 
82 

The Colorado language sets a supposed compromise between protecting wilderness water rights by virtue of the fact that areas are 

headwaters and in exchange for that exempting the designated 

areas from sections of the wilderness act and freezing water rights holders' use at a specific point in time. 

That solution was tailored to work in Colorado on specific pieces 

of land under specific water law. The Coloradans had to look at two 

major issues: whether the language met the needs of the wilderness areas within the particular context of Colorado water law and 

whether all the areas were, in fact, headwaters. 

We have submitted the Colorado law to several Montana water 

lawyers who are currently reviewing the text of this section. We 

would recommend before this committee would make a decision to 

move forward with this language that it get some sort of an official 

legal interpretation as to whether this lanfP!age comports with 

Montana law. If not, it might lead to more litigation than solution. 

As mentioned earlier by you, Mr. Chairman, we did a cursory review of areas proposed in this bill as well as areas that we have 

recommended not included in this bill and have found one area 

that is not a headwaters or one portion of one area. That is, as 

Congressman Williams is aware, the Straight Creek flows out of 

the Renshaw addition onto National Forest land adJacent to the 

South Fork campground and back into wilderness m the South 

Fork. 

That area, which encompasses 4,000 to 6,000 acres of roughly downstream wilderness, essentially would create a very significant problem for the application of this bill. We recommend that that is 

something that has to be solved before this bill can be moved forward. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we applaud Congressman Williams' economics and ecosystem and offer five principles in our statement 

that sets forth some principles that we think need to be applied to 

any study. Thank you. We would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Your time has expired. [Prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 
83 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

TBSTIMONY OF HICHl\BL O. SCOTT ltBPRBSBliT:tlfG 

TJIB WILDBRliB88 SOC:tl!ITY DID 'l'HB SIIIRRA CLUB ON H.R. 2473, "ROtllfD 

16 OJ' TJIB HOifT&D WILDBRliBSS ACT 1993" 1 8BFORB 

'liUI BOVSB DTtJUL RBSOVRCBS SVBCOHHITTBB Olf PAJUtS, 

J'ORBSTS DID PUBLIC LDID81 JULY 20, 1tt3 

Chairman Vento, Representative Williams and members of the 

subcommittee, my name is Michael Scott. I am the Northern Rockies 

Regional Director of the Wilderness Society, based in Bozeman, 

Montana. I am here today representing both The Society and the 

Sierra Club. The Wilderness society is a 55 year-old national 

conservation organization dedicated to the preservation and 

protection of American lands, principally public lands. We have some 300,000 members nationwide, with over 1,500 members in 

Montana. The Sierra Club is a 100 year-old conservation 

organization with 530,000 members nation-wide and 1,500 in Montana. 

I am pleased to be here today to testify on H.R. 2473. We 

want to express our sincere appreciation to Rep. Williams for 

introducing H.R. 2473. It is an excellent start. Wilderness is a difficult and contentious issue in Montana. We applaud Rep. Williams for his couraqe in taking the lead on this thorny issue. 

H.R. 2473 contains some siqnificant improvements over last 

year's version of a Montana wilderness bill - S. 1696. Several areas such as the Snowcrest Ranqe, Line Creek Plateau and Elk Creek 

have been added as wilderness. We thank Rep. Williams for these 

and the other areas he has added. We also appreciate the fact that 

Rep. Williams has left the Montana Wilderness Study Act areas entirely alone. These areas deserve close examination on their own. 

Others here today will detail needed additions to H.R. 2473. 

With the additions they propose - areas like Tenderfoot-Deep Creek, 

Allen Mountain and Mt. Garfield - H.R. 2473 will be a major step toward protection for Montana's wild places and in providinq the 

wilderness leqacy Montanans want and deserve. 

This morninq I would like to focus my testimony on three 

areas; release language, water lanquaqe and the ecosystem and 

economics study provision in H.R. 2473. In addition, I will cover some of the miscellaneous provisions in the bill. 

NORTHERN ROCKIES REGIONAL OFFICE 

105 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE E, BOZEMAN, MT 597!5 

(406) 586-1600 
84 

A, RELEASE 

H.R. 2473 contains a version of release language developed in 

the waning days of the last congress. It is different from the 

form of release language this committee included in last year's 

House-passed Montana wilderness bill. We urge the committee to 

delete the release language contained in H.R. 2473. We continue to 

believe that release language is outmoded. 

Background 

Release is an issue whose time has gone, especially for 

Montana. The release provision of 1984 was designed to solve a particular problem--to move beyond the stalemate caused . by the 

Forest Service's difficulties in preparing an adequate 

environmental impact statement (EIS) supporting its wilderness 

recommendations and to prevent both additional litigation and a third round of roadless area review. At the time, the Forest 

Service had been attempting to complete this review for more than 

ten years while both wilderness designation and non-wilderness 

forest management languished. 

The release compromise shielded from judicial review the 

question of the adequacy of the Forest Service's evaluation of the 

suitability of national forest lands for inclusion in the national 

wilderness preservation system, an evaluation contained in the EIS 

for the second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II). The 

compromise was a narrow one of limited effect. For the first round 

of forest plans, and the first round only, the Forest Service's 

determination of the category to which national forest lands were assigned in the forest plan --wilderness or non-wilderness-- could 

not be challenged in court. All other agency decisions, including 

timber sales, could be appealed on the basis of inadequate 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other environmental laws, or because of potential environmental 

impacts, including impacts to wilderness qualities and values. 

Management prescriptions and allocations of particular lands to 

particular uses were not included in the compromise. 

By 1987, release was irrelevant for Montana. Because a statewide bill had failed to pass in the early 1980's, the Forest 

Service restudied wilderness suitability in the forest plans prepared for the national forests of the state. The RARE II EIS was superseded by Appendix C to these forest plans. No lawsuit 

invalidated these appendices, as California y Block invalidated the 

RARE II EIS. No injunction prevented the Forest Service from 

making land management decisions. Thus, the circumstances that had 

necessitated and produced the release compromise no longer 

obtained. There was no longer any reason to include release 

language in a Montana wilderness bill. This view is supported by a recent CRS analysis of the release question. (U.C "Analysis of 

Release and Judicial Review Provisions in s. 1696, CRS, American 

Law Division, March 8, 1992) 

2 
85 

The fact that release keeps turning up indicates both a lack 

of understanding that it is no longer necessary, and that the 

timber industry regards it as a terrific wedge for wholesale 

changes to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The industry 

is counting on conditioned behavior--the inclusion of release 

language in wilderness bills whether it means anything or not. It 

argues that release means "certainty," an assurance that lands will 

be available for timber harvest. To guarantee that this will 

occur, the industry claims that release must mean reduced public participation in the forest planning process, the elimination of 

appeal rights, and mandated cutting areas. It is also asking to 

extend the ban on judicial review through two rounds of forest 

planning, effectively foreclosing consideration of wilderness for 

Montana for twenty-five years. 

The industry's claims distort the meaning of the original release bargain, Release is not the same as certainty. The 

inclusion of release language in a wilderness bill, even the so- called 11 updated" version of Senator Melcher's 1988 bill and the 

version currently in H.R. 2473, will not assure that any forest 

lands will be available for timber harvest or any other extractive 

activity. Release does not offer mandated cutting areas. It does 

not insure that lands labeled in a forest plan as non-wilderness 

will be available for timber harvest. It does not mean that no appeals are permitted of agency decisions concerning development of 

forest lands. 

This important point was made very clearly in ~ 

Conservation League y Mumma. In this case, plaintiff environmental 

organizations challenged the roadless area restudy portion of the 

forest plan for the Panhandle National Forest as inadequate to 

support the agency's wilderness/non-wilderness recommendations. 

(Such a challenge would have been prohibited by release language, 

if an Idaho bill had passed.) The court concluded that the 

plaintiffs had suffered no injury to their interests in seeing 

wilderness designated in Idaho. Based on the arguments of the 

Forest service, the court found that a forest plan does not make 

decisions. Rather, it is a general guidance document which 

includes recommendations concerning wilderness suitability. A plan does not propose or commit the agency to any specific development on non-wilderness lands. It merely allows the possibility of such 

development in the future. Agency decisions on that development are fully appealable. 

The Panhandle decision indicates that, regardless of whether 

release lanquaqe is included in a wilderness bill, the timber 

industry has no certainty.concerninq future development activities on national forest lands. Even if the wilderness/non-wilderness 

recommendation of a forest plan is shielded from judicial review, 

decisions concerning timber sales and other activities on lands 

recommended as non-wilderness in that plan may be challenged. 

3 
86 

H.R. 2473 Belease Language 

The release language in H.R. 2473 is similar to that developed by this committee last year, except in one fundamental respect. A 

section, Sec. 12 (h), is added which states that the wilderness 

review in forest plans is deemed an adequate consideration of the 

suitability of roadless lands for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. This section charts dangerous ground and should be removed - even if the committee decides that 

release language should be included in a Montana wilderness bill. 

As discussed above, there is no need to insulate forest plans from any form of judicial review or to make any affirmative finding 

that their wilderness reviews are adequate since no one has 

successfully challenged the wilderness restudy portion of forest 

plans. 

There is, thus, no analogous situation to the California v. Bl22t days when the timber industry, and the Forest Service, felt 

there was a sword hanging over their respective heads. 

since there is no legal .need for such language, why include 

it? Some argue that it provides an assurance to industry that no one will be allowed to challenge the wilderness portion of forest 

plans. This might seem a benign request, but it is one fraught with problems. 

First, wading into forest plans sets a precedent. Congress 

should not be in the business of selectively judging the adequacy of all, or parts, of forest plans, especially where there has been no demonstrated need. 

Entering this debate only puts us on a slippery slope. While 

at first, the congress might limit its scope of review to the 

wilderness review portion of plans, this clearly is not the longterm agenda of industry. rn subsequent congress's industry will 

try to broaden the adequacy determinations to include other 

"problems" like forest health. This is something the timber 

industry is now vigorously pursuing in its negotiations of an Idaho 

wilderness bill. 

Another serious problem with including adequacy language in 

this bill relates to how the courts may interpret it. This problem 

stems from the fact that forest plans, unlike the RARE II EIS, are multi-purpose docUlllents. They plan for a broad range of activities 

and the EIS accompanying a plan describes not just each activity 

but the interrelationships between them. 

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate out 

from a forest plan and its EIS its wilderness study elements and 

insulate them. This is because the EIS and plan are interwoven 

documents. The same environmental analysis that is used to justify 

4 
87 

a non-wilderness recommendation for a particular roadless area is 

also the basis for the decision to allocate the area to a development prescription. 

If a court has to determine what adequacy means, it will have 

to wrestle with this problem. The issue is additionally compounded by virtue of the fact that release language is no longer needed. 

Thus, a court is likely to conclude that, absent it original need, 

newly constructed release language must mean something new. Especially if such language moves into the realm of forest plans. 

Rather than face these and other problems associated with the 

language in Sec.l2(h), we urqe the committee to reject the approach altogether. Congress should not entertain proposals to insulate, or find adequate, portions of forest plans. 

A ftelease Language Test 

Last year, the conservation community put forth a set of tests 

for any proposed release language in a March 10, 1992 letter to 

Senator Patrick Leahy. Those tests are: 

l) Whether the release language precludes judicial review 

of any portion of a forest plan: 2) Whether the release language is restricted to the 

wilderness suitability review and evaluation; 

3) Whether the release language is restricted to 

compliance with the Wilderness Act or whether it affects 

other statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, the 

National Forest Management Act; and, 

4) Whether the term of the release language is limited to 

the first generation of forest plans. 

(Sierra Club, Wilderness Society 

letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, March 10, 1992) 

The release language in H.R. 2473 fails the first test. Sec. 

12(h) contains an adequacy finding for the wilderness suitability 

portion of forest plans. If this section were removed, the 

language in the bill, it would comply with the first and other 

three testa. 

B. WATER RIGHTS 

H.R. 2473 contains water language modeled after that found in 

this year's Colorado Wilderness bill, H.R. 631. It is our position, arrived at after careful analysis, that an explicit reservation of water is needed for Montana wilderness areas and all 

wilderness areas. The reason we prefer an explicit right is that 

it operates to protect wilderness water regardless of the 

hydrology, qeoqraphy or vagaries of state water law. A Colorado 

style approach has to be tailored specifically to comport with the 

5 
88 

fact situation in each area and in accordance with state water law. 

At a minimum, relying on this approach rather than an express reservation demands much more attention to detail by the Congress than is received in the context of H.R. 2473. 

The language in H.R. 2473 departs from the long standing practice of the committee and the Congress. Congress has an eighty 

year history of silence on water for federal land reservations, 

thereby relying on the implied reserved water rights doctrine. 

In recent years this committee has explicitly reserved water 

for wilderness. This is the approach, for example, taken in the 

Arizona BLM wilderness bill, Nevada forest wilderness bill and the 

washington national parks wilderness bill. 

The Colorado language is neither silent, nor does it 

explicitly reserve water. Rather, the approach is premised on the 

unique headwaters nature of the areas contained in the Colorado 

bill. 

The language states that neither any relevant federal agency nor any individual may seek a water right for wilderness; in the 

words of one Colorado conservationist remaining "officially 

agnostic" on the question of whether a wilderness water right 

exists. 

Instead, the Colorado language provides protection for 

wilderness water resources by exempting the newly created Colorado 

wilderness areas from Sec. 4(d)(4)(1) of the Wilderness Act. This 

section allows the President to exempt a water project from the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. Because all the Colorado areas are headwaters, the removal of this provision means there is no legal way to build a new water resource facility in a headwaters 

wilderness area or enlarge an existing water resource facility. 

The Colorado language also limits the ability of existing 

water right holders to changes in water rights, including changes in rate of diversion, purpose and timing, that will have adverse 

impacts on water resources and wilderness values. This assures existing rights holders that they can continue to use their rights and facilities, but also provides future protection to the 

wilderness areas by assuring that current water uses stay as they are. 

This is a solution tailored to work in Colorado on specific pieces of land under Colorado water law. It was not a solution 

designed to be used in other states. 

In order to determine whether the language works, Coloradans 

had to do two things; 1) assure that the language met the needs of 

wilderness within the particular context of Colorado state water 

6 
89 

lawr 2) assure that ~ areas to be designated wilderness were truly headwaters. 

compatibility with Montana law 

We have submitted the Colorado language to several Montana 

water lawyers who are currently reviewing the text of this section. 

We urqe the co~ittee before it decides to adopt the Colorado 

approach for Montana to be absolutely certain that the provisions of the "Colorado compromise" comport with Montana state law. 

Without such an assurance, the Colorado language may turn out to be 

unworkable in Montana or anywhere else in the West. 

Headwaters Areas 

conservationists have preliminarily reviewed the areas proposed for wilderness in H.R. 2473 to determine if they are all 

headwaters areas. our initial review shows that all areas, except 

one, in H.R. 2473 are headwaters. The area that is not a headwaters is the Renshaw Mountain addition on the Rocky Mountain 

Front. 

Straight Creek flows out of the Scapeqoat Wilderness, into the 

Renshaw addition, then out of the addition and back in. As far as we are able to determine, the land outside proposed wilderness 

through which Straight Creek flows is owned by the United States. 

There is a campground and cabins adjacent to the east shore of 

Straight Creek outside of the proposed addition. 

Straight Creek presents a real problem for the language in 

H.R. 2473. Either the popular Renshaw addition has to have a significant portion removed or the Congress will have to restrict 

water development on those portions of Straight Creek outside of 

the proposed wilderness. Much preferable to either alternative is an explicit reservation of water for the areas designated in H.R. 

2473. 

Water rights an4 Uses in Proposed Areas 

With the help of the state Water Resources Division we examined each proposed area and identified every known water right and structure listed in state files. We have not, as Coloradan's 

have done, examined each use on the ground to see how well it 

comports with state records. 

Nor has every filing for a right or use been adjudicated by the state. Many of the rights we examined date back to the late 

1800's and were filed for mininq purposes. It may well be that 

when the state adjudicates basins containing these filings it will 

find that no right currently exists due to state law principles of 

abandonment or non-use. 

7 
90 

Because of this uncertainty it is critically important that 

the language in the bill not imply any grant of a right for water 

filings not adjudicated by the state of Montana. 

summary 

Use of Colorado water language in Montana will not work unless we can confirm the compatibility of Colorado language to Montana 

water law, that each area in the bill is clearly a headwaters and 

that water rights filings and structures in proposed areas are actually validly adjudicated or that language is included making it 

clear no additional rights are created. Given these uncertainties, 

and the enormous expenditure of effort to reach certainty, we recommend to the committee that it continue its policy of expressly 

reserving water for the wilderness areas in Montana. 

C. ECOSYSTEM AND ECONOMICS STQDY 

We want to commend Rep. Williams for his foresight in 

including this provision in H.R. 2473. As we understand it, Sec. 

9 is designed to determine just what constitutes environmental 

sustainability on the forests of Montana and how a sustainable 

environment can lead to sustainable economies. The section was developed to head off the "train wreck" people are currently 

experiencing in the Pacific Northwest. 

We desperately need this sort of a study. The last 12 years 

have seen an almost complete disregard for environmental 

sustainability practices. Instead, the last two Administrations 

have pushed commodity production at any cost. 

And the cost has been high, both in terms of environment and 

community. It is an unfortunate truth that were we undertaking 

this kind of study just ten years ago our options would be greater 

than they are today. Today we face the prospect of whole 

drainages, such as Lolo creek, Rock creek and the Shields closed to 

extractive activities because of past overcutting abuses. 

It will take time for these places to heal. In the meantime, 

the area left, where choices can be made regarding extractive 

activities, has shrunk. 

The task facing those involved in this study will be daunting 

and the outcome probably sobering. But we need to do it now. communities need to know what they can count on from the forests, 

including both commodity and non-commodity resources, to sustain 

them and we need to know what it will take to sustain our forests 

ecologically. 

a 
91 

stydy Principles 

We are still reviewing the specific language in Sec. 9. As soon as we have suggested amendments we will provide them to the 

committee. We offer several principles which we believe ought to 

guide any study of the reqion. 

1. Any study should first define what is environmentally sustainable, then deteraine commodity and non-commodity outputs. 

The forests of the Northern Rockies have been put in jeopardy because eooloqically necessary principles have been "balanced" 

against commodity "needs". This type of balancing ultimately leads 

to ecoloqical disaster because it sets no environmental standard. 

The study should not make the same mistake as the forest plans 

of the reqion. It should first deteraine what it will take to 

manage the region on a sustainable basis. ~, the study should 

determine what outputs, both commodity and non-commodity, can be 

sustained within an eco,loqically sound framework. 

This approach is both fair to the environment and to 

communities. Managing land unecoloqically leads to unrealistic 

promises made to communities and fosters boom and bust cycles, disruptive both locally and regionally. 

a. Any study should be of the entire Nort~rn Rockies reqion 

Sec. 9 limits the study to Montana. This should be changed to 

provide for a look at the entire Northern Rockies. Montana does 

not exist in isolation. Wildlife, water and communities span the 

three states of the reqion. It makes little sense to limit the 

scope of a study examining ecoloqical and economic needs to a small 

part of the puzzle. 

3. Roadless areas should be put off-limits to developaent until 

their importance to local ecoloqical inteqrity is determined 

Many of the roadless lands left in the Northern Rockies play a particularly important role as refuges to wildlife, as sources of 

clean and dependable water and, increasingly, as important revenue generators for local economies. 

Given the importance of these lands and their ecoloqical fraqility, we urge the committee to include a provision in Sec. 9 

imposing a moratorium on roadless land development until we know 

which lands are needed to assure ecoloqical values are protected. 

4. The study should be con4ucte4 by in4epen4ent scientists 

Sec. 9 contemplates that the Forest Range and Experiment 

Stations will conduct the study. The Ranqe and Experiment Stations 

9 
92 

are part of the Forest SerVice. Having the stations conduct such a study raises questions about the impartiality of the results. 

We urge the committee to change this provision in sec. 9 and 

substitute a provision which calls for independent scientists to 

conduct the study. 

5. The study should not be used as a substitute for wilderness 

designation 

Many of the critical lands of the Northern Rockies ecosystems are well known and deserve protection now. Linkages, such as those areas not in H.R. 2473 along the Great Divide, are important 

wildlands in their own right, serve as corridors to connect major 

ecosystems and deserve immediate protection as wilderness. 

D. BLM RELEASE 

Section 8 of H.R. 2473 releases one BLM Wilderness Study Area 

and a portion of another. We recommend the committee delete this 

section. 

H.R. 2473 is a Forest Service wilderness bill. We approached 

the Montana delegation requesting that certain small BLM WSA's 

adjacent to Forest Service wilderness areas be included in the bill as wilderness. We were told that the delegation did not intend 

this bill to address BLM wilderness. Given that, it makes no sense to release BLM WSA's. The two WSA's in the bill should be held for 

consideration in a future BLM wilderness bill. 

BLM WSA's offer superlative wilderness values. Bitter Creek, 

released entirely by the bill, is the largest WSA in Montana. The 

59,000 acre area is known locally as a source of trophy mule deer 

and approximately 50 prehistoric sites have been identified in the 

WSA. The area is one of the last and largest intact sections of 

mixed grass prairie remaining in the United States. Bitter Creek 

should clearly be 'held for a future BLM wilderness bill. 

Axolotl Lakes WSA, a portion of which is released by the bill, 

is home to the rare Axolotl Lakes salamander. It is a popular fishing area on the top of the Gravely Range. If designated wilderness, it would become the Gravely Range's only wilderness. 

E. COLLECTION DEVICES 

Section 3(h) exempts the installation of meteorological and 

hydrological facilities within wilderness areas from the provisions 

of the Wilderness Act. 

This is a dangerous precedent. Any activity in wilderness, 

except those involving human safety or health emergencies, should 

be consistent with the Wilderness Act. Indeed, the administrative 

10 
93 

provisions of the Wilderness Act provide adequate flexibility to 

address this issue. Therefore, we recommend this section be 

deleted. 

F, HUNTING 

The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club support the right 

to hunt in wilderness, but we believe the Wilderness Act adequately 

protects that right. The language in Section 3(g} assures hunting 

continues in wilderness is therefore unnecessary, allows for 

misinterpretations by special interests and could well lead to 

needless arguments over hunting and wildlife management. 

Mr. Chairman, Rep. Williams, we appreciate the opportunity to 

share the views of The Wilderness society and the Sierra Club on H.R. 2473. I would be happy to answer any question about our testimony. 

11 
94 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Newhall, take about five minutes, would you 

please? 

STATEMENT OF NORM NEWHALL 

Mr. NEWHALL. Chairman Vento, Congressman Williams and 

Members of the House subcommittee and staff, I want to thank you for the opportunity of being here today. My name is Norm Newhall. 

I appear representing the Montana Wilderness Association. 

I have some preliminary matters. I want to offer here today the 

written testimony of Bart Koehler of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition that I will file with the committee and also the testimony of 

the Wild Divide Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, they will be added to the record. 

Mr. NEWHALL. Thank you. [The statements follow:] 
95 

~ Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

TESTIMONY BY BART KOEHLER, ASSOCIATE PROGRAM DIRECTOR; RE:Hit21f7J 

"ROUND 16 OF THE MONTANA WILDERNESS ACT ··1993"; BEFORE THE HOUSE 

NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS; 7/20/93 

MR. CHAIRMAN: 

My name is Bart Koehler, and I live in Gallatin Gateway, Montana. I'm 

pleased to testify today re: HR 2473, on behalf of the Board & members 

of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. For the record, GYC is composed of 

100 local, state-wide, regional, and national conservation organizations 

with a combined membership of well over one million Americans. Also, 

for the record, I have an M.S. in Natural Resource Management and Planning 

from the University of Wyoming, and over 20 years of experience working 

with grassroots conservation groups in defense of America's wild country. 

(Both in the far hinterlands and here in Washington, D.C.) 

In May of this year, GYC announced our Campaign for Greater Yellowstone. 

A keystone action in this long-term Campaign is the proposed designation 

of over 3.6 million acres of new Wilderness Areas on National Forest and 

Bureau of Land Management Lands in portions of Montana, Idaho and 

Wyoming. We are using our Campaign goals as an important reference 

point when we examine and discuss HR 2473. 

Mr. Chairman, when we wrote our initial comments re: HR 2473 to 

Congressman Pat Williams, we said that " GYC is heartened, disappointed 

and totally watchful." Today, that reaction still stands. 
96 

Since we provided your Subcommittee with extensive testimony last year 

on this issue, the remainder of this statement will merely provide a 

succinct summary of our concerns. I will be happy to provide greater 

detail to you and the Committee as this process moves forward. The 

following comments reflect our views at this date: 

AREA-SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

• GYC is heartened that key areas in Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem which 

were added/improved as part of '92 House Process are in this bill: 

--Cowboys Heaven 

--Crazy Mountains 

··Tie Creek/MI. Rae 

--Line Creek Plateau & S. Cottonwood Canyon WSA, 

-k It must be noted that these areas are not "only rock and jce" areas; ~ 

embrace mjd and lpwer eleyation habitats .. down to Forest Boundaries. 

•GYC is heartened that this year's bill includes stronger protection for 

Line Creek Plat§a!J •• it is proposed for Wilderness instead of WSA. It is 

listed as part of the Custer NF additions to the A-B Wilderness. 

*GYC is heartened that this year's bill includes two new key areas in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem -- the Snowcrest Range, and Mt Jefferson 

in the Centennials. The Snowcrest is a magnificent wildlife area with 

very high scenic and recreation values ·· with little or no conflicts (much 

of area is closed to all motorized use, and none of the area is scheduled 

for timber harvest). There is a 6,800 acre BLM WSA adjacent to 

Snowcrest as well. Mount Jefferson is a small but important piece of the 

Centennial Range/Great Divide which was recommended for Wilderness .by 

the Forest Service. (See attached Snowcrest Article) Again, these areas 

are not "only rgck and ice" areas: they embrace mid and lower elevation 

~ .. down to Forest Boundaries. 

*GYC is disappointed that a number of key areas in Greater Yellowstone 

are left out of this '93 Bill. These areas should be declared Wilderness: 

··Jobacco Boot Bagge· 57,000 acres 

--Bridger Range: 45,000 acres (includes lands not in Land Exchange Bill) 

--George Lake (Dexter FII-~~Dome Mtg. additions to A-B Wilderness 

··Mt. Garfield ( a key unit along the Great Divide, also known as Lima 

Peaks): 42,000 acres. In Idaho it's called Red Conglomerate Peak 
97 

--Several units in the Gravelly Range: more than 100,000 acres 

--Wapiti Mtn. near Red Lodge: 12,000 acres 

--Tendoy Range: 40,000 acres 

It must be noted that these areas are not •only rock and ice• areas: th~ 

embrace mjd and lower elevat;on habitats -· down to Forest Boundaries. 

*Key areas in Greater Yellowstone are in this bill but still need bigger 

boundarjes, in order to protect crucial wildlife habitat areas: 

--EarthQuake (a key unit along the Great Divide, known as Lionhead in 

Idaho) ... Coffin Creek and Watkins Creek watersheds need to be added back. 

Conservationists want 12,900 acres added. 

--Pryor Mtns.-- although the Lost Water Canyon boundary is an 

improvement, it needs to be beefed up by 10,000 acres in the Custer NF. 

Conservationists also want to add adjacent BLM and NPS lands. 

--Line Creek Plateau •• although now proposed for Wilderness, we suggest 

that the boundary be expanded to include 2,500 additional acres to bring 

the line down to the Forest Boundary and add the rehabilitated dey-hole 

drill site. It's listed as an addition to the A-B Wilderness. 

--Crazy Mountajns -- add a southern unit to the Wilderness. We are also 

working with local ranchers to propose possible logical boundary 

adjustments for the Wilderness Study/Land Consolidation Study Area. 

--Cowboys Heaven •• a small but important addition is required. 

··.Italian Peaks -· this proposal should be larger, as well. It is bigger 

than '92, but conservationists still want 20,000 acres added. 

• The Sawtooth WSA should be designated as Wilderness. 

• Although far east of GYE ..... the Tongue River Breaks should be designated 

as Wilderness ... it was proposed for Wilderness by USFS. 

WE HAVE ATTACHED DETAILED MAPS AS PART OF OUR TESTIMONY. 

*Within this testimony, we have limited our views to the Greater 

Yellowstone Area in Montana. We feel strongly that additional qualified 

lands in Idaho and Wyoming within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

should also ultimately be designated as Wilderness. Furthermore, as far 

as Montana goes, GYC supports Wilderness for a number of important 

ecosystem linkage areas that cgnne¢ Greater Yellowstone wjth otbe[ 

large wildland ecosystems. These proposed Wilderness areas include: 

Allan Mtn.; West Bighole; Chief Joseph Complex; East & West Pioneers; 
98 

Camas Creek; Mount Baldy; Big Snowies; Black Mountain; Middle Fork 

Judith; Nevada Mountain; Elkhorns; Gates of the Mountains; Smith RiverTenderfoot-Deep Creek; Electric Peak/Little Blackfoot Meadows; 

Sapphires; Stony Mountain; Anaconda-Pintlar Additions; Quigg Peak and 

Flint Creeks. These areas amount to over 1 million acres of critical 

ecosystem linkages. (See the attached list for detailed acreages) 

* POLICY ISSUES --

-- The Ecosystem Study Langyage should include Montana, Idaho and 

Wyoming and be strengthened to grant interim protection for roadless 

lands, ..... plus well-known corridors (such as the Great Divide from 

Yellowstone to beyond Italian Peaks -- identified by the USFWS as a 

critical wildlife corridor) should be designated as wilderness or as 

special management ecosystem linkage areas ....... now. It also must be 

noted that we strongly believe that Wilderness is the most essenttal and 

most effective way to safeguard the integrity of wildland ecosystems. 

--We feel that release language is no longer necessary; Williams' bill 

contains the last gasp attempt of '92. In comparison to HR 2473, the 

House Passed Release language of '92 is a better product. 

--We support the designation of restoration areas, as part of HR 2473. 

--We support the views of TWS and the Sierra Club on water language. 

*ALONG THE GREAT DIVIDE 

*!It's important to review the situation along the Great Divide, since 

you'll be looking at Idaho sometime in the near future. In the GYE, there 

are four key chunks of wild country along the Divide: 1) Earthquake(Mt.)& 

Lionhead (Ida.); 2) Centennials (which include BLM proposed Wilderness, 

Mt. Jefferson, Sheep Station lands in Montana plus roadless lands in the 

Targhee in Idaho); 3) Mt. Garfield/Red Conglomerate Peaks; and 4) Italian 

Peaks (Mt.) & (Idaho). In the Montana Bill, the Earthquake proposal needs 

work; we are just beginning to designate wilderness in the Centennial's 

with Mt. Jefferson (we expect the rest will happen in relation to a 

Montana BLM Bill); there is absolutely nothing proposed for Mt. Garfield, 

and Italian Peaks is better, but needs work. All the areas in Idaho 

(Lionhead, Centennials, Red Conglomerate Peaks, and Italian Peaks) 
99 

are/will be important units of the Great Divide Wilderness and should be 

designated as part of any bill which addresses Idaho Wilderness. 

•• In relation to the above, the two-state Centennials Wilderness 

proposal is 92,000 acs & includes a complex of federal agency wildlands. 

GYC greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on this 

critically important matter. We look forward to working with you and 

your staff to ensure that major strengthening amendments are adopted to 

create a much bigger and better version of HR 2473. 

~~ Bart Koehler 

Associate Program Director 
Snowcrest 

wilderness 

debated 

By Parry Backus Standard Staff Writer 

DILLON - The proposed inclu· sion o£ an estimated 00,000 acres of 

the SnO'Ao·crest Range for wlJderness designation is being met with enthu~ 

siasm and shock by different inter- est groups. · 

Tbe Snowcrest Range sooth of Ennis has been included in the wil· derntsS bili'Tecently, introduced by 

Rep. Pat Williams, 0-MonL Jt is the first Ume the area has been included in a wilderness bilL Wilderness spokesmen say wll· 

derness designation of the area should be virtually conOict-free, but 

a local rancher says that Isn't so. 

Art Noonen, Williams' legislative 

assistant, said the Snowcresl area has been considered a candidate for wilderness designation for a num- ber of years. 

When the Bureeu of Land Man- agement made its recommendations for additions to the wilderness 

system, it included tbe Centennial Mountain range. 

. After considering that BLM pro- Posed addition, .Noonen said it be-. 

came ~ dear that the Snowcrest Range \Vas ••fbe missing link" in 

keeping a biological corridor open 

{or wildlife to travel from YeUow~ 

stone Pari: to the Pintler wilderness and the Saphire Mountains beyond 

that. , "What Pal has done 1$ to try and flU In the ppo for a wUdlile corri· dor tbrough Southwest Montllna," ~aid LouiH Bruce, pnsldent of the 

'Montaoa Wildemeu Asooclatlon. ' . · Tbe Saowaest Range PI"Oil<lOed Wildtnlea is the 1arJes1 addition to the prese~~t wllclemeal bill, Bruce aalcl, but there abouJd not be any 

~~~,:.~~~-and is being maoa&ed a non-motorized 

by tbe Forest Service; Bruce said. 

There are DO pla1111 lor: timber bar· vest and It contlllruo no mlninl 

claiDUO, obe said. 

lurf IJ"IIIinl under way will con- tiftuo, Bruce saki. , 

Mart Pelronl, the Fol'l!il Serv· l<e'a Nadlacn Dlstriet Ranger, said 

theN probably would be some graz· 

lnl allotment. Included in tbe wilderaeu propooal.He bao yet to see , PleiiH oee SNOIVCREST Pa<e 10 

100 

ATI'ACHMENTS 

Mo)tto~a. Sw~artt, 'Bulle 

/hw·Slh~, :JU(~ '31 ltf13 

Snowcrest 

the mapo of the proposed wU· 

derness. Past wilderness biUs have con· 

tained clauses that allO\V for graz· ing, Petroni said. and grazing all~t· 

ments are in the Lee Metcalf Wd· 

demess area. 

" We've ne\Tff found any grating 

allotments that v.-ere eliminated be-- cause of an area being designated 

wilderness." said Bruce. " It's just logical that this area 

\\'OUld be included in the wilderness 

bill," she said. "That is essentially 

what it is now." AI Luebeck, chairman of the Bea- verhead Forest Concerned Cltiums, said he's " really enthusaistic" about the propooed Snowcrest Range Wilderness area. The area is one of the most valu· 

able wildlife areas \n the state and 

it would add diversity to the Mon· tana wilderness system. LuebE:ek 

58 ~ Soowcrest range is itself a •·very diverse area. with a wonder· 

ful moslac of crassJands. meadoWS and scattered potcbes of timber," be said. "It's a wQflder!ul babitllt 

for elk and deer," . _ Designatio& the orea wtlderness would protect the "marvelous bunt· ing opportunities that are there," he 

said addin& that most hunters 

ustni the area """* • ''seml-pria- tine, traditional bunting experience." 

"It woulcl be ooe of !be moot valu· able additlonl to tho otate's wil· domeS~ system." Luel>ect uld. , But lo<:al randier Joe Helle disa· 

----Continued from Pege 1 

grees. , 

"I wao absolutely shocked that the Snowcrest would be included as 

wilderness," Helle &.~id. "It's not wilderness type of country. •• 

Helle said he bas traveled 

through Snowcrest range off and on 

over a 30-year period. "1 know the Snowcrest and it is 

not wilderness," be said, adding it 

bas been managed under a multiple-use mandate •·very saUsfaclorily" for many years. The Snowcrest Range's inclusion 

"discredits the whole <wilderness> bill for me," said Helle. "If these' are the kinds of areas they are includin& throughout the state '" it's just not credible . ., 

" It looks to meJhaUhey want essenUally aU ~lain peaks in Montana to be designated as v.'il· demeos," Helle said. "Montana has a good wilderness system oow ... we 

don't need to include every moun· 

lain peak in the stllte. " Noonen said be's given up trying 

to predict the outcome of Mont.ana's \\i lderness: bills: He"s been involved 

ln the process since 1980. "'ll'a been quite a journey," be 

&aid. 

What many don't reeogniu is the loss Montanaos have suffered be- cat.~~e of tbe eontinued confiict over the issue, Noonen uid. Due to the overwhelming number 

of lsauea facinl Coogress, only so 

much time can be devoted to mal· ten pertlt>erlt to eacll otate, be saut 

Over tho put, 10 to 14 years, about lbJ'ee.quarUn at an the time 

devoted to Montana hn been used 10 -te·wildemesl, Noonen said. "It ba been for aothlnc," · be oalcl. " MODIAD& ba cboseD to use 

up aU Ita cilll.o lor nolhlnC· lt'o turned illto c:ruillss." 

Thill bill - attempt to resolve ciJocerlltl over. water ri8hta ian· ...... tbal ................. the last 

co-&niUDCI. Nooamll&id. 'I'bere were lean 

bavilll abcM water tbe rl&hl& feclenll reoerved ~ In wll· de.-arou,bell&id. , La_.. ~ In IIlla latest biD would prohibit lbe fedenl gov· 

ernmt111 from claimlnl water rights In wllderlal UUJ iri M&dwaten 

UUJ, NOOMD uicl. , 

Tbil cllaitge ohaWd do away with 

any """""""' over tho water rl&hl& -ill JI"IP"Md ~ UUJ, 

be aaid. 
101 

KEY ROADLESS LANDS IN ECOSYSTEM LINKAGE AREAS OUTSIDE GYE, 

RECOMMENDED FOR WILDERNESS BY CONSERVATIONISTS 

Allan Mountain - Idaho 50,000/Montana 103,000 

West Big Hole - Idaho 51,000/Montana 86,000 

18 Mile - 5o,ooo 

Mount Naomi - 16,000 

Chief Joseph Complex - 74,000 (MT/ID includes Anderson Mtn in 

Montana·and Idaho) 

East Pioneers - 140,000 

West Pioneers - 240,000 

Camas Creek - 29,510 

Mount Baldy - 14,600 

Big Snowies - 100,00 

Black Mountain - 23,000 

Middle Fork Judith - 87,000 

Nevada Mountain - 50,000 

Elkhorns - 89,000 

Gates ot Mountains - additional 10,500 

Smith:·.RiverfTenderfoot/Deep creek - ·94, ooo . ', __ - __ ... _. ---.. '. . . ·. : ·- ... , 

EiectriC::/:PeakfLittle Blah!o~t Meadows·'- . '· ·:::-~-~:·:_~~~?::.7· :'. -~ -~: .. · . ·.-:-~·::-:.;·:._· ··:_ :·_7:·:~~~--4-~~---~}.>:':;:.;i.·:· 

sapphi.re~: -.' 116;ooo :· ·,.. . ·· · 

~~-~ny:'~i~~t~in>-· ioJ,ooi/:·:·.~ - .:;. - .... ,_., ... _.:..,._. 

Anaconda Pintl~r _.;. (North Big Ho_le)" additional 52,000 

Quigq .Pe:ak :... · 70", ooo .·-r.~_,,·:.. ' -· . ::< ·._ 

:~~:;~~t~~~:dJ:·· '"'' ,, ·Ci:::·:::.~.-

O::::r_;;:;~~.~,;l?~;{A.:,_· • _ .. _._;. ·/.·... . J! 
102 

PROPOSED WILDERNESS MAPS 
108 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
Greater Yellowsto11e Eco

Mt .Jefferson 

l'topused Wild

- - - - ExlsUng \VIId
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 

TESTIMONY OF THE WILD DIVIDE CHAPTER 

of the 

MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION 

HELENA, MONTANA 

regarding 

H.R. 2473 

"Round 16 of the Montana Wilderness Act 1993" 

Presented to The House Subcommittee on Public Lands 

For the Hearing Record of July 20, 1993 

The newly formed Wild Divide Chapter of the Montana Wilderness 

Association (MWA), based in Helena, Montana is dedicated to the 

wise use and protection of the natural resources found on the 

Helena Forest and surrounding public lands in Lewis and Clark 

County. Since 1979 Helena MWA members have been actively involved 

in the forest planning process, and in supporting wilderness 

designation for less than one/half of the remaining roadless areas on the Helena Forest and in Lewis & Clark county. 

These areas were carefully selected based upon their outstanding wildlife, watershed, non-motorized recreation and scenic values. 

All are utilized extensively by day hikers, cross-country skiers, 

horseback riders, backpackers, hunters, and anglers. Ranging in 

elevation from the 4,000-foot stream bottoms in the Black Mountain area to the 9,500-foot peaks of Mount Edith and Mount Baldy, our proposal includes every possible land-type on the public lands 

surrounding our community. 

The distribution of the nine areas we advocate for wilderness 

designation maximizes their value as vital security areas for elk, 

bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and other wildlife which need 

solitude from the ever encroaching network of roads on the Forest. 

Their size and close proximity to Helena would enable Helenans of 

all ages to enjoy a wide variety of wilderness experiences within 

easy driving distance from the city. The outfitting and guiding business that these areas support contribute renewable and 

sustainable income to our state's economy. As our community grows, the demand for these quiet wild places will continue to increase 

dramatically. 

The Wild Divide Chapter is pleased to have the opportunity to 

provide the following comments on the specific roadless areas on the Helena Forest and public lands within Lewis & Clark County, that we feel are deserving of wilderness designation: 
117 

2 

1. MOUNT BALPX 

Only 30 miles southeast of Helena, Mount Baldy and Mount Edith 

tower nearly 5,000 feet above the Missouri River Valley, stretching to elevations of over 9,400 feet. Their pointed, 

rock-crowned summits are known to catch the first snows of autumn 

and hold the last snowbanks of summer. To the north of the 

rugged ridge that connects their summits lies the spectacular 

Birch Creek Basin, a glacial cirque filled with over 12 gem-like 

lakes. Near the center of this basin "The Needles," a series of 

jagged limestone spires, rise above a fragile alpine meadow. 

The Mount Baldy ridge provides a unique "above the timberline" 

hiking experience for local residents and the Birch creek Basin 

is extensively used for walk-in fishing and hunting. Healthy 

populations of cutthroat, rainbow and brook trout inhabit the 

four largest lakes in the basin. Dense stands of small diameter 

lodgepole and limber pine provide irreplaceable security and 

escape cover for deer, black bear and elk. "The Needles" area is 

known for its heavy concentration of elk "wallows." A thriving 

population of mountain goats inhabits the high ridges between 

Mount Baldy and Mount Edith. 

We fully advocates this entire unique and pristine 16,300 acre roadless area as wilderness. HR 2473 leaves out 1,300 acres on the slopes facing Highway 287. Any type of development in this area would be a visual scar to travelers and valley residents. 

Please amend HR 2473 to include all 16,300 acres of this area. 

2 • CAMAS CREEK 

The camas Creek area is about 33 miles east of Helena and 

straddles the Big Belt Divide. Two main peaks, Boulder Mountain 

and Boulder Baldy, are nearly 9,000 feet in elevation. The area itself is a fascinating jumble of open parks, cliffs, rock 

slides, small streams, and steep-sided forested valleys and the 

jewel-like Boulder Lakes and upper and lower Camas Lakes. This area is home to a large elk herd, mule deer, grouse, black bear, 

and a variety of other wildlife. There is good trout fishing in 

the lakes, and people frequently sojourn in the lakes for 

fishing, hiking, and campinq. Wilderness hunters use it heavily 

during the hunting season. 

Camas creek is an example of a roadless area that has been 

rapidly lost to development over the past ten years. In 1979 the area included 38,700 acres. By 1984, logging and roadinq reduced 

the size of this vital wildlife habitat to 29,510 acres. None of 

these timber sales resulted in a net gain to the federal 

treasury. Now HR 2473 further reduces the protection of this area to only 19,000 acres, because one mining company (Pegasus) 

wants to explore for gold on adjacent areas. 
118 

3 

We advocate the designation of the entire rema1n1ng 26,000-acre 

roadless area as wilderness, which coincides with the 1987 and 

1988 proposed wilderness legislation. At a minimum, the release 

of any of these lands from wilderness consideration should be 

prohibited until an evaluation is conducted of the value of these 

lands as wilderness verses its potential for mineral development. 

3 . ELECTRIC PEAK 

The Electric Peak Roadless Area is located approximately 30 air 

miles SW of Helena and 25 air miles north of Butte. Nearly 13 

miles of the Continental Divide are within its borders. Electric 

Peak, Thunderbolt, Cliff and Bison mountains tower to- elevations over 8,000 feet along this natural watershed boundary that 

divides the Continent. On the Columbia River side of the Divide, numerous small streams, springs and groundwater seeps join 

together to form the fragile and beautiful Blackfoot Meadows, 

"land of 1,000 beaver ponds." On the Missouri River side, 

Cottonwood Lake (the only lake in the roadless area) is the most 

prominent landmark, nestled at the base of an alpine meadow that 

stretches for nearly a mile towards the rugged slopes of Electric 

Peak and Cliff Mountain. Here anglers can enjoy walk-in fishing 

tor cutthroat and brown trout. The entire area receives an extraordinary amount of recreational use from hikers, anglers, 

and hunters, and is critical wildlife habitat·. 

Large clearcuts surround this roadless area. Without the 

protection provided by wilderness, the pristine watershed of 

Cottonwood Lake and its drainage, Thunderbolt Creek, will be 

degraded. Thunderbolt Creek is the cleanest and clearest 

tributary of the Boulder River, since nearly all other streams in 

the basin have been impacted by logging, mining or road building activities. The Cottonwood Lake drainage contains numerous springs and fragile wetlands and provides vital big game security areas as well as critical forage and calving sites. Big game 

outfitting is important business in the area surrounding Cottonwood Lake. Deer, black bear, and several hundred elk 

extensively use the Electric Peak Roadless Area for summer range, some winter range and as .escape cover from the expanding road 

network that accesses virtually all of the national forest lands 

that surround this area. Grizzly bear also occasionally use this 

country. 

We are very disappointed and concerned about the proposed 

wilderness boundary in HR 2473 and the reduction of its size from 

the 1984 wilderness bill proposal. This earlier proposal and 

former Governor Schwinden's 1984 proposal both called for 

establishment of a 30,700 acre wilderness. Only 19,000 acres of 

wilderness are proposed in HR 2473. In light of this, we offer 

the following comments: 
119 

4 

A. Our major concern is the deletion of Cottonwood Lake and 

its entire drainage on the Deer Lodge Forest portion of the area, 

and the eastern portion of the Continental Divide toward Bison 

Mountain. Cottonwood Lake is the only lake in the roadless area. The entire area receives an extraordinary amount of recreational use including hikers, anglers, and hunters, and is critical 

wildlife habitat. Large clearcuts surround this portion of the 

roadless area. Without the protection provided by wilderness, the 

pristine watershed of Cottonwood Lake and its drainage, Thunderbolt ere~, will be degraded. Thunderbolt creek is the 

cleanest and clearest tributary of the Boulder River, since 

nearly all other streams in the basin have been impacted by 

logging, mining or road building activities. 

The Cottonwood Lake drainage contains nuaerous springs and 

fragile wetlands and provides vital big game security areas as well as critical forage and calving sites. In 1987, 

Representative Williams stated that the only reason cottonwood 

Lake was left out of legislation that year was because of 

snowmobile use in the area (Helena Independent Record, June 14, 

1987). We submits that claims about snowmobile use in the area are exaggerated, that actual use is minimal, and is not typically of a kind conducted by family groups. 

The inclusion of Cottonwood Lake as wilderness certainly would not jeopardize the snowmobiling opportunities in the area, as virtually all National Forest lands surrounding this small 

roadless area is available for snowmobile use. The Cottonwood 

Lake drainage is an area truly deserving of wilderness 

protection. We ask that HR 2473 be amended to include Cottonwood 

Lake and its drainage as wilderness. 

B. On the eastern edge of the roadless area, we are concerned about the deletion of the Monarch Creek drainage and 

the "peninsula" of wildland extending east of Bison Mountain. 

The Monarch Creek area contains portions of two trails (including their trailheads) that currently provide a loop hike from Kading 

campground through the Little Blackfoot Meadows and down Larabee 

Gulch to the Kading Road. The "peninsula" to the east of Bison 

Mountain provides critical hiding cover for a large elk herd. we ask that the bill be amended to include the Monarch creek 

drainage and the eastern. edge of Bison Mountain. 

c. The Electric Peak Roadless Area is a heavily used non- motorized family recreational area. We feel that the inclusion 

of the roadless lands north of the Kading Road as wilderness 

would substantially increase the opportunity for the young and 

elderly to enjoy a wilderness experience without having to hike 

long distances. We are also very concerned about the deletion of 

sections 20, 21, and 29, T8N R7W, which would eliminate roughly one and a half miles of the most heavily used trail into the 

Little Blackfoot Meadows. Presently, a deeply eroded jeep road crosses this area, but it is unusable by most vehicles and is a sediment source to the Little Blackfoot River. 
100 

5 

D. The southwest portion of the roadless area, particularly the land around Cliff and Sugarloaf Mountains and Electric Peak, 

has negligible timber values, while being of vital importance to 

local elk herds, and should be included as wilderness. 

The Wild Divide Chapter asks that this entire fragile country 

straddling the Continental Divide be included in HR 2473. 

4. BLACK MOUNTAIN 

Nestled in the shadow of the Continental Divide and within 

walking distance of Montana's Capitol City is the unique 13,000 acre Black Mountain Roadless Area. This area of rugged and steep valleys is home to a diverse wildlife population including elk, 

moose, bear, deer, mountain lion, and numerous small mammals and 

birds. It contains spectacular and important remnants of old 

growth forest, and forms the headwaters of a portion of the 

Helena municipal water supply. The area is used extensively by Helenans for hiking, hunting, photography, and as a haven of 

solitude from city life. Popular hiking access to the Black 

Mountain area is from Mount Helena City Park. 

Significant portions of the Ten Mile Creek drainage within the 

roadless area are vital to protect. The City of Helena has spent nearly $10 million to upgrade its Ten Mile Creek Water Treatment 

System. This upgrading was necessary to remove high levels of 

sediment that are found in Ten Mile Creek and its tributaries. 

Protection of the portions of the Ten Mile Creek watershed found 

within the Black Mountain Roadless Area is essential to prevent 

the need for and cost of additional treatment in the future. 

While the watershed arguments for wilderness protection of the 

Black Mountain area are very strong, the wildlife arguments are just as significant. As moose, elk, mountain lion, deer and bear 

utilize the fragile Ten-Mile Creek watershed extensively, the 

Black Hall Meadows Basin is equally important to wildlife. This 

is an area of fragile wetlands interspersed with the most scenic 

display of limestone spires in the roadless area. Black Hall 

Meadows provides vital big game forage and calving areas. It 

contains the most dense concentration of moose that can be found 

adjacent to Helena. Logging is occurring at an accelerated pace in the Spruce Hills and Travis Creek areas just to the south of 

Black Hall Meadows, increasing the need for this area as critical 

big game hiding cover. 

Including Black Mountain in the wilderness system will provide a continuous wilderness quality corridor from Helena to the town of 

Rimini. The Wild Divide Chapter wishes to thank Pat Williams for 

including the Black Mountain Roadless area in HR 2473, and 

expanding its protection to include 3,000 of 7,000 adjoining roadless acres. The inclusion of the remaining 4,000 acres would 

make protection of this area complete. 
121 

6 

5. NEVADA MQUNTAIN 

The Nevada Mountain Roadless Area lies between Helena and Lincoln 

along some 15 miles of the major spine of the Continental Divide. 

The area's namesake, Nevada Mountain, and its sister, Black 

Mountain, each tower over 8,000 feet in the southern portion of 

the roadless area and are some of the more prominent geographical 

features. The area also includes the major divide between Nevada 

and Poorman creeks, the site of the historic Gould-Helmville 

wagontrail. Numerous scenic rocky cirques and a 2,200-acre 

forest fire burn that provides excellent wildlife forage, characterize the south and east boundaries of the area. The 

portion on the west slope of the divide consists of densely 

covered, steep-sided finger ridges laced with numerous parks on the south-facing slopes which provide ideal big game habitat. 

Up to 1000 elk and nearly as many mule and whitetail deer utilize 

the area for security during summer and fall. The Beartrap Burn, 

the windblown continental Divide and lower elevation southern 

exposures provide winter range for some of the deer and elk. 

Black bear, wolverine, cougar, and blue and ruffed grouse are also permanent residents. Grizzly bear also frequent the area. Wilderness-quality hunting and cross country skiing are readily provided to hundreds of visitors each year. 

For over a decade Helena area MWA members have worked hard to 

resolve conflicts for wilderness designation of the area. Extensive research has confirmed that oil and qas potential in 

the area is low. Mining potential is low to moderate. 

Unfortunately, the lumber mill at Seeley Lake has demanded access to the eastern and western portions of the area so a few pockets of old growth Douglas Fir can be logged at a great expense to 

taxpayers, and to the detriment of Nevada Mountains' premier elk 

herds. HR 2473 gives in to these demands. The excluded areas contain some of the most rugged and steep country, as well as areas used as major migration routes for the area's thriving elk 

population. 

KR 2473 reduces the protection of this rugged 52,000 acre roadless area even further, to a mere 19,000 acres, to 

accommodate motorized vehicles. A recent Montana Department of 

Fish Wildlife and Parks Survey demonstrates that Helena Forest 

Users prefer quiet trails 9 to 1 over trails where motorized users are allowed. Unique areas like the Nevada Mountain 

roadless area should not be sacrificed when there are hundreds 

and thousands of miles of public roads and trails already available for motorized use. 

The Wild Divide Chapter asks that HR 2473 be amended to include 

wilderness protection for all 52,000 acres of this rugged 

country. 
122 

6. GATES OF THE MOUNTAINS WILD$RNESS ADDITIONS 

We support the inclusion of the Gates additions as wilderness as proposed in HR 2473. These additions will greatly enhance the 

wilderness attributes of the entire area. 

7. ELKHOBNS 

7 

The Elkhorn Mountains, on the doorstep of Helena, contain one of 

the largest unprotected tracts of wild land remaining in central 

Montana. Formed over 75 million years ago, this range contains seven mountain lakes, 30 perennial streams and five peaks above 

8,000 feet. Over 2,000 elk are supported by one of the largest 

expanses of public elk winter ranges in the country. Black bear, 

deer, goshawk, lynx, mountain goats and many other wildlife 

species also make their homes here. Traditional uses of the area by humans include hunting, hiking, photography, x-country skiing, 

wildlife observation, fishing and horse-back riding. The Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks data indicates that the 

Elkhorns attract more elk hunters than any other area of Montana. 

In 1976 Congress found the Elkhorn Mountain Range to be suitable 

and deserving of wilderness protection, and included the entire area in wilderness study legislation. Now 17 years later, HR 

2473 leaves the recreational jewel of the Elkhorns - the Tizer 

Basin - unprotected. Also left out of HR 2473 is the vital elk 

caving habitat of the South Fork Warm Springs/Dutchman area, the area surrounding prominent Elkhorn and crow Peaks, and the 

Muskrat Creek drainage. Ironically, over half of the acres protected in HR 2473 are the lands burned in the 1987 Warm 

Springs creek Fire! 

The Wild Divide Chapter asks that you include all of the 

aforementioned critical areas as wilderness in HR 2473. 

8. SILVER KING - FALLS CREEK 

The Silver King-Falls Creek Roadless Area is the southernmost 

section of the Rocky Mountain Front, southwest of Augusta. The area includes the beautiful falls and pools section of the 

Deerborn River and 15 miles of the Continental Divide. These 

undisturbed lands, especially near Crown Mountain and the Welcome 

Pass area, provide critical summer and fall grizzly bear habitat 

and contain important bear migration corridors. Important elk 

calving grounds have also been identified by state wildlife 

biologists. South of Falls creek, a historic ancient travois 

trail followed by Meriwether Lewis is still visible above Alice 

Creek as it climbs toward the Continental Divide. 

Despite being closed to motorized vehicles in the Forest Plan, 

the shrunken wilderness boundary found in HR 2473 excludes the 

Crown Mountain trailhead and five miles of the Petty Creek trail 
123 

system to allow motorized trail vehicles into grizzly habitat. 

Critical bear habitat at the head of Alice creek is left 

unprotected as is the historic travois trail discussed above. 

The Wild Divide Chapter asks for full, not partial protection of 

this spectacular wild country in HR 2473. Please amend the bill 

accordingly. 

8 

9. BENSHAW/SAWTQQTU APDITION TO THE BQB MABSBALL WILQERHESS 

This unique roadless area is found just to the north of the 

Silver King-Falls Creek area, along the Rocky Mountain Front west 

of Augusta. The south Fork of the Sun River portion of the area include low elevation trails popular with anglers, hikers and 

horseback riders. The remote Patrick's Basin and Iange Creek 

provide excellent grizzly bear habitat. .The open grasslands of 

Fairview and Ford Creek plateaus include important bighorn sheep 

and elk caving areas as well as winter and fall ranges. Herds of 

elk as large as 4,000 migrate across important lands adjacent to 

the Sawtooth Ridge between the Bob Marshall and the Sun River 

Wildlife Reserve. 

The shrivelled wilderness boundary in HR 2473 excludes the 

important Fairview and Ford Creek plateau caving and lambing areas described above. And the Lime Gulch-Agropyron Flats are left out all together. All the lands within the Renshaw Sawtooth area deserve wilderness preservation. Please include them within 

HR 2473. 

The Wild Divide Chapter hopes you will find the information 

provided in this testimony helpful and of interest. If we can provide you with further information, please don't hesitate to 

request it. 

Respectfully submitted by 

~:£:;~ Christine Deveny, Chair 

Wild Divide Chapter 

Montana Wilderness Association 

PO Box 635 

Helena, MT 59624 
124 

Mr. NEWHALL. I am also submitting newspaper articles and the 

most current Montana roadless inventory of the Montana Wilderness Association in support of my own testimony. 

[EDITOR's NOTE.-The Montana roadless inventory may be found 

in the archival file.] 

[The newspaper articles follow:] 
'i

t · tr''l,'; 

l ·~ 

,. 

,,,, 

'.'1 

.{~ 

. 

':~ 

'Great Falls, MOntana No. 64- 109th 

-=-== 

Logging booni. hitS B

Range attracting fll'IIlS from afar; 

fast pace raises concern on impacts 

llrWII..LWIIIAOCI( • AockySoyl~goos 

'Milo.-- --'ouoolbcoollloggrng/1QA - - -

~": .,;:u:.:=,P~ • Slate laodtaawaharp 

mDio have lonffP*'Odlhe limber ""'-In limber""'-l10A 

:7111dltfloot'tPaw-., 

But fru:rlUed competidon for timber latelyhu ~ aloqfng boom Ia tha 11o1at011 motmllfn nJ111•110111h orhmt. •••• ~ doullled In""' last ftft ,...,., • llllfd Leo •-. who 

- 7,1100 - .. ""' foolbWa eut ol BIJ SoDdy. "llmow ~~ .,..., to be • lot_..,.. houlfac 

"""""'hmt,Pn!lty-." 

"The -. - ...... liUle .,....,.,lheworlddwm..,. 

J>Ofd - ._._ ..... oddod MU..-_,_........, 

for llrlnci..S Lumber llll.MtlaiOn. 

280 - to tho - -w.-.. -reof-uptbenlnlhaPI,!Il 

lfu,. ,... ... bat 11'1 ....... _ 

supply !hat'• probobly llOI COlnlto .lastfong.• . 

Some """""'- feor that lite lrnall-.ru.fn--ltJII!ln 

- and benh C<>ndlllono, _, """-od fnlenofw ~ With 

::r:.-..~~ and-...., l'orwlldUfe 11'1 hoomdtopt-. 

"AI tho rote lheyro CUllin& II _, ___ befontho:)t 

cut lhoonaehwS fflht out ol the Bev'o "-" Mmed Bruce~ o ,......,,.,_,._lhtMODtono 

llleiiFAJrSPAWI,Jiol 
126 
127 

1992 Timber harvest for Montana and 

northern Idaho 

BLM & other: 

1.08 rnbf (5%) 

State lands: 

249 mbf (11 

National forests: 

741 million board feet 

(32%) 

Timber harvest up in '92 

MISSOUlA (AP) - Timber harvests in Montana and northern Idaho increased by 1 percent last year, 

with a 53.1 percent jump in harvest 

from state-owned forests offsetting a reduced cut on federal lands, the 

Forest Service reported Thursday. 

David Spores, timber director for 

the Forest Service Northern Region, 

headquartered in Missoula, said the 

total timber cut in the region in 1992 

was 2.329 billion board feet, up 1 

percent from 1991's total of 2.306 

billion board feet 

More than half the cut came from 

private land within the region. A 

total of 1.231 billion board feet of 

timber came from private land, 53.5 

percent of the totaL 

But that was down 3.5 percent 

from the 1991 cut, and the harvest 

fromjederallands also was down. 

The national forests in the region 

yielded 740.6 million board feet, or 32.2 percent of the total, down 2. 7 . 

percent form 1991. The harvest from 

national forests in Idaho was down 

12.9 percent, offsetting a 16.6 percent increase in the cut on national 

forests in Montana. 

The harvest on state lands of Idaho and Montana both were up 

sharply. 

The state lands yielded 248.75 

million board feet of timber, up 53.1 

percent from the 1991 cut of 162.52 

million board feet. The state land 

share of the total timber harvest was 10.8 percent, compared to 7.1 percent in 1991 and easily the highest 

percentage in a decade. 
128 

Mr. NEWHALL. First of all, I want to thank Congressman Williams sincerely for the courage to jump into the fray here on this 

contentious issue. From the perspective of the western third of 

Montana, this bill is a move in the right direction. 

With respect to the western third of Montana, we have proposed 

amendments to expand boundaries for nearly two dozen proposed wilderness areas included in this bill. The proposed boundaries 

have been outlined in yellow, and we have already filed these with 

the committee with respect to our proposals. These amendments we feel are necessary to ensure that we conserve wilderness with integrity, with habitat and watersheds intact. We feel we must avoid the old habit of drawing wilderness 

boundaries to exploit pockets of virgin timber at lower elevations 

when it is precisely these lower elevation areas that provide the 

most important wildlife habitat and watershed protection. 

From the perspective of the eastern two-thirds of the State, however, we do not feel this is a Montana wilderness bill. Rather it is 

a western Montana wilderness bill. 

The Island Mountain Ranges are a feature of the Rocky Mountains that are unique to central and north central Montana. Most 

of them are in the Jefferson Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, precisely six to be exact. One range alone, the Little 

Belt Mountains, is the size of the State of Rhode Island. 

To put it bluntly, out of 1.2 million acres of National Forest in 

the island ranges of the Jefferson Division, not one acre is pres- ently conserved as wilderness. And, except for the Crazy Mountains, there is no wilderness for the entire eastern two-thirds of the 

State of the Montana. 

We don't propose that the Island Mountain Ranges be included 

in toto as wilderness, but we do propose wilderness for four specific 

areas: Tenderfoot/Deep Creek in the Little Belt Mountains, the 

middle fork of the Judith in the Little Belt Mountains, the Big 

Snowy Mountains, and Pilgrim Creek in the Little Belt Mountains. 

These areas are not newcomers to the wilderness issue. They have 

been previously proposed in several other wilderness bills. 

We would like to include them for several reasons: 

One, we do not feel that wilderness should be confined to the 

most remote crags and peaks. These areas provide wilderness that 

is accessible. 

Two, they have never been logged. They have never been mined 

or experienced oil exploration and are not subject to significant 

pressure from these activities. They can be preserved without significant impact upon the extractive industries. 

Three, inclusion of these areas still leaves nearly 1 million acres 

in the Jefferson Division available for off road vehicle use. When 

a Forest Service survey shows that 90 percent of the people use 

National Forests for non-motorized uses, every last acre should not 

be subjected to the minority ORV users. 

Finally, H.R. 2473 as presently drafted is grossly out of balance. 

There are 60 million acres east of the main Rockies in Montana. 

It contains our two largest cities, yet presently only one-half of onetenth of 1 percent of those acres is included in wilderness. The Little Belt Mountains alone contain 14 roadless areas and yet not one 

acre is conserved. 
129 

These are the areas that are memorialized by the cowboy artist, 

Charles M. Russell, whose statue is here in the Capitol Rotunda. 

They haven't changed for the most part since they were on his ori~al canvas. They were included in previous bills. They should 

be mcluded now. 

What has changed is the politics. Congressman Williams has 

maintained an open mind with respect to the wilderness issue. Our 

previous Congressman from the Eastern District of Montana-what 

was formerly the Eastern District-did not. 

Congressman Williams has graciously agreed to be receptive to 

amendments. H.R. 24 73 should be amended to include these areas. Thank. you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I look 

forward the gracious acceptance of Mr. Williams to some of these 

amendments. I expect that he is going to have to look at them very carefully. But I do appreciate the work that you have done and the 

points that you have made. And these are obviously important 

areas in terms of the riparian and other qualities. 

[Prepared statements of Mr. Newhall follow:] 
180 

Montana Wilderness Association 

Testimony of the Montana Wilderness Association 

on H.R. 2473, 

"Round 16 of the Montana Wilderness Act 1993" 

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Parks, 

Forests, and Public Lands, July lO, 1993 

Chairman Vento, Representative Williams and members of the 

subcommittee, my name is Norm Newhall. I speak to you today on 

behalf of the 2600 members of the Montana Wilderness Association. 

We are a Montana based grassroots organization that has been 

working diligently since 1958 to protect and preserve Wilderness 

through education and advocacy. We have seven chapters 

throughout the state - three new chapters have formed in the cities 

of Great Falls, Helena, and Billings since January of this year. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on H.R. 2473. 

The members of the Montana Wilderness Association are glad to 

have the leadership of Representative Williams as we begin another 

round of the wilderness issue. 

H.R. 2473 is better wilderness legislation than any to date. In 

addition to the key areas in last year's bill - Cowboy's Heaven, the 

Crazy Mountains, Tie Creek/Mt. Rae, Line Creek, and South 

Cottonwood Canyon - H.R. 2473 includes some needed additions to 

existing wilderness areas, establishes previously unprotected 

wilderness areas and new wilderness study areas, and designates 

two "natural areas". We sincerely thank Representative Williams for 

listening to the wilderness advocates of Montana and making 

improvements over past legislation. 

The Montana Wilderness Association has more members now than 

any time in the history of our organization. Our members look 

forward to working with Representative Williams and members of 

the subcommittee, as we have in the past, to make changes in H.R. 

2473 that reflect the advocacy of constituencies of wilderness 

advocates. There are constituencies for areas that are not included in 

P.O. Box 635 • Helena, Montana 59624 • (406) 443-7350 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
131 

this bill. In keeping with spirit and intent of Section 2 (a)(4) we ask 

that the areas described on the attached pages be added to H.R. 2473. 

There is consensus about Montana wilderness. You hear people on 

both sic!es of the issue say "we just want it to stay the way it is." 

I can tell you now with great confidence that this consensus is 

genuine among Montanans. We are fiercely protective about our 

landscape. We want things to remain the way they are. Change is an 

unwelcome character at our fishing streams, in the places where we 

hunt, on our hiking trails, on our ski trails, at our scenic vistas, and in 

the watersheds that store the lifeblood of the agricultural economy -

water. 

Whether talking to ranchers in the Big Hole who like to ride their 

horses on quiet trails, or hunters in Dillon who came upon an 

unexpected clearcut in their favorite hunting spot, the common 

theme is that they just want things to stay the same. 

Wilderness is not the agent of change. We cannot create more 

wilderness. Our choice is to protect wildlands that remain, or lose 

them forever. Wilderness designation keeps the landscape the same 

- the way we are accustomed to experiencing it. 

Evidence of this consensus can be found in the public opinion polls 

commissioned by the Northern Region of the U.S. Forest Service last 

year. In a survey sample that included 2,000 Montana residents, 

two out of three opposed logging roadless areas and 58 percent 

favored more management for wilderness values. Three out of four 

Montanans disagreed with the statement that more areas of the 

national forests should be made available to motorized recreation, 

such as snowmobiling, motorcycling, and other off-road vehicles. 

These national forest surveys show a strong public consensus for 

conservation of roadless lands, quiet trails and wilderness values, 

characterized by those words - "We just want it to stay the way it is." 

In places like the Snowcrest Range, this bill does that - provide a 

promise to the future. The Snowcrest Range will remain the way it 

is; providing watershed, grazing, hunting, outdoor recreation, quiet 

backcountry trails and excellent wildlife habitat. 
132 

There are other areas, however, that H.R. 2473 doesn't insure that 

Montana wildlands will stay the same. 

For example, virtually all pockets of the national forest deemed 

suitable for logging, including many areas vital to wildlife, trout 

fisheries, and maintenance of biological diversity have been deleted 

from proposed wilderness boundaries. Less than one percent (.17) of 

suitable timberlands on Montana national forests would be protected 

as wilderness in H.R. 2473. Amendments are needed to insure that 

proposed wilderness does a good job of conserving mountain 

watersheds, cutthroat and bull trout fisheries, and providing secure 

habitat for lynx, marten, wolverine, grizzly bears, and healthy big 

game herds. All of these things depend on habitat that includes 

suitable timber and intact forests. These amendments are necessary 

to ipsure that we copserve wilderpess areas with jpteerity - with 

habitat and headwaters intact, not just recreational resources. 

• In the headwaters of Rock Creek, blue-ribbon trout fisheries 

depend upon sustained flows from pristine drainages that have been 

omitted from the boundaries of Stony Mountain from Wyman 

Gulch on the Lolo National Forest south to Stony and Duncie Creeks 

on the Deerlodge National Forest. 

• Along the Continental Divide, boundary amendments are 

needed to maintain fragile watersheds, native cutthroat fisheries, 

wildlife habitat and migration corridors on the rugged east side of 

the Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness, south of McDonald Pass near 

Jericho Mountain, and in Little Blackfoot Meadows and in 

Nevada Mountain where half of the roadless habitat essential to 

maintain healthy elk herds, grizzly bears, moose, and wolverine, as 

well as native cutthroat and bull trout has been excluded from the 

small core proposals in H.R. 2473. 

• In the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem of northwest Montana, 

boundaries need to include areas of suitable timber to conserve old 

growth-dependent species at lower elevations bordering the Cabinet 

Mountains Wilderness and the proposed Cube Iron-Mt. Silcox 

wilderness, as well as in the Yaak River Valley. 

• A dozen years ago, Representative Williams and members of this 

committee, successfully defended the integrity of the Bob Marshall 

Region from the assaults of former Interior Secretary James Watt. 

Over the past twelve years, broad coalitions of local citizens have 
133 

fought off ill-advised plans to develop this great wild area 

Montanans simply call "the Bob." 

H.R. 2473 can and should become the legislative vehicle to complete 

this legacy, to truly save "the Bob" for the future - "just the way it 

is." Boundary amendments are necessary to protect traditional 

wilderness trails and wildlife ranges essential to the integrity of the 

Bob Marshall Ecosystem. 

• Along the Rocky Mt. Front, amendments are needed to protect 

winter and spring ranges and migration corridors for the big game 

herds of the Bob Marshall on Ford Creek Plateau, Blackleaf 

Canyon and in the Sawtooth roadless area adjacent to the Sun 

River Game Range. The legal protection of the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness should begin at it's wilderness trailheads in the Teton 

River, Crown Creek and in the headwaters of the Big Blackfoot 

River. In the tributary of Alice Creek, you can literally walk in the 

footsteps of Meriwether Lewis, who followed this ancient Nez Perce 

travois trail over the Continental Divide on July 7, 1806. 

Wilderness trails and surrounding habitat in the remote Spotted 

Bear River area should be fully protected including trails to Dean 

and Bruce Ridges, Lost Jack, Harrison Creek, Schaeffer Creek 

and the lower seven miles of the Spotted Bear River trail. 

• In the Pryor Mountains of eastern Montana, H.R. 2473 protects 

only 9,400 acres, omitting both Crooked Creek Canyon and 

Commissary Ridge on the Custer National Forest, as well as 

adjacent wildlands administered by the National Park Service and 

BLM and recommended for wilderness by both agencies, fragmenting 

what should be a unified Pryor Mountains Wilderness. 

In addition to the above amendments we would like to comment on 

the ecosystem study proposed in H.R. 2473. Wilderness is the basis 

of a sound ecosystem. Wilderness areas are the least influenced by 

the actions of people, and are pristine.We need to have a good 

wilderness preservation system before we make the move ecosystem 

management. We concur with the testimony presented by The 

Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club. 

I would also like to submit a copy of MW A's most recent edition of 

our Montana Roadless Inventory for the record. This inventory 
134 

represents our current proposal for wilderness in National Forest 

lands in Montana. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 
135 

Amendments Needed For Montana Wilderness 

H.R. 2473 

For every acre of Montana roadless land protected in H.R. 2473, two would be 

available for logging, road construction, mining, oil and gas leasing or off-road 

vehicle use. Less than one percent (0.77) of suitable timberlands on Montana 

national forests would be protected as wilderness in H.R. 2473. Here is an outline of areas that must be amended in H.R. 2473. 

Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem 

Yaak -Big Creek wildlands 

H.R 2473 proposes only one of eight qualifying roadless areas in the battered 

Yaak River Valley (Roderick Mt) as wilderness. Buckhorn Ridge and Northwest 

Peaks are proposed as national recreation areas-a category which will allow logging 

and off-road vehicles. A network of nearly 4,000 miles of logging roads has 

fragmented habitat needed to maintain wildlife migration between the Cabinet-Yaak 

ecosystem and British Cohqnbia and Idaho wildlife populations. 

"'H.R. 2473 must be amended to conserve aU remaining roadless areas in the Yaak 

River region of the Kootenai National Forest. 

Cabinet Mountains 

The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness requires substantive additions to 

maintain the backcountry of the Cabinet Mountains. The east face of the Cabinet 

Mountains Wilderness additions fail to protect old-growth forest. The steep slopes 

of Treasure Mountain are deleted from the Cabinet Wilderness additions to 

accommodate plans for a downhill ski area that may never be built. And 

boundaries in Swamp Creek on the Cabinet Ranger District must reach the 

trailhead. 

In the southern end of the Cabinet Mountains, H.R 2473 includes a core 

wilderness in Cube Iron-Mt Silcox, but omits old-growth forest in the lower three 

miles of Thorne Creek and roadless lands adjacent to the Mt Dept. of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks bighorn sheep range. 

"' H.R. 2473 must be amended to extend protection a1ong the east face of the Cabinet 

Mountains, Swamp Creek and to conserve wildlife habitat in Cube lron-Mt Silcox. 

Glacier-Bob Marshall Ecosystem 

Glacier Region 

In the Whitefish and Galton Ranges, west of Glacier National Park, the Ten 

Lakes-Winton Weydemeyer wilderness is not included in this bill, despite the fact 

that it has twice been included in legislation approved by the House. 

"' H.R. 2473 must be amended to restore the Ten Lakes-Winton Weydemeyer 

Wilderness, similar to bills passed in 1987 and 1988 by the House. 
136 

Bob Marshall Wilderness Additions 

H.R 2473 fails to extend boundaries to major trail portals and essential 

wildlife habitat of the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex. Inclusion of historic trails 

into the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex will maintain current uses. 

H.R 2473 must be amended in the following aNas to maintain the integrity of the 

Bob Marshall Wilderness complex: 

Flathead-Swan R4nges • Spotted Bear Trails : Spotted Bear River trail, the Dean Ridge trail, Schaeffer Creek 

trail ( Green Mt-Gunsight Lake), Bruce Ridge, Harrison Creek and Lost Jack trails. 

Rock11 Mountain Frqnt=north to south • Blackleaf Canyon trail • Upper Teton River trails- Roughly seven miles of lower trails omitted including 

portions of four major portals into the Bob Marshall· West Fork Teton, Washboard 

Reef, North Fork Teton and Route Creek Pass trails. 

• Sawtooth roadless area bordering Sun River Game Range 

" Fairview Mt·Ford Creek Plateau 

" Crown Creek trail-portal to Scapegoat Wilderness 

• Alice Creek travois trail-followed by Meriwether Lewis, July 7, 1806. 

Island Ranges 

Little Belts and Big Snowies 

H.R 2473 does not protect a single acre of wilderness in the Uttle Belt 

Mountains, including the limestone canyons of Tenderfoot Deep Creek along the 

Smith River. Middle Fork Judith and Big Snowies are unaffectecl by H.R 2473. 

"H.R. 2473 must be amended to include Tenderfoot Deep Creek, Middle Fork 

Judith and the Big Snowies as wilderness. 

Crazys, Big Belts IUld Elkhoms 

The Crazy Mountains are proposed as a combination wilderness and 

wilderness study in areas of checkerboard private inholding&. Conservationists 

support this proposal as a step in the right direction and urge that wilderness 

boundaries include all roadless public lands. In the Big Belts, H.R 2473 fails to 

include critical elk habitat in Confederate Gulch, Atlanta and Mule creeks of Camas 

Creek. The Elkhorns proposal in H.R 2473 omits roadless lands in the Deerlodge 

National Forest, Muskrat Creek (BLM) and the nzer Basin area. 

" H.R. 2473 must be amended to include consolidated public lands in Big Elk Creek, 

the American Fork and Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek of the Crazy Mountains 

and critical elk habitat in Camas Creek and the Elkhorn Mountains. 
137 

Southeast Wildlands 

H.R. 2473 protects only 9,400 acres of the Pryor Mountains, omitting 

spectacular Commissary Ridge and Crooked Creek Canyon on the Custer National 

Forest. Adjacent wildlands administered by the National Park Service and Bureau 

of Land Management and recommended for wilderness by both agencies are not 

included in Williams' bill, foolishly fragmenting what should be a unified Pryor 

Mountains Wilderness. The colorful Tongue River Breaks receive no protection in 

H.R. 2473, despite being recommended for wilderness by the Custer National 

Forest. 

• H R 2473 must be amended to include Tongue River Breaks and a unified proposal 

for the Pryor Mountains Wilderness. 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

H.R. 2473 fails to protect Dome Mountain, Emigrant and Chico additions 

along the Paradise Valley and deletes the popular George Lake trail from the 

Paradise Face addition. Also missing from A/8 additions are very popular 

wilderness trails in Silver-Run and Basin Creek area, north of Red Lodge. 

H.R. 2473 fails to protect seven miles of the Continental Divide in Lionhead, 

10 miles west of Yellowstone National Park. This deletion cuts out important 

bighorn sheep wintering areas as well as companion proposals in Targhee Creek 

(Idaho) of the Henry Mountains. 

• H. R. 2473 must be amended to include Wapiti-Silver Run, George Lake trail, and 

the Dome Mt-Emigrant and Chico complex of additions, just north of Yellowstone 

National Park. Watkins and Coffin creeks should be restored to Lionhead. 

Continental Divide (south) 

West of Yellowstone National Park, H.R. 2473 includes sound proposals for 

Mt. Jefferson and Italian Peaks, but omits Garfield Ml and Lima Peaks, along the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. 

• H.R. 2473 must be amended to include Garfield Mt.-Lima Peaks. 

Blue Ribbon Headwaters 

Proposed additions to the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness omit lands on both 

slopes of the Continental Divide, east of Storm Lake. The Sapphires wilderness 

study area, on the northwest borders of the Anaoonda-Pintler Wilderness, is not 

addressed in H.R. 2473. H.R. 2473 omits most of the Deerlodge National Forest 

section of the Stony Mountain proposed wilderness, as well as excellent wildlife 

habitat in Wyman, Williams and Juno Gulch of the Lolo National Forest, bordering 

the blue-ribbon trout waters of Rock Creek. 
138 

The Flint Creek Range is split into two small, fragmented wilderness units. 

Not a single acre of the Tobacco Roots roadless area is protected in H. R. 2473, 

despite being included in previous wilderness bills passed by the House. 

• H.R. 2473 must be amended to include solid boundaries on for Anaconda-Pintler 

Wilderness additions. Stony Mountain must include expanded boundaries in the 

Rock Creek watershed of both the Deerlodge and Lolo National Forests. Dolus Lakes 

must be joined to the main Flint Creek Range proposal. The Tobacco Roots must be 

included in amendments to H.R. 2473. 

Bitterroot Crest 

The lSO,ooo-acre Allan-Piquett roadless area, straddling the Idaho -Montana 

border, is released in H.R. 2473, as is a string of roadless areas in the Bitterroot 

Range near Chief Joseph Pass. These roadless areas are essential stepping stones of 

excellent habitat linking wildlife populations of the Central Idaho wilderness 

complex to those of the Greater Yellowstone and Glacier-Bob Marshall ecosystems. 

• H.R. 2473 must be amended to conserve these vital ecosystem links. 

Continental Divide (north) 

H.R. 2473 protects only half of the popular Little Blackfoot Meadows and 

Nevada Mountain roadless areas, omitting vital elk, bear, wolverine and lion 

habitat and travel corridors along the Continental Divide. H.R. 2473 omits Bear 

Gulch and several miles of the Continental Divide trail from the Black Mountain 

proposed wilderness. 

• H.R. 2473 must be amended to include remaining roadless lands in Little 

Blackfoot Meadows, Jericho Mt·Bear Gulch, and Nevada Mountain areas. 

Bureau of Land Management--Wilderness Study 

H.R. 2473 removes the 59,ooo-acre Bitter Creek prairie from wilderness study 

status. Bitter Creek is the largest BLM study area in Montana and the largest area 

under wilderness consideration in the American prairie. H.R. 2473 also release a 

portion of the Axolotyl Lakes BLM wilderness study area. No BLM lands are 

proposed for wilderness in this bill. 

• H.R. 2473 must be amended to restore BLM wilderness study areas. 
139 

TBSTIMONY OP NORM NEWHALL 

PRBSIDENT OF THB ISLAND RANGI CHAPTBR. OJ' THZ 

MONT~ WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION 

Chairman Vento and Membere of the HO\Iae SubcommittM. My name 

1• Norm Bewhall an4 • •• currently President of the I•land Ranta 

C:hapt:e'l:' of the Montana 1Ulc1erne.. A .. oc::l.ation. Thank you for 

allovi:lSl me t~;~ teatify today regarding House Bill 2473, tl'le Montan. 

Wildo~n••• Act of 1g93, 

The Island R&Dge Cbapte~ ie baaed in Great Pallt, Montaaa. 

I~• t•rritor,v extend• from eouth central MOntana to the Canadian 

border and •••t from the Con~inental Diviu to the beginnira; of the 

Fort Peck Reeervoi~ on tha Miseouri River - a territory nearly the 

air.• of the State of Virginia. 

The bland 'IIIOUDtain rang•• in our Chapter territor,y are a 

future of the ~cky Mounta1ne tb&t b unique to ~Mntral Montazaa, 

Tbey r:Lae pracipitou•ly ~~· the aurrounding prairiae - fore~ed 

ialand.e in a aea of high plain•. There u. 11ix bland ru.g~~• in 

the Jeffer80Jl D1v1aion of the Lowia c. Clark National l'oreat. OZ!.a 

raa;o alon., th• Little Belt Mountain&, c~ri••• an area the eis• 

of Rhode Ielan4. 
140 

Portion• of Houae Bill 2473 are well conoeivedJ however, a• 

drafted, this ia not a NRQt•P' Wil6arnoaa Bill. Rathe~ it 1• a 

Wt1ttm Montana Wilde.."'1'l.e•• Bill. OUt of 1. 2 million acr.. of 

national foreet in the 1al.and 11101mtain range• oi: the .::reffer•on. 

Divieion not one acre ia praaerved •• wilderneaa. Bxcept for the 

Crazy Mountain• near Billing•, the Bill praaervee no wildeme•• at 

all in any of the antire eaatern t.wo-thi:r4a of Montana. 

We 4o not propoae wilderneaa for all of theee rang... Rather, 

we propoae wllde:naaa for fcur apeeific aroAat 

1. Tenderfoot/Deep Creak in the Little Belt Mountains 

(1ncl.ud1n; Smith River cwnyonl1 

2. Mi4dle rork of the Judith River in the Little Belt 

Mountaine1 

3. Tho Biv snowy Mountainat and 

4. Pilgrim creek in the Little Belt Mountain•. 

Theae areaa are not newcomeZ"a to the Wilcleftllll clebate. 8oth 

the Middle Fork of the Judith River and the Big Snowya are 

w1lderne,. atudy area• WI..S.z: t.l\e U77 Motc::alf W:l.l«lerne•• Bill (S. 

:nJ l . '!.'he t.imber inctuat!ry included the Tenderfoot/Deep Creek area 

a• wildern••• in a 1988 propoaal to Senator lauou•. · ln t:he 

unouooeaaf~ aurna/aaueua Bill of 19t2, Tanderfoot/Deep creek ... 

propoaed ae a national recreation area. i'i,lgrim craet 1• in aloH 

-:a-
141 

proximity to Tenderfoot/Peep Creek. It ia a natural ad~unct to 

Tander!oot/:C.ep C:reek and, aa a1.1c:h, ehoulci be inc:luc!aci in the 

pre•ent.Bill. 

The,. areaa provide epectaculu scenery, critical wilcUUe 

haDitat, important waterahec! protection and abundant recreational 

opportunities in the ~orm of hunting, fishing, backpacking, etc. 

But theee attri:Outu do not make them unique from many other 

wildernes• areaa. Why then ehould theee areas be included in HB 

24.73? 

Firat, a criticbm often leveled at wilderne.• 18 that it 

denies access to la"i'• m•r.We.ca o~ people. Perhaps the most notable 

feature of wild landa in the hland mountain ranges ia their 

acceslibility. Wilderneaa should not be confinecS only to tbe 

hiiheat and moat remote moun~ain crags and peaks. We agree that 

wilderness ebould be accessible. Inclusion of these areas will 

protect wilc!e:rneas that ~ acc:oaeible. 

Conversely, the acceasibility of wild lands in the island 

mountain ran!l•• i• aleo their Achilles • heel. 'l'heea priatine ueaa 

are particularly vulnerable because of their acces1ibility. Their 

value ae wild lands will not De preaarvec! without protection •• 

wilcie:rneaa. 
142 

Second, to date, theee area• have not bHn 1ul:>jecte<2 to 

aign1t1cant preeeur•• from lo;ving and mining intereeta that have 

made wilde:rne•• deaignation in other ar .. • of the et:ate 10 

controvere1al. only an of all la.mltl 111 the Jeffereon D:l.vidon 

have b••n claaaified •• •auitable• fo:r timber px-oduction. Not one 

of thelle areu hal ever been logSJedl not one of them laa u:periencad •ign:l.ficant oil drilling or mininsr development. The 

preeervation of theee area• ie a win/win propoaition - the areal 

can be p:r:eee,;ved •• wilde:r:ne .. with little or no img&ot upon 

extTactive induatrie•. 

Third, eignific:ant pre .. ure by off·road vehie~le uaera to omit 

thea• a:z-.. 111 from wild•rn••• cot1aideration only highlights the 

urgency of including tbelll. If the are .. we propo" uw inclu~ in 

the Wildernea• Bill, of£-road vehicl• ueer• atill have naarly one 

million aore• of the total of 1.2 million acre• in the Jeffer•on 

Divi.:Lon of the :t.ewia r. Clark Nat.icmal ror••t. available for 

reor-tion. 

some would a;rgue that w.1.ldern••• •locka out• off-road vohiele 

uae. To the contrary, off~:road vehicle ute of every acre of publio 

land in tbe Jef!terson D1viaion of tbe lle'Wil • Clu-k National Ponat: 

diaeouras•• uae of tho•• lan&l by non-meoMnhed. rec:reation&liltl. 

Recent poll• cond.uc~ed bY the t.ew11 • Clark Rational ron•t 

-·~ 
148 

indicate that more than 90t o~ all trail uae ~n the foraat 11 ngnmoto:dz:e<1. Tho int.ereat.a of tho v .. t. majority of people ahould not 

be subordinated to the interest• of a few. 

;·ourth, •• drafted, 1m .2473 iM groaaly ~:rUt of balance. 'rho 

area of Montana lying eaat of thA main Rockiea include• 60 million 

acrea. Presently only one·l1alf of one-tenth of one percent of that 

area ie conaerved •• wilderneaa. (UL lend of the Miaaouri River 

and Medicine ~e) According to the Lewie & Clark National Foreat 

Plan there are 650, 000 ocree of roadleae bAd in the .:Jeftereon 

Diviaion alone. JUtt one of tbe ialand rangea, the Little Belt 

Mount Una, include• 14 inveneoried roac51o.. area•. Yet not a 

aingle aere ia conaarvad ae wildern•••· 

one of our moat famoue MOntar:&JW, cowboy artht, C'hal"le• M. 

Rueooll, whoa• atatue i• here in the Capitol Rotunda aaid, •Th••• 

parkt and the mountain• behind them named with dnr, elk, 

lllOl.i.ntain eheep, a~.d bear. The oreeicll weft alive with tz:out. 

Nature ha4 surely !!one her beat, and no kint of the old tim .. could 

have clai111ed • mor. bee1,1tifu.l and bolmt:iful 4omain. • C:hlu:li• 

Ruaaell was not talking about tho higt and di•tant Rockie1, he we. 

ta.J.Iting about the JUdith River in the t.ittle Belt Mow\taina of 

o•ntral Montana- the •original canva•" !or Charlie'• workl. 

-li-
144 

The.e area• hav. not changed tinea they wen laet l)ropo•e<~ for 

wilderne.,., 'l'!l.cy we¥'• incl·..t.dec! in earli•r bilb and they ahould be 

included now. What b&• changed it the politic•. Congre .. man 

William• h&• app~uache4 th• wildern••• i••~e with an open mind in 

the p .. t - Ron Marlenee did not. Congre,.man Williau b&• 

graciO\;Ily aVOW6CI to be receptive to amend!Mnt• ot tbia Bill. HD 

2473 eho~ld ~ ameDded to inelude theae ar•••· 

I conclude with what I have aaid ~etore, we are not aaking 

for the moen - we aze aaking only that the •ntire aaat•rn twothirda of Montana not be forgotten, that balance be re1torecs to the 

W1ldarne.. de~t• ill Montana1 that th .. a laat few araaa :l..n the 

ieland rangea of eantr.al Montana be includad aa wilderne•• in Houn 

Bill 2473. 
145 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Frasier from the National Wildlife Federation, 

we are pleased to welcome you. Try to give your statement in about 

five minutes, please. 

STATEMENT OF STAN FRASIER 

Mr. FRAsiER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Stan Frasier. I am a lifelong resident of Helena, 

Montana, and I am here today speaking as vice president of the 

Montana Wilderness Federation and also on behalf of the Montana 

Wildlife Federation and also on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation. 

While we appreciate the hard work that went into H.R. 2473, we 

do believe that some improvements are needed. The conservationists, hunters, anglers and wildlife enthusiasts who make up the 

membership of the Montana and National Wildlife Federations 

have long supported comprehensive wilderness legislation because 

habitat protection is essential for wildlife. And, quite simply, the 

future of Montana's world-class fish and wildlife populations depend on the pristine watersheds and forests these wilderness areas 

provide. 

As we have come to better understand the critical importance of 

naturally functioning habitats to all fish and wildlife species, the 

importance of building a strong and comprehensive wilderness system has been further underscored. Wilderness designation protects these wilderness areas upon which the native fish and wildlife spe- cies of the Northern Rockies depend. Since the 1930s, Montanans have worked to ensure healthy wildlife populations. Winter game ranges have been established. Elk 

and b1ghorn sheep have been transplanted into habitats from 

which they were previously eradicated, and the State of the Montana has carefully managed hunting seasons to provide for the 

abundant and healthy wildlife populations that the State enjoys today. 

But now some of these achievements are in jeopardy. Many of 

Montana's western valleys are being heavily subdivided. This develoP.ment is fracturing big game corridors and destroying wildlife 

hab1tats. And, at the same time, heavy timber harvests on both 

public and private timberlands and the development of an extensive forest road network have increased wildlife vulnerability and 

seriously degraded many outstanding watersheds. 

Montana is losing habitat, and when habitat is lost, we lose wildlife. That is why the Montana wilderness legislation before you is 

so very critical for the sportsmen and sportswomen of Montana and 

the Nation. 

We certainly appreciate the inclusion of the Snowcrest Range 

and the north end of the Crazies which also provides protection for 

outstanding big game habitat. 

I think the opportunity exists in this session of Con¥I'ess to protect additional areas that warrant inclusion in the national wilderness system, and I would urge this committee to include the following lands in this bill: The Helena Lewis and Clark National Forest, 

the Black Mountain area, Little Blackfoot Meadows and Nevada 

mountain, which contains an elk herd of approximately 1,000 elk, 
146 

and the Tenderfoot Deep Creek areas, which is the headwaters of 

the Smith River. 

In northwestern Montana, the Kootenai Forest, we would like to 

see the boundaries of Kootenai and Mount Silcox wilderness area 

expanded and also the Cabinet wilderness additions. 

Along the Rocky Mountain, which is the gateway to the Bob Marshall wilderness complex, we would like to add the Blackleaf Canyon and expand the Renshaw area around Ford Creek Plateau. 

We would also like to add the middle fork of the Judith which 

has the largest elk herd in central Montana. 

And the Rock Creek in western Montana, we would urge the inclusion of the entire Stony Mountain wilderness area. 

I would like to briefly address the issue of economics as it pertains to H.R. 2473. This bill provides protection for only 3 percent 

of the suitable timber found on roadless lands in Montana. Wilderness legislation will not impact the timber industry in any negative 

way. However, tourism, outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing are 

a vital part of Montana's economy. In fact, recreation in Montana 

is now the number two segment of our economy behind agriculture. 

This bill is a good start, and with our amendments we believe 

it can be a better bill. If we can provide greater protection for the 

wildlife habitat that is critical for the survival of our fisheries and 

big . 

ess is not about acres and not about jobs. Wilderness is 

about places where wildlife needs to survive. These wild places are 

a benefit to all of us even if we never go there. The benefits come 

to us in the form of clean air, clean water and abundant wildlife. 

And I also have some letters I would like to submit from fish and 

gl'UD.e biologists from around the State that work for the State of 

Montana and also from sportsmen and sportsmen's groups from 

around the State who would like to see these wilderness areas that 

they use preserved and protected. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Frasier. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Frasier follows:] 
147 

MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION · P.O. Box 1175, Hekma, MT 59624 406-449·7604 .lA --@~~~--'-----

SfATEMENT OF 

SFAN FRASIER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS 

MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

AND THE 

MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMI'ITEE 

SUBCOMITfEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

REGARDING DR 2473 

July 20, 1993 

Preserving for future generations the legacy of Montana's wildlife .... 
148 

Mr. Chairman and meJibers of the co-ittee, my na.e is stan Frasier, and I am a volunteer conservationist speaking today as Vice-President for the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF} and on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF}. Both MWF and 

NWF strongly endorse H.R. 2473 -- the 1993 Montane wilderness 

bill -- and believe that with certain key i~rovements, it will 

be a piece of wilderness legislation that the entire nation can view with pride. At the outset, I would like to extend my thank& to Congressman Pat Williams for both the perseverance and the 

leadership he has shown on this difficult issue. This bill was developed with the trademark Willia.a approach. It was built on the solid work of past legislative efforts to protect Montana's 

wild lands, but as in years past, it was finally written only after hundreds of hours of discussion with Montanans fr011 across the state. AS such, this legislation represents the best effort to date to reach balance and consensus in Montana's wilderness 

desiqnation process. 

The conservationists, hunters, anglers and wildlife 

enthusiasts who make up the membership or the Montana and 

National Wildlife Federations have long supported strong and 

comprehensive wilderness legislation tor a single reeson: what is 

good tor wilderness is good tor wildlife. Quite siJIPlY, the 

future of Montana's world-class fish and wildlife populations depends on the pristine watersheds and forests which wilderness 

designation protects. As we have co.a to better understand the 

critical importance of naturally functioning habitats to all fish 

and wildlife species, the importance of building a strong and 

comprehensive wilderness systsm has been further underscored. 

wilderness provides the core protected areas upon which the 

native fish and wildlife species of the northern Rockies depend. 

Since the 1930s, Montanans have worked to ~~~~Sure the healthy wildlife populations that exist today. Winter gaae ranges have 

been established, elk and bighorn sheep have been transplanted into habitats from which they were previously extirpeted, end the state of Montana haa carefully aanaqed hunting eeasone to provide for the abundent and healthy wildlife population• the state enjoys today. But now, these achievements are in jeopardy. 

Many of Montana's western valleys are being heavily subdivided as foraar ranches and farms are turned into 

recreational and residential ho .. sites. This development is 

fracturing wildlife corridors and destroying wildlife habitat. 

At the saJle ti .. , heavy timber harvestinq on both public end 

private timberland• and the developaent of an extensive forest , road network have increased wildlife vulnerability and seriously degraded .any outstandinq watersheds. Other threats, such as a booming hard rock mining industry and the heavy utilization of 

Montana's limited water resources, are also threatening fish and 

wildlife habitat. 
149 

The coGination of theae eventa ia 110vinq Montana in a direction that ia very aiaple to underatend: we are loaing habitat, and when habitat ia loat, ao ia wildlife. That ia why, Mr. Chairaan, the Montana wilderneaa legialation before you ia ao very critical to the aport-n and wo.en of Montana and acroaa thia .nation. If thia iaaue ia reaolved progreaaively, Montana 

wildlife wina, and when Montana wildlife wina, our atate and our nation have a chance to preaerve a reaource that aiaply ia not and cannot be found elaewbere. 

H.R. 2473 aakea an excellent atart in protecting the 

critical wildlife habitat that ia rapidly becoainq imperiled in 

Montana. Specifically, the inclusion of the Snowereat Range and 

the north end of the craziea providea protection for outatanding big--game habitat and recreational opportunitiea. Certainly, when 

theae iaportent additiona are viewed within the context of the 

extenaive iaprov-enta achieved by Congreaaaan Vento and 

Congreaaaan Williaaa in the laat aeaaion of Congreaa, H.R. 2473 

ia a excellent piece of legialation. 

aut while we aincerely appreciate the excellent work that 

baa been done to date, the opportunity exiata, in thia aeaaion of 

congreaa, to protect additional areaa that warrant incluaion in 

the national wilderneaa ayatea. We would urge the co .. ittee to give cloae conaideration to including the following landa in the 

final bill that la reported to the Houae floor: 

Beleaa Batioaal woreat a441tioaat The Helena National 

Forest baa been heavily iapacted by logging, but two outstanding roadleaa areaa deaerve wilderneaa protection. While H.R. 2473 

aakea a good atart by deaignatinq the Black Mountain/Mount Helena 

wilderneaa area on the weat aide of the foreat, the Little 

Blackfoot Meadowa and Nevada Mountain abould alao be brought into 

the wilderneaa ayat-. Both of theae areaa provide critical 

aacurity areaa for the elk population• centered alonq the 

continental Divide. 

on the eaat aide of the Helena Foreat, every effort should 

aade to protect the saith River waterahed. Thia river baa gained national attention in the peat 10 yeara, and ia now recognized aa one of the pr-ier floating and fiahing opportunities in the 

country. An expending recreational econoay ia developing within 

the waterabed, even while potentially aiqnificant water quality probl ... reaain. Aa an exaaple, Rock Creek, an iaportant tributary, baa been heavily !apacted by loqging and now contributes unacceptable levela of aediaent to the S.ith. Aa 

auch, we atrongly recoaaend wilderneaa deaiqnation to protect the 

Tenderfoot/Deep Creek and Pilqria Creek areaa, which are mainatay• o~ the saith'• waterahed, providing late-aeaaon flow• 

and bigb--guality watera. Tbia addition aakea aenae not only fro• a bioloqical perspective, but alao froa an econoaic one. 

- 2 -
150 

Jronlnreat: Mat:aaa1 o~ all the national foruta in Jlontana, 

the Kootenai baa bHn the -•t h .. vily illpacted by l099ing and 

road wilding. lUI aueh, the few ar .. a of roadlua land that 

r-in are critically illport:ent to the thr .. taned griasly bear, 

the ~ed wolf and the nc.Jion•a bi9'-<Jim8 populationa. Givan 

theae facta, we urg-a the ~ttea to expand t:ha boundariH· ~ 

the propoaed CUba Iron/lit Silcox wildernua area to include lands 

identified by the ~ttea of envi~taliata and llill workers 

that developed the Jtootenai-Lolo Wildernua ACcord~~ in 1990. 

Again, becauae of t:ha critical J..port.ance of prot:ectinq wildlife 

aecurity areaa, we alao urg-a the cc.aittee to .edify B.a. 2473 to include an additional 41,000 acres adjacent to the cabinet 

Mountain Wilderneaa. These additions were also agreed upon in 

the Accords. 

The :hOkf JIOIUit:elll ftoatl lUI the 9ateway to the Bob 

Jlarahall Wilderneea ~lex, and aa an area of exceptional biol09ical prodUctivity, parbape no part of JIOnt:ana better 

syaboliaea t:ha.state•a heritage of wildlife and wilderne .. than 

the Roc)ty Jlountain Front. Yet evan today, two t.portant areas along the rront need protection. Firat, the Blacltl .. f canyon, whieh provides essential grbaly bear, 110untain goat and bighorn ahHp habitat, should be included in B;a. 2473. Second, in the 

Renahaw Area· around Ford creeJt Plateau, areas that serve aa critical elk calving and bigborn lllllbing grounds should be added. 

Mi441e l'olrlt of tbe OJ'a4itlu RoadlHa lands are a rare co.aod.ity in central Jlolltana, and eo we urge the ~ttee to include the Middle Fork of t:ha Judith roadl ... area in B.a. 2473. 

The Middle Pork of the JUdith baa the largest elk herd in central 

Montana. Because the Middle Pork .abuts the existing Judith Gaae 

range, ita designation •• wilderness would cr .. te a ai911ificant 

wildlife reserve in this region. Designation of the Middle Fork 

would also protect tha area•• fishery and higb-quality watera. 

Jtoak creeJr.a Bast of Mia110ula ia t:ha Rock creek drainage, with a CJZ"OVill9 national reputation for ita great beauty and 

outstanding bunting and fishing. Lilta the Saith, t:ha long-terJl .. intenanoe of this storied atr ... is dependent on the protection 

ot ita tributary waters, and the Stony crae~t roadlua ar .. ia a key coaponent of thia 9oal. Under H.R. 2473, the Stony creek area, vbieh borders Rock Creek, is only partially protacted. we urge the incluaion of the entire Stony craelt roadleaa area. 

lUI the c.,..ittea conaidere the- proposed a44itiona, I would 

lilta to briefly addrHa the issue of .conoaica aa it pertain• to H.R. 2473. Jlontane•a roadlHa inventory conaiata of aa.e six 

aillion acres. ot thia inventory, t:ha Forest Service baa 

identified ti~ suitable tor 10991119 on about 1.2 •illion acres. H.R. 2473 protacta, through wilderness dui911ation, only 50,000 acre• or three percent of the suitable t~ found on roadleea lands in Jlontana. The- facta llllke it patently clear 

- 3 -
151 

that this wilderness legislation will not iqpact the tiaber 

inc:lustry in any negative way; inc:laed, by finally endin9 this 

round of the wilderness debate, H.R. 2473 should help stabilize 

the industry by providing certain answers on the available 109 

supply. 

At the beginning- of my statement I made the observation that 

Montana ie chang-ing-. A8 a part of that change, our atate•a 

dependence on tourism and recreational u a vital econ011io 

COJIPOllent ia increaeing astronomically. Whereas strong ar9UJ1ente can be .. de fr011 a biol09ical perspective for protection of theaa 

roadlesa lands, in this day and age such debates often COII8 down 

to econ011ica. 

In this light, I would request that this co.aittee reCQ9nize the economic value of this bill aa it fits. into the eaerging recreation-baaed economy of Montana, eapecially wben juxtaposed with ita minimal effect on a timber ecoJI.OIIY that ia clearly on the wane in ou~ state. 

Mr. Chairman, lltlllbera of the COIIIIIIittee, H.R. 2473 1a a good bill, and with our aaenc:lmente, it will be a great bill. 

Montanan• want this ieaue resolVed, and thie bill will accomplish this qoal wile protectinq wildlife habitats that are critical to 

the northern Rockies. Thank you. 

- ' -
152 

Mr. VENTO. And I note that Mr. Newhall had mentioned that you had a newspaper article and some other materials that you wanted 

us to consider. And if you would submit those, we will make a determination as to what would be in the record and what should be 

in the committee files. 

It seemed to me there was a lengthy presentation and, unless 

there were modifications in the appendix, we obviously would put that in the record, Mr. Frasier? so that the letters that you have 

commented on there, if you would pass those to the clerk at your right, we will place those in the record without objection. [The letters follows:] 
153 

July 9, 1993 1404 8th Avenue 

John Gatchell 

Montana Wilderness Association 

P.O. Box 635 

Helena, MT 59624 

Dear John: 

Helena, MT 59620 

Reqarding your request fer wildlife information pertinent to the 

proposed Nevada Mountain and Black MOuntain Wilderness areas, and 

the proposed Mt. Helena recreation corridor I offer the following profession opinions. 

Nevada Mountain is a critical component of the elk ecosystem between Helen and Lincoln, in addition their is gathered evidence 

of this areas importance as grizzly bear ha.bitat. This logical 

extension of occupied grizzly bear ha.bitat ia important becaUIIIe of 

the reccqnized need to maintain genetic linkaqes to other bear 

populations. Nevada Mountain includes the adjacent peaks and 

watershed headwaters of Little Prickly Pear creek (Missouri River 

tributary), Poor Man, Nevada, Washinqton, Ophir, Three mile, 

snowshoe, and Dcq creek (Blackfoot Tributaries). All drainaqes 

have been heavily loqqed up to the current roadless boundary so that Nevada Mountain remains a timbered island surrounded by roads 

and timber cuttinq units. As a result, its value as secure intact 

wildlife habitat is siqnificantly magnified. 

The Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks recently entered into an agreement with local landowners ,on the northeast edqe of the Nevada 

Mountain area to manage their range for wildlife, particularly for 

biq qame winter ranqe. Many of the elk and mule deer that winter 

east of the continental divide and Nevada Mountain in little 

prickly pear creek sUIIIIIIer on the divide on and around Nevada 

Mountain, Nevada Mountain becom- extremely important in the fall as breeding habitat and a secure haven that provides substantial 

hunter opportunity 

The proposed Black Mountain wilderness, because it is within 

walkinq distance of the Helena city limits and , because the 

surroundinq land has been siqnificantly altered by home 

development, mininq, loqqinq and roads, has also become an area exceptionally valuable becaUIIIe ot its relationship to deqraded 

habitat that surrounds it. In particular, moose, elk and mule deer 
John Gatchell 

July 9, 1993 

Page 2 of 2 

154 

rely on Black Mountain for nesic summer habitats and fall security. 

Linked to. Black Mountain, by way of the Mt. Helena ridge, is the 

proposed Kt. Helena recreation corridor. The Mt. Helena ridge, 

bordered by grizzly gulch on the east and ten mile creek on the 

west, constitutes winter range for all the species summering in the 

proposed Black Mountain wilderness. Big game not only migrate south to Black Mountain from their winter range on the Mt. Helena 

ridge, but also east to Skyhi Peak, Jackson Peak, and Sheep Mountain near Clancy, and west toward Priest and Mullen passes on the continental divide. This winter range extends to the Helena 

city liMits it self, and as such provides a unique opportunity for 

preserve the ecological relationship between our wildlife heritage and the human culture of Kontanas capital city. 

We thank you for requesting information on these extremely valuable 

wildlife areas. 

GJ/bc 

Sincerely, 

( •·t-'-lb 

~r- .1 ~.,:}_Lk v 

Gayle Joslin 

Wildlife Biologist 
~'DepwtDtfUfl 

qf 

155 

'ftrlt, 1tfldlffe G& Jlwf@ 

July 9, 1993 1404 8th Avenue 

John Gatchell 

Montana Wilderness Association 

P.o. Box 635 

Helena, MT 59624 

Dear John: 

Helena, HT 59620 

Reqardinq your request tor wildlife information pertinent to the 

proposed Nevada Mountain and Black Mountain Wild.ern-s areas, and 

the proposed Mt. Helena recreation corridor I offer the followinq profession opinions. 

Nevada Mountain is a critical component of the elk ecoaystbetween Helen and. Lincoln, in addition their ia qathered evidence 

ot this areas importance aa qrizzly bear habitat. This loqical 

extension of occupied qrizzly bear habitat is important because of 

the recoqnized need to maintain qenetic liuaqea to other bear 

populations. Nevada Mountain includes the adjacent peake and 

watershed headwaters of Little Prickly Pear creek {Missouri River 

tributary) , Poor Man, Nevada, Waahinqton, Ophir, Three mile; 

Snowshoe, and. Doq Creek (Blackfoot Tributariaa). All d.rainaqea 

have been heavily loqqed. up to the current roadless boundary so that Navada Mountain re~~aina a timbered island surrounded by roads 

and timber cuttinq units. Aa a result, its value as secure intact 

wildlife habitat is aiqniticantly maqnitied. 

The Department of Fish, Wildlife ' Parks recently entered into an aqre-ent with local landowners on the northeast edqe of the Nevada 

Mountain area to manaqe their ranqe tor wildlife, particularly tor 

biq qame winter ranqe. Many of the elk and IIUle deer that winter 

east of the continental divide and Nevada Mountain in little 

prickly pear creek S1Jllllller on the divide on and around Nevada 

Mountain, Nevada Mountain becoaaa extr_.ly important in the tall as breedinq habitat and a secure haven that provides substantial 

hunter opportunity 

The proposed Black Mountain wilderness, because it is within 

walkinq distance of the Selena city limits and ·becau- the 

surround.inq land. has been siqnificantly altered by home 

development, mininq, loqqinq and roaa, has also beco .. an area exceptionally valuable because of its relationship to deqradec1 

habitat that surrounds it. In particular, moo-, elk andliUle deer 
John Gatchell 

July 9, 1993 

Page 2 of 2 

156 

rely on Black Mountain for nesic summer habitats and !all security. 

Linked to Black Mountain, by way of the Mt. Helena ridge, is the 

proposed Mt. Helena recreation corridor. The Mt. Helena ridge, 

bordered by grizzly qulch on the east and tan mile creek on the 

west, constitutes winter range for all the species summering in the 

proposed Black Mountain wilderness. Biq qame not only migrate south to Black Mountain from their winter ranqe on the Mt. Helena 

ridge, but also east to Skyhi Peak, Jackson Peak, and Sheep 

Mountain near Clancy, and west toward Priest and Mullen passes on the continental divide. This winter ranqe extends to the Helena 

city limits it self, and as such provides a unique opportunity for 

preserve the ecoloqical relationship between our wildlife heritage and the human culture of Montanaa capital city. 

We thank you for requesting information on these axtrellely valuable 

wildlife areas. 

GJ/bc 

Sincerely, 

g-o-~ ~~ Gayle Joslin 

Wildlife Biologist 
Stan Frasier 

Montana Wildlife Faderation 

Box 117~ 

Helena, Montana ~9~24 

157 

7/1:5/93 

I am writing in regard• to the Little Blackfoot Meadows and 

the Black Mtn.-Mt. Helena wildernews proposals • ... ...... Tt'Hj,;,a:.,.a .p0.4iposed for inclusion into wi ldern•ss in th• 

Little Blackfoot "'-&dews .area take!! in a eAjor portion of 

the spring, summ•r and fall habitat of the elk h•rd in 

Hunting District 21s-01. This herd currently consi!lts of 

about ~00 h••d which i• the manageeent objective. Th• 

winter rAnge for this population li•s to the west at lower 

elevation• on public; and privatelands. 

The elk h•rd utilizing the proposed exten•icn of the Black 

Mtn.-Mt. Helena wildern .. s area consists of b•tween ~o-7~ 

head that wint•r just to th• west of the area in Hike ~enig 

Bulch. Th•s• elk dep•nding on w•ather conditions will u•• parts of Sect. 14 ~ 23 T9N RbW on the we•t side of the 

Divide du.-ing the winter. ·rne propos•d exten•ion 

incorporates part of this h•rds spring, eummer and fall 

rang•• There appear• to be so~ int•rchange b•tw••n this 

h•rd and a group of elk that winter between Tenmile cr•ek 

and Colorado Bulch. 
91.1an Fr-ier 

Montana Wildlife F.Oera~ion 

EloK 11715 

Hltlena, Montana !9eo24 

158 

7/115/93 

I - writtne in ~ard• to the Little Blackfoot "-•dows ana 

the Black ."'!'·-ftt:- Hlll11na ootldern-• proposal•· 

~-~~ ..... ;~--.c~ 1'ar inclusion into wtld•rn-s tn tl'l• 

l..i'1it11t' B1ackfoo.t l'!e6daws .. ,.... takes ift a ••Jar portion of 

th• .Prine, •-r and fall habi tllt o-f the elk herd in 

Hunting District 215-01. This h•rd currently consists of 

about !00 h••d which ia the ~•n•g•..nt ob~.ctive. The 

winter ranee for this population lies to the west at lower 

•lvvations on public and privatel&nds. 

The elk herd utilizing the propaaed eHtensicn of the Black 

Mtn.-Ht. Helena wilderness area consists of bet~ SG-75 

h .. a that winter just to the west of the area in Mike Rente 

Sulch. Th ... elk depending on weather conditions w11l us. 

parts o~ Beet. 14 • 23 T9N R6W on the we•t side of the 

Divide during the wtnter. The propa .. d extension 

incorporates part of this h•ra• sprtna, ~r and fall 

range. There appears to be some interchanee bet~en thie 

herd and a eraup of elk that winter betw•en Tenmile c....-k 

and Colorado Bulen. 

O..n Hook 

81ologitSt 
159 

MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

P.O. Box 1175, Helena. MT 59624 406-449-7604 

1990 Outstanding State AffiOate of the National Wildlife Federation 

March 3, 1993 

Representative Bruce Vento, Chairman 

Natural Parks, Forest and PUblic Lands Subcomaittee 

U S House of Representatives washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Vento; 

Montana's Rocky Mountain Front roadless lands, an important 

part of the Glacier-Bob Marhall Ecosystem, needs wilderness 

protection in the 1993 bill. Teton Peaks, Choteau Mountain and 

Blackleaf Canyon are home to grizzly, goat, big horn, elk, falcon 

and eagle. In the southern end of the front is Silver King Falls 

and Alice creeks and the historic Nez Perce buffalo trail which 

Meriwether Lewis walked in his journey of 1806. Stel!llllboat to Crown Mountain wild lands include over 20 miles of wild trails 

and wildlife habitat. The Sawtooth roadless area within the 

Gibson Reservoir mineral withdrawal area is used as a wildlife 

migration corridor for the Sun River Game Range. We recommend 

these lands be included into wilderness. 

Sincerely, 

Joe Gutkoski, Vies President 

Montana Wildlife Federation 

oe: 

Conrad Burna Max Baucua 

Kathy Hadley, President 

Montana Wildlife Federation 
160 

MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

P.O. Box 1175, Helena, MT 59624 406-449·7604 

1990 Outstanding State Affiliate oflhe National Wildlife Federation 

March 3, 1993 

Representative Bruce Vento, Chairaan 

Natural Parks, Forest and Public Lands Sul:lcommittee 

u s House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Vento; 

Montana's Rocky Mountain Front roadless lands, an important 

part of the Glacier-Bob Marhall Ecosystem, needs wilderness 

protection in the 1993 bill. Teton Peaks, Choteau Mountain and 

Blackleaf Canyon are home to grizzly, goat, big born, elk, falcon 

and eagle. In the southern end of the front is Silver King Falla 

and Alice creeks and the historic Nez Perce buffalo trail which 

Meriwether Lewis walked in his journey of 1906. Steamboat to Crown Mountain wild lands include over 20 milea of wild trails 

and wildlife habitat. The Savtooth roadless area within the 

Gibson Reservoir mineral withdrawal area is us&d as a wildlife 

migration corridor for the Sun River Game Range. We recommend 

these lands be included into wilderness. 

Sincerely, 

Joe Gutkoski, Vise President 

Montana Wildlife Federation 

co: 

Conrad Burne 

Max Baucua 

Kathy Hadley, President 

Montana Wildlife Federation 

Fifty-seven Years of Preseroing the Last of Whal7s-Bes1 :.:~. 
161 

July 10, 1993 

To What It llay Co.a.cern: 

The ledic:ine River Canoe Club (IIRCC) supporta CcmqreSAaD Iilli&~~~~' pursuit of 

the wilderness bill this year. Althouqh this is an issue that we do not 

nomally qet actively involved with, we believe that this ill important enouqh 

to let people know how we feel. 

The KRCC thinks that everyone should know that it is ltontanans that are speakinq out in favor of 110re wilderness, not just out of state interests. 

Wilderness should not be COIIIIidered u play IU't!llll for a few people in the 

present but as the only place for ALL ~~~n-kind to cherish in the future. 

These IU't!llll protect all types of livinq creatures, especially in the 

preservation of healthy elk herds and qrizzly habitat. They also do not take 

away .jabs or ac:c:eas fraa lliiY!:!D! as claimed because these special interest 

groups do not have thea !lOW. The sucneated inc:reue to vi lderneaa should be 

added because they are just a drop in the bucket c:alpBn!d to the land that hu 

already been used and abuAd in ltontana and acrou the entire United States. 

The areas that we are -t faailiar with that are essential to be included in 

the wilderness bill are: Little Belts, Tendarfoot/I)eepc:reek and the Middle 

Fork of the Judith. 

We would appreciate ycur assistance in inc:ludinq these areas and passinq a wilderoess bill that will be fair to all sides of the issue without qivinq 

away critical areas for future qenerationa to enjoy. Please preserve the 

"Last Best Place". 

Thank you for your help. 

Sincerely yours, 

~~ Alan Rollo. Representative 

lledic:ine River Canoe Club 

808 52nd Street South 

Great Falla, ltontana 59405 
162 

July 10, 1993 

To Whoa It May Concern: 

Tbe lledicine River Canoe Club (IIRCC) supports Con9resnan llilliiiU' pursuit of 

the wilderness bill this year. Althouqh this is an issue that we clo not 

normally qet actively involved with, we believe that this is important enouqh 

to let people know bow we feel. 

Tbe IIRCC thinks that everyone should know that it is Montanans that are spealtinq out in favor of KJre wilderness, not just out of atata intereata. 

Wilderness shculd not be con.sidered u play areas for a few people in the 

present but u the Qllb: place for ALL llllll-kind to cherish in the future. 

These areu protect all types of livinq creatures, especially in the 

preservation of healthy elk herdJJ and qrizzly habitat. Tbey alao clo not take 

away jobs or access frca ll!mll!l u clailled because these special interest 

qroupa clo not have thea now. The suqqeated increue to wilderneaa should be 

added because they are just a drop in the hueket ~ to the land that has 

already been used and abuaecl. in Montana and acroea the entire United States. 

Tbe areas that we are -t fuiliar with that are essential to be included in 

the wilderness bill are: Little Belta. Tendarfoot/l)eepcreek and the !Iiddle 

Fork of the Judith. 

ie would appreciate your aaaiatance in includinq these areas and puainq a wilderness bill that will be fair to all aides of the iaaue without qivinq 

a-y critical areas for future qenerat101111 to enjoy. Pl- preserve the 

"Last Best Place". 

Thank you for your help. 

Sincerely yours, 

~~ Alan Rallo, Representative 

lfedicine River Canae Club 

808 52nd Street South 

Great Falla. llco.tana 59405 
163 

Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association 

JULY 12, 1993 

Senator *ax Baucus 706 Har~ Senate Office 3uildini Washin~ton, D.C. 20510-2602 

Dear Senator aaucus: 

Rep. Wi1liaas current wilderness bill includes cany of the areas we are interested in preserving. However we would like to see so•e addieions to the areas around Helena. These are the ~r~as we hunt in and they are the headwaters areas- tor our fisheries. We hope 

these important areas will remain unspoiled so that our children 

will be able to enjoy them in the future. 

One ot the areas we would like to see expanded is Black Mountain. 

The area west of Black Mtn. which runs along the top of the Divide 

and west of Jericho Mtn. is iaportant to the 500 elk which range 

there. We would also like to see soae sort of protection for the 

Htn. Helena Ridge area which these saae elk need for winter range. 

Another area we would like to see expanded is Kevada Mountain. We 

would like additions on the SW, HW, K, and East sides. The total aerea would be approl<i111ately 50,000. There are about 1,000 elk 

which use this area throuqhout •ost of the year. 

We feel that wilderness de~ignation is the best method we currently 

have available to protect- these wilderness areas which are so iaportant to our elk herds and our fisheries. These wild areas provide recreation and enjoyaent to hundreds of thousands of 

sportsmen every year, even if they never enter the boundaries. 

Sincere~y/lJ--

~~~llM~IDEKT P~~~LY PEAR SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

146 BRIARWOOD LAKE 

MBLBWA, HT 59601 

Sei'Ying lhe llltemll at lelena-area S)lOIISmm since IISI. 
164 

~rickly ~ear Sportsmen's Association 

JUL"! 12, 1993 

Senator Max Baueus 

706 Hart Senate Office 3uilding 

Washington, 0. C. 20510-26;32 

Dear Senator Baueus: 

Rep. Williams current wilderness bill includes many of the areas we are interested in preserving. However we would like to see some addit1ons t.o the areas aro.und Helena. These are the ar'!as ~e hunt: 

in and they are the h&adwaters areas for ou= fisheries. We hope 

these important areas will remain unspoiled so that our children 

will be able to enjoy them in the future. 

One of the areas we would l1ke to see expanded is Black Mountain. 

The area west of Black Mtn. which runs along the top of the Divide 

and west of Jericho Mtn. is important to the 500 elk which range 

there. We would also like to see some sort of protection for the 

Mtn. Helena Ridge area which these same elk need for winter range. 

Another area we would like to see expanded is Nevada Mountain. We 

would like additions on the SW, NW, R, and East sides. The total acres vould be approximately 50,000. There are about 1,000 elk 

wnich use this area throughout most of the year. 

We feel that wilderness designation is the best method we currently have available to protect 'these wilderness areas which are so 

important to our elk herds and our fisheries. These wild areas provid" recreation and enjoyment to hundreds of thousands of 

sportsmen every year. even if they never enter the boundaries. 

Sincere~y~ 

~~~1lM~IDENT P~~~LY PEAR SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

146 BRIARWOOD LANE 

HELE.A, MT 59601 

Serving the lnlmsts Dlllelena-area SpGI1Smen since ISS&. 
165 

Representative Bruce Vento, Chairman 

Subcommitt~e on National Parks & Public Lands 

From the Hyal i te peaks on the North to the Por·cup i ne, 8uffal o 

Horn Cr·eeks and the Yellowstone Park boundar:>' on the South the 

Gallatin Range is a superb mountain wild land that still retains 

the qualiti.:-s of IAtilder·ness. It is a natural elK~ deer, t~ig horn 

horn and bear prodtJction system. It has an optimum ratio of 

cover and feed area that cannot be improved by man. The 

necessary winter range combined with back country escape area 

help balar1ce the wildlife S)''stem to make it one of the mo·:.t 

productive in Montana. 

Despite roading and logging by the Forest Service, 

Nor·ther·n RR and pr· i vate 1 ando"'•ners, ther~ is st i 11 

form a viable land unit that should be under the 

wilderness classification. 

the Bur·l i ngtc'n 

enough 1 eft to 

protection of 

Prior logging activiti~s have decr·eas~d wildlife and has produced 

1 and instability with increased stream bedl oads i ro SquaoJ Cr·eek. 

Mass land mov~ment and erosion have been triggered on Portal & 

Bozeman Cr·eeK drainaoes. It is roow time to place what is left in 

wilderness protecti~n. Any additional roading and logging of 

these mar·g ina l t i mberstands w i 11 upset the del i ca te balance, 

damage wildlife and erode the fragile uplands. 

Three issues must be addressed if wilderness designatation is to 

be made in the Gallatin Range: 

1. Private lands interminol~d 

The 35,200 acres of BN 1 ~.­

purchased with Federal Funds. 

2. Road building and logging: 

with public lands: 

+:~....;,; ~ derness should be 

F're•Jietu=. logging has already taken most of the commercial and 

rr:uch of the mar·gi nal and sub-commerc i a1 timber stands in the 

Gallatin Range. This was don~ through subsidized logging 

pr·a~tir::es .. (., 1.-• •. 1i lder·nes-s boundar-::.- can b.;- de-~: n;;-.3.tE-d th.;..t v .. ec.•uld 

: .-,,-1 :j•.:'~ n.:·· .- --~~ ~--· ~ = ~ ~- - :l-: .• 

3. Snowmobiles, motor bikes-, 4-wheel drives & fir·ewc•od cutting: 

The many miles of roads and skidtrails i~ the Gallatin Ranie 

should remain open to motor zed use and firewood gatheri~;. ~ 

area that remains roadless is proposed for w.lderness. It seems 

only fa~r t~at the undisturbed oart of the Gallatin Range remain 

a wilderness. 

Mountain wilderness is a unique and pr-ecious r·e-;.ource in 

lower· 48 states. The vast plains of mid-Am~rica lack 

diversity. 11 8orn in Americ-3." means an inheritance to roarr, 

land, br~ath the air and drink clean water.-thank vou. 

Joe GutKosKi, Pr~siderot, Gallatin l-Jilctlife Association 

th~ 

thIS. 

the 
1~ 

Representative Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee 

House Natural Resources Committee 

u.s. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Vento: 

Mike Vashro 

1204 Sorenson Road 

Helena, MT 59601 

July 13, 1993 

I would like to make a couple of comments on the most 

recent Montana Wilderness Bill (H.R. 2473). I will also 

address a couple of roadless areas left out of the bill. 

First, this wilderness bill is playing a numbers game once again with acreage. Instead the proposed roadless area should be looked at from the merits they display as wilder- ness and how they interlink with other areas. Why is 

acreage always being displayed as the all important factor 

in all the past bills, including this one? Second, if 

monetary gain is going to be looked at lets not always look 

at what will be lost in the short-term, but what will these areas mean monetarily over the long-term and what use will 

be best? Setting up wilderness areas is similar to setting 

up trust funds for our future. 

The first area I would like to see included into this 

bill would be a natural southern link to the Blackfoot 

Meadows proposed wilderness which is southwest of Helena. 

This area includes high plateaus, wet spruce bogs, and low 

willow swamps. The continental divide trail makes the 

northern boundary and includes Cottonwood Lake. Wildlife in 

this area is very diverse with elk, wolverines, pine 

martins, and boreal owls, to name just a few of its 

inhabitants. There are many small mammal and bird species. 

It also is an important holding area for animals such as elk 

and deer passing from summer to winter ranges. 

This area gives hunters a wilderness experience when 

linked with the Blackfoot Meadows that can be enjoyed by 

foot and horse hunters alike. Within the boundaries I have 

mentioned there are no roads, so I don't understand the 

holdup of linking these areas together. Also, there are no timber sales planned in the area. Please don't let this area go unprotected. I would like to hear any justifiable reasons why this was not connected to the Blackfoot Meadows 

proposed wilderness. 

The other area I would like to comment on is the proposed Nevada Mountain wilderness. To reduce this 60,000 
July 13, 1993 

Page 2 

167 

acre roadless to a 19,000 acre wilderness because of one motorized trail is a travesty. This proposed wilderness area seems to shrink every time a new wilderness bill is 

proposed. 

This area is heavily hunted and recreated by surrounding populations. It holds attributes that make it a perfect 

wilderness. It is home to a large elk herd, grizzly bears 

frequently use this area, and now wolves have been sighted on a frequent basis. This is almost like an island eco- system with animals living year round in its boundaries. 

Please don't leave out the remaining 40,000 acres just 

because of "one" ten mile ORV trail which runs along the 

ridge tops, essentially dividing the whole roadless area in 

half. 

If I can be of any further assistance in identifying 

boundary assets or general information on these two areas, 

please feel free to contact me. Lets not hold wilderness 

designation hostage because of a numbers game and lets look 

at the merits of all roadless areas. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Mike 

(J1..Li~ Vashro 
1~ 

Representative Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee 

House Natural Resources Committee u.s. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Vento: 

Mike Vashro 

1204 Sorenson Road 

Helena, MT 59601 

July 13, 1993 

I would like to make a couple of comments on the most 

recent Montana Wilderness Bill (H.R. 2473). I will also 

address a couple of roadless areas left out of the bill. 

First, this wilderness bill is playing a numbers game once again with acreage. Instead the proposed roadless area should be looked at from the merits they display as wilder- ness and how they interlink with other areas. Why is 

acreage always being displayed as the all important factor 

in all the past bills, including this one? Second, if 

monetary gain is going to be looked at lets not always look 

at what will be lost in the short-term, but what will these areas mean monetarily over the long-term and what use will 

be best? Setting up wilderness areas is similar to setting 

up trust funds for our future. 

The first area I would like to see included into this 

bill would be a natural southern link to the Blackfoot 

Meadows proposed wilderness which is southwest of Helena. 

This area includes high plateaus, wet spruce bogs, and low 

willow swamps. The continental divide trail makes the 

northern boundary and includes Cottonwood Lake. Wildlife in 

this area is very diverse with elk, wolverines, pine 

martins, and boreal owls, to name just a few of its 

inhabitants. There are many small mammal and bird species. 

It also is an important holding area for animals such as elk 

and deer passing from summer to winter ranges. 

This area gives hunters a wilderness experience when 

linked with the Blackfoot Meadows that can be enjoyed by 

foot and horse hunters alike. Within the boundaries I have 

mentioned there are no roads, so I don't understand the 

holdup of linking these areas together. Also, there are no timber sales planned in the area. Please don't let this area go unprotected. I would ~like to hear any justifiable reasons why this was not connected to the Blackfoot Meadows 

proposed wilderness. 

The other area I would like to comment on is the proposed Nevada Mountain wilderness. To reduce this 60,000 
July 13, 1993 

Page 2 

169 

acre roadless to a 19,000 acre wilderness because of one motorized trail is a travesty. This proposed wilderness area seems to shrink every time a new wilderness bill is 

proposed. 

This area is heavily hunted and recreated by surrounding populations. It holds attributes that make it a perfect 

wilderness. It is home to a large elk herd, grizzly bears 

frequently use this area, and now wolves have been sighted on a frequent basis. This is almost like an island eco- system with animals living year round in its boundaries. 

Please don't leave out the remaining 40,000 acres just 

because of "one" ten mile ORV trail which runs along the 

ridge tops, essentially dividing the whole roadless area in 

half. 

If I can be of any further assistance in identifying 

boundary assets or general information on these two areas, 

please feel free to contact me. Lets not hold wilderness 

designation hostage because of a numbers game and lets look 

at the merits of all roadless areas. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

(YJJ_t{~ Mike Vashro 
170 

The Honorable Rep,:uentat1ve Pa.t 1111liMa 

2457 Ra;rbu:m lluildins 

Waahington, D.C. 20.51.5 

Delli: Representative 1/ilH&IIIs: 

John llaggett 

1)2) 2nd Ave. So. 

Glasgow, l!'l' Y1230 

July 1), 199') 

I ""' writl.ne; to give you my thought& on your Wilduntsa Bill juat introduced 

in June, llill you plaue enter my qOIMIOnt. ill tile O:t'fieial Hearins Record on K,R, 2473? 

My com•.enb Jl8rtain to the Big Sno>.1ee, Middle For'k Judith and Cra.~y Mountal11 

rllnr.ee. ~fore I at!tl:t I ..,.,.,t to l!A)' that I srew up in Ko.rlowton ond have ueod all of thee ,. .... most of my life, . I know that neither the liit: Snowiea or 

llid~le Fork Judith """ in the bill which keape the~> in 11tu.dy statue. I would 

prefn bot~ of theae a.rea11 designated wilde:meu. 1 thank Y"" for your etrorte to keep )Iiddle l'oT:l<: Judith from bei~~t: raleaaed la.et y.,.r and thue keep it in 

study st&t~;~a, I x-ealize the politi~e of the wilde:meaa beue and I know IIU.\ena• 

tins tht11 wilderness may cauee a stir .u tlio tetal bill' a acre~ would e;o up, 

However, I ll!\Vt •!'8nt a lot o! my tlme in ruid around these are&a and I beHeve they 

ra:nk with th~ beet in what wild.e:meh is all about., Juet la&t ""ek I tonk my family into the Lo3t Fork of the ~lioltlle Fork Judith. Whl.lo it rained ll\O&t of tho 

ti10e, th<lre waa U)'l to eight vohiclea, five with horae tr&ilore, U$1ne this one ""*"· Around tho tlidtl.lo Fork ia a sea of cloucute and road.•. Thh uea is ').Ui.te 

populo.r M4 needs protection. I hoP, y011 d.·o o.ll you oan to .,.. that it ~eta it, 

At a miniDI\Illl keep the Big Snowln "*d Middle Fork Judith in atudy atetus if polities 

won't &llow them to be wildernus now. 

Thlt other area I want to comment on is the Crac)f Mountains. I applaud )four effort" 

to protect thete 111ountaine, however, I encourage you to &d.juet the wilderness and 

wlldern6~$ study bnundU'iea aoM!dlat. ! !lAva oneloaed a N.P and hiehll.ghted arella I believe ehould be in your bill i~L:he North Crat!f Moun!-4in•• It is very importnnt 

that you brill! your wilderness boll"!"''r7 on the notthweat ·aide westward to the 

l-:iddle Fori< of Cottonwood, The lli'tJ. to the weat of the lli.Wle Fork has been henvl.ly 

louc:\ hy tho Fo~et Servi~e O'.nd eopacUlly by Errol Galt, tile previo\11 priv"te o-;.mer. ..:uen <>!' hi• lor:r;1nr;: ..rae. <lone 1rt thia area. ov•r the ptu•t. thra• )'el'lr$, after 

he llir,ned '' buy-ll$11 'Mt'~ft.,.nt with the Forut S..w!ce, P'lu.se ~oteot this ,.,.., .. ~n~ th\9 w11.torshed. Tllfl bound~ of your etu.dy area "eec!• to cOllie out to the 

Fo-r&$\ '!loundary in •eoUon 10 nnd U &a •ho"" and include ~a.r llprinr;s ~ection B on 

the northonst os wild~rne~•· You need to include section 29 llorth Fork :Sl ~ blk ~$ 

study •nd sectt~n ~Z 111!: ill< ""' wlliierneas, You 11lto need to include the Amerlc11n 

·Fork dr,lr.a~e n~ wil<lornoo~ 1<tudy, I llon't believe chl.njlint theM boun<larie• will o.fhct any tim b.,, h~rv~st on Forost, lo.nda fro,. .:r d1acun1one "" th tho Fore~t 

Service, Also ••• "tt~ehod letter. 

l hwo enoloo~4 !l<'M p\eturoa in tl\8 North C:razie• taken 2.t w&ek$ 8j!O to show )IOU 

what I "'" ~'lll<~"!' "'o<>ut, · 

In c1oftinp:, I want lo eto.te that I r<>&d. &bo\lt Art lfoon1111'a Metins in liUMll, 

Many of the folks :1.t the me~ting w~t.ed to keep the Crac1ee tne wmy they are. 1 do 
171 

too, l!t.t l""st the put that hasn't be<>n :rAped :r-t. I ~ve seen the Cn.dn 

Clw'l(lt in a 'bi~ ""'1 the laat twenty :run a:l4 I 4o DOt like the chanf:tl I N.ve Men. Wit!>out vildernese, they will kaep chancin«• I abo noticed aou ot 

tho l&lli!o,r.ers &Xj)l'Osnd conearn &1><>ut the publicity tha Cnziea would r.et U' 

tll•Y were J"'Oteetod &8 w1lderneo11. · It -lilt kl.n4 o:!' odd that so.,t ot the l&n4• 

owntre ue outfi ttera or l.ase to out:!'itttra who put out 'brocln.ll:'ell &lli! a4verti~~& 

1n huntl.ns l!la&f.zines expoundin8 on the iftat 'bu.llt;r aJ>d wildlite popu.,.tiona 

in the Cnzy Mountains. 

~5. ..t::" ,F"tt> /l.tk>r ;T"'l> htil-rr•- tS ,.,.,., .,,., ,.~ 

J.<-'/~(;!.1../i""G .ti'IP,.,I-'Jf..>¢;'"?1!>~ 1--' r##-JI!' ~4'..,.$. 

r"#$ .?.<4-il-/,eor ,..........._ #_,_,.,. N-6•'-'r ,o-..... &&.k 

;'1'~>t: r , . ...- rpt-r ,-'~>""-r~.r~AJ ""M>~r; _,-.A'# ""''dd~F 

rt> ,.(. U ../ v <)'I rH #~ # v<f6/. /D,pe> .li'.t: .Itt ,..,. .-...:::~ 

r-1'"/.tr et'& 6-'"" ........ ~ •s -~<16' - .;-A'()"'""'~-' .u .. """ ~...,..1-'.,f, ;'(!'•c..~ ..... h«~u--'J-4~·......,. 

;/'? ~g.;-f, 'r#" <!1-A,.,.;,-I'<tfr$' 

,c:.-.. .,.../5 ~d J!/'111- #f:>,;,V 

~~All' ,<1.;.H.-vAJd'<f ,_ r-"""S ~111'7"1!1 ,_,.. 441 '"'"'> _.,.............,.,_, 

:5 #64""""' ,..4,t:.-¥.-.-r~ 1 ,...;;"# 

#!':F.;-...~/.:. ""r's#tf"'tr-.-4 

,c./V""""ff',;<i'I<-"S ;:~_..4#"..-.r#~ 
172 

Mr. VENTO. Finally, we have on this panel Mike Bader, who is 

the executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 

Welcome, Mike. Please proceed for about five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE BADER 

Mr. BADER Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to address H.R 24 73, Round 16 of the Montana Wilderness Act. It is an honor to appear before the committee. 

My name is Mike Bader and I reside in Missoula, Montana. I 

represent the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. The Alliance consists 

of more than 4,200 members and over 400 businesses and organizations of which more than 200 are located in Montana. 

We appreciate the committee's attention to the issue of protection for Montana's world-class wilderness resources. The bill before us 

today attempts to protect our wilderness. While we do appreciate the efforts of Representative Williams, we do not support the bill 

in its current form. 

Mr. Chairman, by your request, I will summarize my testimony. 

We feel this bill does not go nearly far enough toward protection of Montana's wilderness. Two out of every three acres of Montana's 

de facto wilderness are released by this bill for management under 

outdated Forest Service plans which call for extensive logging in 

these areas. Miles and miles of new roads would be built into these 

roadless areas, and they would be logged at massive losses to the 

American taxpayer. 

The 10 National Forests in Montana lost more than $57 million 

in below-cost timber sales in 1992 alone. Not only is this subsidy costly, the loss of pristine wilderness habitat is incalculable. 

Scientists would warn this would result in irreparable frag- mentation of the Northern Rockies ecosystem. There are dozens of 

areas left out of the bill that qualify for wilderness designation in 

every way. These include Tenderfoot Deep Creek, Allan Mountain, 

Mount Bushnell and Ten Lakes, to just name a few. 

Our position is that a multi-State ecoslstem approach is necessary. We agree with Vice President Gores statements about this 

issue last year when we questioned whether they should automatically defer these decisions to the Members of Congress from the 

States involved. 

This is a national resource and treasure. We have numerous concerns about the bill language. We are troubled by the very opening words which are similar to language throughout the bill that splits 

wilderness off from the multiple uses established legally through the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 which explicitly includes wilderness as a multiple use. 

We also believe the purposes listed are incomplete. Protection of 

ecosystem integrity and biological diversity should be explicitly listed as purposes of the act. 

Purpose number 2 makes the Forest Plans law. These plans are 

in violation of existing laws, and many are before the courts at this 

time. John Mumma testified before Congress that these plans contain illegally high Allowable Sale Quantities. To grandfather the 

higjl ASQs is wrong. 

We feel the ecosystem study language is weak and artificially 

confined to Montana, while the Northern Rockies ecosystem covers 
173 

several States. This section is also canceled out by the release language in other sections of the bill. We feel that section should be 

changed so that it, one, covers the entire Northern Rockies ecosystem; two, provides interim protection for roadless areas during 

the term of the study; and, three, implements the recommendations 

of the science panel. 

We feel the release section should be completely deleted from the 

bill. This language splits wilderness off from the other multiple 

uses and renders the ecosystem study moot through section 12( d) 

which prohibits a State-wide review of roadless areas, which are 

the key component of biological diversity in the Northern Rockies. 

We feel it also limits judicial review. 

We hope this testimony will help guide you as you amend this 

bill up to the ecosystem protection standard developed by the scientific and economic community. We will continue working with 

the committee to ensure this result is achieved. 

Legislation covering the entire Northern Rockies has been introduced in the House. The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection 

Act, H.R. 2638, is, we believe, the proper approach for the committee to take. We urge the committee to review it prior to taking further action on Representative Williams' bill. With the full set of information on both bills, we believe the committee can come to 

agreement on the need for ecosystem protection in the Northern 

Rockies. 

In summary, we plead with the committee to use extreme caution. At this time, as a result of reduced timber harvests in the 

spotted owl forest, the pressure is greater than ever on Montana's 

forest. Big corporate mill owners from the West Coast are sweeping 

the Northern Rockies like a vacuum cleaner searching for every 

piece of timber they can pluck off our mountain side. 

Again, I thank you very much for providing the opportunity to 

testify before your committee. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Bader. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bader follows:] 
174 

BJFORE THE SUBCOMMmEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, 

NATIONAL PARKS, & FORESTS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING ON H.R. 7A73, •ROUND 16 OF THE MONTANA WILDERNESS ACr 

JULY 20, 1t93 

TESTIMONY OF MI.KE BADER 

ON BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

address H.R. 2473, "Round 16 of the Montana Wilderness Act." It Is an honor to 

appear before the committee. 

My name ill Mike Bader and I reside in Missoula, Montana. I represent the Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies. The Alliance consists of more than 4200 members and over 

400 businesses and organizational members. More than 200 of these businessaa and 

groups are ioceted In Montana. Our organization is dedicated to implementation of 

multi-state ecosystem protection for the Northern Rockies. 

We appreciate the committee's attention to the issue of protection for Montana's 

world-clan wilderness resources. The bill before us today attempts to provide 

protection for our wilderness. While we do appreciate the effort represented by 

H.R. 2473 and Rep. WiUiams, we do not support the bill in its current form. 

This bill does not go nearly far enough towards protection of Montana's wilderness 

areas. Two out of every three acres of Montana's de facto wilderness areas are 

released by this bill for management under existing Forest Service management 

plans. These plans call for extensive logging within these areas. Thousands of 

miles of n- roeds would be built Into these roedlesa areas and they would be 

logged at meaaive iosaas to the American taxpayer. The ten national forests In 

Montana lost more than $57 million dollars on below-cost timber sales in 1992 

alone. Virtually every roedless area released for logging under this bill could only 

be logged at below-cost rates. Not only does this subsidy for big industry result In 

direct losses to the taxpayer, the loss of pristine wlldernftll habitat is 

incalculable. Repairing the damage to native forests, wlldiHe and fish populations, 

and stream courses costa ·millions. 
175 

There are dozens ·of areas left out of the bill that qualifY for wilderness 

designation in every way. These include Tenderfoot-Deep Creek, Allan Mountain, 

Mount Bushnell, Ten Lakes. and Pilgrim Creek, to name just a few. Yet these arees 

do not receive protection under H.R. 2473. Many areas must be added to the bill. 

Our position on wilderness legislation for the Northern Rockies is that an 

ecosystem approach is necessary and that the state-by-state approach will 

fragment critical fish and wildlife habitat. We agree with the statements of Vice 

President Albert Gore last year in regards to the Montana wilderness bill when he 

said on the Senate floor that we should not automatically defer to the members of 

Congress from the affected states. He said the state by state approach puts this 

unique ecosystem at risk. Our approach is embodied in the Northern Rockies 

Ecosystem Protection Act, H.R. 2638. 

We are also concerned that no field hearings on this bill have been held within the 

State of Montana even though this bill contains an entirely new ecosystem and 

economic study section which has not bean reviewed by the public In Montana. 

There are several additional new provisions and language in the bill that ought to 

be discussed in Montana. 

We suggest the following changes to the language in H.R. 2473: 

Page 1· The very opening words of this bill are similar to language throughout the 

blll that appears to split wilderness off from the multiple uses established legally 

through the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, which explicitly Includes 

wilderness as a multiple use. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 also Include wilderness within 

the multiple uses. Removing wilderness from the multiple uses sets a dangerous 

precedent that can easily be remedied with language changes. 

Page 2, paragraph 3· Again, this language treats wilderness as a non-multiple 

use. 

Page 3, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)· The purposes listed are incomplete. 

Protection of ecosystem integrity and biological diversity should be explicitly 

listed as purposes of the Act. An ecosystem study is included •to protect and 

enhance ecological values of the Northern Rockies Ecosystem ... • yet this purpose is 

not Included In the purposes section. This goal should be listed as an explicit 
176 

purpose on page 2 of the Act 

Purpose number 2 clearly is an attempt to Implement the Forest Plans. This 

presents major problems Including the fact these plans are in violation of several 

laws and many are now before the courts at this time. For another, Rep. Williams 

himself has said publicly ha believes these plans are fraudulent and based on 

purposely rigged numbers. Why Implement fraudulent plans? John Mumma testified 

before Congress that these plans contain illegally high Allowable Sale Quantities. 

To grandfather in the high ASQs is wrong and this purpose should be stricken from 

the bill. 

Page 1", paragraph (d)· This paragraph defeats the whole concept of ecosystem 

protection as defined by the Independent scientific community. Reserve system 

design entails protection of core areas. surrounded by buffers, and linked with 

corridors. While this language may be standard to past wilderness bills, knowledge 

about ecosystems has added new importance to lightly managed buffer areas. This 

paragraph should be deleted from the bill. 

Page 16, Sec. "·· This section is weak since no federal reserved water right is 

created for wilderness areas. This section should be replaced with the water 

rights language developed by the Sierra Club. 

Page 23, paragraph (3)(A)· This language creates a salvage logging loophole 

for the Forest Service. On some western forests. salvage outweighs the ASQ by 

several times. Thus th- special management area• are not protected from 

logging. This language may also be standard to past bills but the time has come to 

delete this language. 

Page 23, paragraph (3)(C)· This language for the Hyallte area sets a bad 

precedent for National Recreation Areas In Montana. Right now the standard is set 

through the language for the Rattlesnake NRA, which prohibits all commercial 

timber harvest. This language seems Intended to grandfather In planned timber 

sales which are now the subject of IHlgatlon. It also degrades the recreation 

values that citizens of Bozeman hold for this area. 

Page U, paragraph (e)· This sesms to Indicate that a new EIS muat be prepared 

prior to Implementation of menagement direction for the established Special 

Management Areas and NRAs created by the bill. If this Is true It ehould the 

language should be clarified to claarly state that. 
177 

Page 27, Sec:. 1· rhts language should be replaced with language developed by 

members of the Blackfeet spiritual community which Is Included in H.R. , the 

Northern Rockies Ecoeystem Protection Act. 

Page 30, Sec:. 8· What study has Congress produced Is regard to the BLM WSAs? 

Thl8 secllon explicitly abrogates the public process In regards to BLM WSAs. This 

Is Illegal and Improper. Thl8 section should be deleted from the bill. Subsection (c) 

tranefers land to the Forest Service. Nobody has heard of thl8 before. This is a 

major federal action under NEPA and must undergo public review end comment. 

Page 31, Sec. 9· This language Is very week and Is artificially confined to 

Montana while the Northern Rockies Ecoeyetem covers many states. This section Is 

cancelled out by the release language and other sections of the bill. This section 

needs to be replaced with entirely new language that: 1) covers the entire Northern 

Rockies Ecosystem; 2) provides interim protaction for roadless areas during the 

tenn of the study; and 3) implements the recommendations of the science panel. 

Page 37, Sec. 10· This section appears to release 200 acres of S. 393 

wilderness study lands, protected by the late Sen. Lee Metcalfe Montana 

Wilderness Study Act. This also has recalved no public notice or comment. What 

are the reasons for the deletion? 

Page 38, Sec. 11(1)· This should be contained in separate legislation. This has 

no connection to the purposes outlined by this Act and should be sought as part of 

efforts to establish wilderness management training within the Forest Service. 

Page 39, Sec:. 12 (a)(2)· Where is the study claimed to exist here? We know of 

no Congressional documents or reports that examine the environmental impacts of 

alternative allocations of roadless areas. 

Page 39, Sec. 12(b)· This is hard release that again attempts to split 

wilderness otf from the multiple uses. This section also renders the ecosystem 

study saction moot as it ties the hands of the science panel by eliminating 

wilderness designation as one of the issues to be studied. Sec. 12(c} indicates 

that plans can be implemented before they are fonnally revised yet roadless areas 

are left unprotected. Sec. 12(d) cancels out the ecosystem study by prohibiting 

review of roadless areas, which are the key component of biological dlverslly in 

the Northern Rockies Ecosystem. Sec:. 12(e) violates the provisions of NEPA. There 

are new Forest Plans and they supersede plans from 1978. The old plans are 
178 

obsolete both legally and scientifically. To implement them Ignores new 

information including endangered species recovery zones. Sec. 12 (f) exempts 

Forest Plans amendments. How many amendments does it take until the Plans do 

not resemble anything like their former selves? Sec. 12(g) targets remaining old 

growth forests In Montana, which largely exist in small roadless areas. This also 

renders the ecosystem atudy meaningle81. Sec. 12 (h) Ia sufficiency language. The 

Forest Plans for the spotted owl forests were not legally sufficient nor are those 

for the Northern Rockies. it should be deleted from the bill. 

We hope this testimony will help guide you as you amend the bill up to the 

ecosystem protection standard developed by the scientific and economic 

community. We will continue working with the committee to ensure that this 

result is achieved. · 

As you may know, legislation covering the entire Northern Rockies region has been 

Introduced In the House. The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, H.R. 2638, 

Is, we believe, the proper approach for the committee to take. We urge the 

committee to review this bill prior to any action on Rep. Williams' bill. With the 

full set of knowledge about both bills. we believe the committee can come to 

agreement on the need for ecosystem protection in the Northern Rockies. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Mike Bader 

executive director 
179 

Mr. VENTO. And we had received your testimony, and I appreciate you specifically pointing out where you feel there are problems. I have gone through most of them, and I will go through the 

remainder to try and resolve those questions that I think are a 

problem. 

I think we have to be judged mostly on historic precedence in 

terms of how those activities were used. For instance, you are concerned about the fact that we referred to, in essence, no buffer 

zones in the legislation. That has not been a problem in any areas 

where we used it, has it? 

Mr. BADER. I feel it hasn't. We have seen a lot of management 

by the Forest Service where clear-cutting has literally gone right 

up to the wilderness boundaries and in some cases entered the wilderness. We saw this in the Three Sisters wilderness areas in Oregon. 

Mr. VENTO. But if it was into the wilderness, that would be a violation of the designation. 

But what I am concerned about from the standpoint of this language is the wilderness areas perimeters, is that in fact it is a 

barred-any type of enforcement of the wilderness qualities are 

lost. 

The only thing we talk about here is noise. Non-wilderness activities that can be heard or seen from within wilderness shall not 

in and of itself preclude such activities or uses. This has nothing 

to do with harvesting trees in the wilderness. 

Mr. BADER. Well, I think our main point here is that the leading 

independent scientific researchers who have been deeply involved 

in designing ecosystem reserve proposals have pointed out that it 

consists of three fundamental elements: core reserve areas surrounded by buffers and then connected by corridors. And I think 

if we are going to move towards effective ecosystem protection and 

management, the concept of buff-ers is critical. 

And then, again, towards the issue of the timber harvest. Where 

we have had this happen in the Mission Mountains wilderness in 

Montana, because there is no buffer we open up the possibility of 

error, surveying mistakes-where they think they are right on the 

wilderness line when they are across it-and by leaving that open 

I think that we do leave these designated wilderness areas vulnerable, their integrity as well as the overall ecosystem reserve. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me just say I think that if they are survey errors 

we can have a problem. But that isn't what this addresses. I don't 

disagree that if we are going to move toward ecosystem types of 

management that that has to be incorporated into the forest management plans and into the land management practices that follow. 

But the question is, in terms of designation of wilderness, whether or not we ought to use this as the vehicle or try to be sensitive 

to the question as to what the land management plan is because 

that is going to be implemented. If it is going to be an ecosystem 

plan, I would tend to agree that different techniques and different 

policies must be developed-and as we develop new knowledge that 

we ought to implement it. That is my point. 

Anyway, let me get back to Mr. Scott with a question. 
180 

You point out, I think in some detail, why release language is no 

longer needed in wilderness bills. Could you repeat that again-I 

want to make certain that nobody misses that point. 

In this instance it is five years. The next planning cycle is somewhat of a compromise, again based on the hard language that was 

being pursued by my colleague from Montana. But in any case 

could you repeat that? In other words, what do you think the effect 

of having the release language is and why shouldn't it be in this 

bill? 

Mr. SCOTI'. Well, there were a number of reasons that I went on. 

Mr. VENTO. I read your testimony, but I wanted you to summarize. 

Mr. SCOTT. In the testimony, Mr. Chairman, I think that-briefly 

summarizing again-release language that wades into the issue of 

forest plans by getting in and looking at forest plans and insulating portions of forest plans sets a very dangerous precedent. There is 

no legal reason to do it. And you open to the courts the opportunity 

for the courts to perhaps create new interpretations of what release 

language means because there is no longer any legal reason to 

have release language. And, in summary, what I indicated was that if the committee 

chooses to proceed with release language, at least remove provision 

12(h) which is the section of the release language in the bill that 

enters the question of whether or not to insulate portions of forest 

plans from judicial review. 

Mr. VENTO. As I said, we will look at the Renshaw matter in 

terms of the headwaters issue. 

In this instance, do you think that using the water language in 

this bill will adversely affect it if indeed we are talking about almost all headwaters areas, with the one exception you had? Do you 

think the effect will be that we will basically preserve the wilderness qualities by use of this language? Mr. SCOT!'. As we indicated in testimony, Mr. Chairman, there 

are a couple of tests, I think, that the committee would need to 

apply which will take a bit of time if it is going to choose to use 

this kind of the Colorado-style language. 

One is to determine whether, in fact, the language comports with 

Montana State law because, as you recall and I am sure are painfully aware having sat through the negotiations, that Colorado language was devised very specifically to deal with Colorado State 

law. 

So one thing is it would have to make sure that Colorado language works under Montana law. Otherwise, we will open the 

doors to significant litigation. · The other thing that has to happen is that we have to look and 

make sure that all areas are headwaters areas. Otherwise, what 

happens is that you will be denying to a downstream area-in this 

case Renshaw being an example, part of the Ranshaw-any protection for its water. 

In a final note on that particular issue, Montana, for instance, 

is different than Colorado in the way that it quantifies its water. 

In Colorado, the courts do it. In Montana, it is done by the Department of Natural Resources. 
181 

And, for instance, one of the things that we picked up that may 

need to be changed are provisions that would protect wilderness 

areas from any future adjudicatory claims by water rights claimants who may be found not to have a valid claim under State law, 

but if this language grants them some sort of a grandfather right, 

they could have a Federal right not established under State law. 

So, because of those things we recommend in our language that 

it is easier to rely on an express reservation of water. 

It is a more difficult task to go through--

Mr. VENTO. It is true that the adjudication process in Colorado 

is much more defined. It has been much more exhausted. We certainly don't want to create any new water rights that wouldn't 

exist under prior appropriation and have been at least in some 

standard of claim. 

I note that the other two witnesses specifically that I have not 

asked questions of, Mr. Frasier and Mr. Newhall, that you are asking for substantial modifications of boundaries. 

I expect that these are issues that the author has explored, that 

we have explored in the past and that Mr. Frasier's boundary changes are somewhat more modest. Is that assumption correct? 

Mr. NEWHALL. I believe that that is probably correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Not to characterize, so we will try and sort through 

that. 

I don't know that there are some key areas that have been excluded that we might prevail to add to it. Mr. Bader is seeking much more, and that is, the use of the wilderness I think in a way 

that has not been utilized in the past in terms of designation and 

protecting much larger areas. 

So I am cognizant of that, paid attention to what your testimony 

was in these areas and am familiar generally with those areas, 

having gone over them many years ago and will again do so with 

staff and the sponsors to see what sort of modifications would be 

acceptable. But thank you both for your testimony. Mr. Williams d()_ you have questions? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

You have all been helpful, and we appreciate your continued involvement and along with us your patience in this process. I can't help note, though, the irony that-with the exception of 

one member at that table, you are all earnestly hoping-a bill not 

this good passed the Senate last year. I know that is your task to 

try to improve bills as they come along, and you ought to try to do 

that. But the irony of your support for a bill not this good in the 

Senate in the waning hours of the last session is not lost on this 

Member. Let me say first to my friend, Mr. Scott, that, as you know, Mr. 

Scott, the water language has enormous sensitivity. I have taken 

your suggestion before you made it and have asked the Attorney 

General in Montana to review this language, and they have pro- vided us with an original draft only, kind of a seat-of-the-pants look at it, and they are going to go back and do a full-blown critique of it for me. 

But I do want to tell you something that you and your collea~es 

at the table know full well and that is there is enormous sensitivity 

with changing this water language, enormous sensitivity in Mon-
182 

tana, in the West and on committee. Many changes-the bill is a 

goner. No question about it. I can't say that about any other part 

of the bill, but I can say it about water. Many changes. Down the 

drain. No pun intended. 

Mr. Newhall and Mr. Frasier, let me just use Tenderfoot Deep 

Creek as an example of the changes you have asked for. A number 

of Montanans have said there were a lot of people that want Tenderfoot Deep Creek or parts of it in wilderness. A number of people 

have pointed out to me that the timber industry has recommended 

Tenderfoot Deep Creek for wilderness so they say why don't you do 

it? 

Well, the mere fact that an area has wilderness characteristics 

and probably ought to be wilderness doesn't mean it is ready to be 

wilderness. Tenderfoot Deep Creek is simply not ready. There are 

inholdings there. There is a lot of off-road use in there. There are 

patented claims in there. 

Before areas ever make it to this bill, they go through a lot of 

work in Montana-easements, boundary :tments, trades-that 

this committee and the Congress has to inate. When much of 

that pre-work is done, then they make it into this bill. The fact 

that Tenderfoot Deep Creek is not placed in wilderness in this bill 

does not mean that it will never be wilderness. It simply means the 

work hasn't been done on the ground. 

And, by the way, I and my staff can't do all that work. There 

aren't just enough hours in the day for us to be out there doing it 

all. That is why your groups and groups like yours have been so 

helpful in the past in assisting us in issues around Yellowstone, in 

particular, but throughout the State. 

Mr. Bader, my friend from Idaho, Mr. LaRocco, is not going to 

want to hear this, but you and I at least have been getting along 

a little better these days so I am going to turn any lacing of you 

over to him. 

Now that I have done to you what you all did to me and that 

is commend me first and then tell me where I am wrong, let me 

commend you first, Mr. Bader, for at least what I sensed a month 

or two ago was a somewhat new attitude on the part of the Alliance in wanting to work within the :process. Not that you have 

been willing to compromise the way which you believe to be correct, 

but you wanted to try to work within the process. I commend you 

for that. 

Now having done that, let me tell you something: Your testimony 

is wrong. It is just simply not accurate. It is wrong, and maybe you and I could exchange letters or comments in my office about where 

it is wrong. 

I made a number of notes on your testimony that I don't want 

to particularly take the time of the committee to raise. But let me 

put it to you this way: I want you and the members of your Alliance to know that if I believed your concerns about what is going 

to happen to the land if this bill passes were real, I wouldn't have 

my name on this bill. I would be working to defeat it. 

It isn't that you want to protect the land more than I do. It isn't 

that you have a higher ethic about the place than the Chairman 

does. It is just that you have a different view of what the words 

mean in the bill than we have. You have a different view ofwheth-
183 

er the Forest Service is going to manage or do a better job in managing the bill. You have a different view of that, managing the 

land. Rather, you have a different view of that than we do. 

We don't disagree about the fact that the place ought to be protected. We probably disagree fairly significantly about what jobs 

can be allowed to go forward to extract some natural resources on 

the land. 

But everybody, at least on this side, that is, all the members of 

the committee on this side-and I must say several on the other 

side-while they want the jobs to go ahead, still want the land protected every bit as much as you do, so the disagreement isn't in 

that. The disagreement is in what do the words mean and how will 

the Forest Service manage it if we release it. 

I personally believe that in most of your contentions that brings 

you finally to your beliefs, most of those contentions are wrong. 

And you believe the same of me. But I did want to make that 

point, that we both want to protect and preserve the place out 

there, while having a viable economy go forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Mr. LaRocco, the gentleman from Idaho, 

wants to carry on questions here. 

Mr. LARocco. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Scott and Mr. Newhall, thank you very much for your helpful testimony. I think it is really important to have your specific 

comments on these areas. And I would expect no less of the Wilderness Society than to be helpful and constructive and to come to this 

committee with meaningful testimony that represents your constituencies. 

I have a question whether the Montana Wilderness Society is in 

agreement with the national groups or if there is any conflict right 

now and where you are in moving this bill ahead. 

Because sometimes when we sit up on the stage and these areas 

are looked upon, the State is closer to the ground and on the 

ground. And I am not saying they have a tendency to compromise 

more than the national groups, but I am just interested what the 

dynamics are between the national group and the State organizations. 

Can you comment on that? 

Mr. ScOTr. I am here testifying on behalf of the Wilderness Society. I come from Bozeman, Montana, and work in our Northern 

Rockies office, which covers Montana and northern Wyoming. We 

overlap a little bit of eastern Idaho as well with Craig Erkley. So 

we don't distinguish between the national and State. It is just the 

Wilderness Society. 

We work very closely with groups like the Montana Wilderness 

Association, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Wildlife Federation, and others. And I think that our testimonies dovetail in that 

regard. 

Mr. LARocco. Good. There is a portion of your testimony that 

confuses me, and I need some help. Let me read to you what is in 

your written portion that you summarized. 

Enterin~ this debate only puts us on a slippery slope. While at (ll'St, the Congress 

might liDUt its scope of review to the wilderness review portion of plans~ this clearly 

is not the long-term agenda of industry. In subsequent Congresses, industry will try 
184 

to broaden the adequacy determinations to include other, quote, problems, unquote, 

like forest health. Thia is something the timber industry is now vigorously pursuing 

in its negotiations of an Idaho wilderneBB bill. 

I am totally unaware of those negotiations in Idaho, and I really 

have my ear to the ground; and this has consumed a major portion 

of my life for the last year. I am unaware of those negotiations. 

Could you elaborate on what is going on? 

Mr. SCOTT. I can certainly appreciate that. I am sorry for the 

confusion. What I was referring to in here was the discussions by 

industry to try to set aside areas where lands would be specifically 

allocated to timber harvest. 

Now, that has happened over the last two or three years. I don't 

know the most recent discussions in Idaho. What I was referring 

to is, over the sense of history of background here, what industry 

has been attempting to seek by entering the forest planning debate. 

And maybe that at this point Idahoans have moved beyond that debate. But this was at a point two or three years ago when the debate was hot and heavy a couple of times. 

Mr. LARocco. It is still hot and heavy. 

Mr. ScOTT. I understand that. 

Mr. LARocco. I think your frame of reference may be in the negotiations that were sponsored by the legislature where a professional negotiator, a mediator, was hired and negotiations were pursued. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is what I was referring to. 

Mr. LARocco. Subsequent to that time that was dropped. But 

movement was accomplished, at least with an understanding, as it 

always is when people talk to one another. And subsequent to that 

has come my legislative vehicle and have now determined within 

the congressional delegation that we will try and move this issue 

to a resolution. So that puts that into perspective. 

Mr. ScOTT. There was no intent here to impugn the process that 

you were working on. 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. 

Mr. Bader, let me say that I condemn your guerrilla tactics. I 

strongly disagree with your tactics. I applaud the mainstream 

groups that have tried to be productive and enter meaningful debates with the Congress. Now you are here in a room that I elijoy coming to at every opportunity. Many debates have ensued, many 

decisions have been made here, and many important developments 

on public lands have occurred here. You are now here, but this 

flyer still exists. 

I think that you are really trying to raise money, raise emotion, 

and raise the heat on the backs of my reputation; and I deplore 

those tactics, quite frankly. I think you are trying to push an agenda at the expense of my good name. 

My colleague, Mr. Williams, has already said that if we thought 

that anything that we would be doing would accomplish what you 

have said we would in documents like this and in statements that 

have been made, we would be on your team. We didn't come here 

to propose forest destruction, massive cleareutting; and there are 

people in this room, quite frankly, that would find your statements 

about me being a representative or a tool of the timber industry 
185 

laughable because they represent industry; and they may testify to 

that later on. 

I just want to say that, you know, using this type of approach 

gets us nowhere; and I think that, you know, your bill is simply 

dead on arrival. You fmd four cosponsors, somebody from Manhattan, which I applaud you for finding a colleague that was willing 

to step up to the plate and do that. But now you have a bill number. You called it an act, when it was not an act. When this went 

out, it wasn't even a piece of legislation that was introduced in the 

halls of this Congress. 

But for my colleague and me, we have worked long and hard. 

This is a top priority on my staff. I have hired extra staff to work, 

held town meetings, walked the plank in many different ways, and 

it is just the beginning. 

So I welcome the type of testimony that the Wilderness Society and the Wildlife Federation has proposed. But my friend from Montana thinks that your testimony is inaccurate. And, once again, I 

think even in this room, the inaccuracies continue. But when my reputation is being impugned, when my name is being impugned, 

and when I think that you are simply trying to raise money to continue this campaign on my back, I have problems with that, severe 

problems. And I think it is appropriate for me to mention it in this hearing 

room, because, you have been in my office, and on my office hangs 

a quote from Teddy Roosevelt. It says: 

The Nation behaves well when it treats its natural resources assets to be passed on to the next generation increased and not impaired in value. 

And that drives me. 

But whatlou say is a lie about my actions and my intent. You 

use the wor "guise." You are bringing up my intent. And, furthermore, I don't think you can substantiate the hundreds of millions 

of dollars that you say that my bill would cost. You can't substantiate that for a minute. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I reld back the balance of my time. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Bader. 

Mr. BADER. Yes. I would like to comment on a couple of those 

things. 

Mr. VENTO. I would like to just give you an opportunity to reply. 

I don't want to engender another response and argument here this 

morning. 

Please proceed for a minute. 

Mr. BADER. Yes. One thing on the alert. I would ask you to point 

out where we asked anybody for money in that alert. It is not in 

there. 

Secondly, if I was getting rich at this, boy, I am in the wrong line 

of work. If we are bringing in piles of money, boy, we are not in 

the right place. But I just want to set that aside first. 

But then to deal with the substance of your question on the cost 

of these bills. You said in your own statement earlier in the day, 

before the panels began, that you were using your wilderness bill 

as a vehicle to provide certainty, and that you also put the planning process into statute in your bill. And I guess as to our view 

of that, the Forest Service plans for logging these roadless areas, 

if that is put in the statute, then that is part of the responsibility 
186 

that your bill carries. And these forests are losing money, as we 

heard from the Forest Service officials earlier. 

So the cost of implementing those plans, which your bill does, 

and what Representative Williams' bill does as well, it is a fundamental purpose of the act, that is a cost associated with that bill, 

if that is the fundamental purpose of the bill. And we do feel it is 

fair to attribute the costs of the road building, the management 

planning, all those administrative costs that are associated with 

implementing these plans, which we do feel are outdated, and have 

heard Representative Williams state publicly on many occasions 

that he feels these numbers are not accurate in the plans, that 

Muemont testimony was the tip of the iceberg. And I think we are 

all ph~!k much in agreement. I t · the four of us on that P.anel, if you look at our testimony 

and read the details of it, you will find very little difference in any 

of the conclusions we have drawn about language, about areas, 

about the general thrust of where we ought to be going. So I stand 

by our alert our staff put that together. I am proud of what they 

did. I think it is accurate. And I think that we are entitled to have 

a difference of opinion. This shouldn't be taken personally. I don't 

take it personally. I wish you wouldn't either. I am not saying that 

your intent personally is that you would like to see every tree 

chopped down in Idaho and expansive clearcuts. 

I don't believe that is in your heart, and I know it is not in Representative Williams' either. But I do think that when we attempt 

to legislate and put into statute the forest plans, you bought the 

whole nickel there with those plans. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank y-ou. I wanted you to have a response. 

Let me just say, in my Judgment, I don't know that when we 

pass wilderness bills-and release land-that we could claim savmgs by not permitting road building in wilderness and so forth. I 

don't think we would get CBO to score it that way or we could 

make everyone a money-saver. And I guess you are entitled to add 

it up any way that you want to in a sense. But we couldn't get a 

CBO score on that particular basis, Mr. Bader; and I don't think 

any place else or under any administration. 

I think there are questions about the low-cost timber sales where 

my colleagues and I would disagree in terms of what we would do. 

But to put the whole burden in terms of classification of land in 

terms of management on someone that is proposing to do wilderness for an area is an unusual means. But you can argue, I suppose, that way. You are entitled to your own arguments, but you 

are not entitled to your own facts. So let me leave it at that. 

You both have had a little bit to say about it. Obviously there 

are strong feelings here. I would remind you, you are working on 

the Montana bill, at least that is the topic of this hearing. I think 

the exchange and, hopefully, the indication of positive work on the 

part of all of the groups here, although they differ in terms of the 

boundaries and so forth, can be that there at least should be a common understanding as to what we are doing so that we can argue 

it on that basis. 

I thank you all for your testimony and look forward to working 

with you as we bring this to a conclusion in the next weeks or 

months. 
187 

PANEL CONSISTING OF JERRY BUSH, PRESIDENT, LUMBER 

PRODUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION; HARVEY 

REIKOFSKI ON BEHALF OF THE MONTANA TRAIL 

BIKERIDERS ASSOCIATION MONTANA 4X4 ASSOCIATION, 

MONTANANS FOR MULTIPLE USE, AND MONTANA SNOW· 

MOBILE ASSOCIATION; BILL BALLARD ON BEHALF OF THE 

MONTANA PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION AND THE ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION; JAY CHAMBERLIN, 

MANAGER, EAST BENCH IRRIGATION UNIT, AND PRESIDENT, 

MONTANA WATER RESOURCE ASSOCIATION; AND JAMES S. 

RILEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE INTERMOUNTAIN 

FOREST INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. VENTO. Finally, we have the second panel, Mr. Jerry Bush, 

President, Lumber Production and Industrial Workers Union, from 

Missoula, Montana; HarvE!y Reikofski, Montana Trail Bikeriders 

Association and Montana Snow Mobile Association from Kalispell, Montana; Bill Ballard, the Montana Petroleum Association, BU- lin~, Montana; Jay Chamberlin, the Montana Water Resource Association from Helena; and, finally, Jim Riley, the Intermountain 

Forest Industries Association, LeWiston, Idaho. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? Mr. VENTO. Yes, I would be happy to yield to the sponsor. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I notice that the president of the Montana Wilderness Association has moved from the front to the back of the room. 

And I just want the Chair and the gentleman from Idaho, as well 

as the staff, to note the presence of Miss Louise Bruce who I introduced not just as a friend and because she is president of the Montana Wilderness Association but because she gave her place in testimony to one of the members of her association. 

Louise was originally chosen by the committee to testify. The association, as with other groups, had hoped that they could have 

more than one witness. And because there was another witness, 

Mr. Newhall, who earnestly wanted to testify, the president of the 

association was willing to give up her testimony and her seat to 

him. And that was a more generous thing, Mr. Chairman, than I 

have noticed in 15 years that most of our witnesses are willing to 

do. 

And so, Louise, we appreciate your flexibility; and we hope that 

is going to be the hallmark that will see this bill through, because 

we are going to need a lot of that sort of thing in th.e next few 

months. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his observation, and I appreciate the patience and understanding of those that might have 

wished to testify but were unable to formally present their statements. 

And we would like this panel of witnesses each to take no more 

than five minutes to explain their position on the bill. And then we 

will probably have a few questions. 

We are pleased to welcome Jerry Bush from Local 3038. Mr. 

Bush, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY BUSH 

Mr. BusH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 
188 

For the record, my name is Jerry Bush. I serve as president of 

the LPIW local3038, located in Bonner, Montana. I represent more 

than 650 members who work in the lumber, plywood, and manufacturing industries. 

I am here to testify generally in favor of H.R. 2473. We support 

the boundaries but would like to see 10-year release language added, being as our forest plan is coming to the end of the cycle. 

Mr. Chairman, along with my written statement, I would also 

like entered into the record letters from the Montana State AFLCIO; a letter from Jim Hill, Western Council of Industrial Workers, 

representing 1700 workers; and LPIW No. 2581 of Libby, which 

represents approximately 550 workers. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Without objection, they will be made a part of 

the record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The letters follow:) 
189 

July 15, 1993 

Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Sub-Committee 

Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 2051.5 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

406-442-1708 

I am writing to e~e your committee's favorable coosideration of HR 2473, recently 

illtroduced by Montana s Congressman, Pat Wtlliams, to end our state's long-~ Wilderness debate. Although perhaps whimsically titled "ROUlld 16 of the Montana Wilderness 

Act, 1993", this legislation represents a very serious effort to put a destructively divisive 

issue to rest 

E.llclosed is a copy of Rcsulutioo IS 1, unanimously adopted by the delegates to the 37th 

Almual Convention of the Montana State AFL-ciO in June, 1993. Ahhough simple in 

content, this resolution reflects years of hard work by Montana trade unionists to filld 

compromise to Montana's wild lands debate. Perhaps the most important lines contailled in 

the resolmion can be fOWid ill the third "WHEREAS" wllich reads as follows: "it is tJbviolls 

tllm MolltQIIQIIS ll'tlllt this is~~~~e rtsohled, not only to protect jobs antllocol economies, but to protect those ltmdJ tllm truly deserve wildenu!ss designation;" 

Cl~, these words JK!int to a rejection of both extremes to the debate-- those who wish to dCSJgOate all remamillg lands to wilderness- - and those who wish to designate no more 

lands to wilderness. And, these words were backed up by action. 

Begillnillg in 1990, representatives of AFL-ciO local unioos employed in Montana's timber 

illdustry sat down with representatives of Montana's conservation community to artempt a compromise of the decade old wilderness debate. For more than six montbs, workers and 

cooservationists met almost weekly in the communities of Missoula, Lilli?, Thompson Falls 

and Superior to negotiate wilderness rcsulution on the Lolo and Kootenat National Forests. 

They reviewed forest lands drainage by drainage and, sometimes, acre by acre. They discosscd habitat, water quality, timber value and lwvesliDg procedures. They negotiated, 

traded and held fast when Warrcstted. And, in the cad, they reached agreement They then 

traveled to Lewistowo, Polson, Kalispell, Helena, BilliDgs, Great Falls and Bozeman to pr-t their plan to others. 

Workers and cOiiServationists, together, testified before U.S. Senate committees to urge !IIIJliiOl1 of their compromise. They traveled with eacb other to Washillgton, D. C., to voice 

thCJr support for an end to the controversy. 

Unfortullately, the voices of the extremes, led by former U.S. Congressman Roo Madcnce 

ud Repnbliean U.S. Senator, Conrad Bums, prOtested too loud. The compromise was derailed by industrial politics which found an anboly alliance in the advocates of a multi- state ecosystem plan. l'leither was willing to compromise, nor was either prepared to accept 

a balanced sollllioll resultillg from the hard work of others. 

-... --
July IS, 1993 

Chairman Vento 

Page2 

190 

Despite tbese setbacks, WOI1cen and consetVatiooists in Montana c:ootinue to believe tbat 

negotiation and compromise rqH'esent tbe best bope for resolution. As tbe cadosed resolution states: "tbe Montana State AfL.CIO (is illstructed to) do everything in tbeir power to belp reach a baluced IIOIUioa for Montanans;• 

Congressman Williams's bill represents our best bope of reachlna tbat balanced solution. lt 

is, perhaps, not perfect. But, it docs present tbe best of wbat bas lieen worked out in tbe 

past, and it offers a vehicle for settling tbis issue once and for all 

Chairman Vento, tbe daizens of Montana deserve an end to tbis c:oatroveny. Their 

communities and tbeir families want to P8C tbeir futures based upon more tban prolonged 

clebate and extremism. Baoup is enouaJL AD end is warranted and COII&fCAlll&ll Williams 

bas introclucecl HR U73 to aclrieve tbat end. 

We etJallll'age your committee to give favorable considcnti011 to Montana's communities, 

it's workers and tbose wbo want to protect tbe last of tbe best place in America. Please give 

"Rouncll6" your support nd your vote. 

Tllank you for COIISiclering our tbougbts. 

cc: Coagressman Pat Williams 

MOlltana localllllioas employed ia timber industries 

cadosure 
191 

Donald R Judge 

Execlalwl Secralary 

-406-442-1708 

WHEREAS, for yean, MoiiWiaDS have been locked in a very divisive battle over the designation of 

wilderness on our remaining roadless lallds; and 

WHEREAS, the induatries that derive their reoources from public lands need this issue resolved; and 

WHEREAS, It is obvious that MoiiWiaDS want this issue resolved, not only to protect jobs and local 

economies, but to protect thoae laDds that truly deserve wilderness designation; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that LPIW Local 3038 will continue to work with Montana's 

congressional representatives to reach a balanced solution to the wilderness issue; and 

BE IT FUKI'HER RESOLVED, that the Montana State AFL-CIO do everything in their power to help 

reach a balanced solution for Montanans; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that upon passage, this resolution be submitted to the 37th annual Montana State AFL-CIO convention for Its consideration and concurrence. 

Submitted by l..Mmber, 1'rotJMaion lllld lndustrliiJ llbrkers LoctJJ 3038 

ADOPTED BY THE 37TH ANNUAL MONTANA STATE AFL-CIO CONVENTION 
192 

LaCAL. UNIDN Na. 2581 

Liteb lJkotftuJroob of ~"pa1bn ab lf&JimD of ~ita 

l.at'l'nlft. AUaUft ....... 

·~· 

July 16, 1993 

Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands sub-committee 

Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

Well, we're at it again.- For the past 16 years Montana has been 

trying to resolve the Roadless Lands debate. Diverse groups have 

been arguing this issue, dividing communities and in some cases even dividing family members. It is time to put the rhetorical 

garbage aside and work on a true resolution to this debate. 

Reasonable Montana citizens, whether they work in the mills or recreate in the Forests or both would like this issue to come to a close. For too many years extreme groups have had a heyday on this 

issue. Those groups, who have used it for political gain do not 

want the issue to die. Each election year they bring it to the 

forefront. Last Congress, the issue was almost taken out of the 

hands of Montanans and resolved by out of state interests which 

would not have had a positive impact on jobs and the economy. 

Your committee · is addressing the bill today introduced by 

congressman Pat Williams. We applaud Congressman William's effort 

to again address the issue which becomes more controversial and 

less beneficial to those of us who work in the wood products each 

year. 

We want the issue resolved as well. Any bill passed by Congress ought to bring an end, to some degree, of the Forest service 

having to manage the lands for their wilderness values for a period 

of time. That is the reason members of our Local Union feel it 

important that the "ten-year" release language be included in this 

bill. 
193 

We encourage your committee to give full consideration to 

Congressman Williams' bill, include the "ten-year" release language 

and resolve this issue. Montanans' can have and deserve a future 

based on more than just rhetoric. We need to access some of these 

roadless lands now before the dead and dying timber is no longer 

good for anything other than a fire. 

Thank you. 

ely and~ect ully, ~ /,Jt • 

Wil'Kl'n , ness Rep. 

LPIW Local #2581 

Libby, Mt. 59923 
194 

WESTERN CouNCIL oF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS 

C« .,.,._,"''"'-'~<lit,.,,. 

Cl .. Yit,H:>•«OCIN 

ec .. T"""'"' ..... , .. .,,.,,. eo ott ... , ..... ~ .. 

721 S.W. OAK S~ET 

------

(503l228·0ta'3~ 

honorable bruce Vento, Chairman 

.. 0:.¥"''"'" ""'''0 .... ; .. ,..,,.H_. ... o,,, .. ,., ~W<-t..o·•••A 

""'"'"'' .. "'""' ,..,,._ ... r~u ,. ... ,(,. 

July 16, 1993 

P. 0. Box 7651 ~tssoula, Montana 59307 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Sub-Committee 

Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives Washinton, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

It only seems appropriate for me to write to you in regards to 

kR 2473. I can only add to whatever probably has been said in person 

before your committee. I represent seven Lumber, Production and Industrial 

Workers locals and about 1700 members located in Libby, Olney, Thompson 

Falls, Missoula, Boteman and Columbus, Montana. This membership 

manufactures everything from laminated beams to using the sap of Larch 

trees for products they produce. Without a base timber supply this 

membership could decline or in some cases completely disappear. 

The Montana Wilderness Act of 1993 is one of a long series of 

Bills that have come before Congress during the last two decades. 

I can only urge you and the rest of Congress to pass this Bill and 

make it the last one. 

Representative Pat Williams has made sure that both what should be 

saved as Wilderness is set aside and what should be released for multi· 

purpose use administered in the proper way by the appropriate Federal 
195 

WESTERN CouNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL WonKJms 

......... ~~~ .... ~ ... , ... o:-t .. T•"'~ ,,.~,,.a.,.,.,.., 

~;~ .. """'" Ollnu>., et'"""''"~ ........ , ... ,.o .. ~:eoo••., ...... .. , .. ~ .... I) ..... , •• 

..o•~ .. t,.,.c .. ,,.-e•"'" .. .,_.,,,..,,.<> e::'>~~• rP>.'-"'"'• 

""'"''."""'"'g 

0:=·-_-:""'"~~:._~•oo.o-;;;;;o--

agencies. This Bill is a compromise that will probably not satisfy 

either extreme. The people that want to set it all aside and the people 

that want to log it all. 

The main concern that have is if passed without amendments we could 

be back in arguing about the released lands because we are coming to 

the end of the Forest Plans. l along with the membership I represent 

would like to see that this bill be amended so that we do not get into 

that situation. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. 

Regards 

James A. Hill 

Western Council of Industrial 

Workers 

Inland Empire Area Representative 
196 

Mr. BUSH. Mr. Chairman, representatives from our local were 

here last year to testify in favor of S. 1696. We watched the 

progress of S. 1696 as it was passed by the Senate, amended by the House, amended again in conference, only to die a ~quick death 

in the closing hours of the Congress, having not been allowed to be 

heard by the Senate. 

It was sad to see S. bill 1696 join the previous Montana wilderness bills in the graveyard of uncompromising self-interest. 

This debate has gone on long enough. Montana needs a balanced 

solution to the debate. We need a solution that protects our jobs, 

our communities, our way of life; and we need to protect our wild 

lands that really do deserve wilderness designation. Mr. Chairman, our organization has been involved in this issue 

for over 3lh years now. After watching for better than a decade the 

extreme elements from both the industry and the environmental 

communities use Montana as a battleground, it became very obvious to us that if we sat by and watched this continue, we would 

never reach a resolution to this issue. 

This observation led our organization to sit down with conservationists, outfitters, sportsmen, and anyone else who wanted to have 

input on the question of wilderness and try to resolve this issue on 

the Lolo Forest. We did just that. This agreement, the Lolo Accord, 

was the first of its kind. 

We proved that when people come together and begin by hanging their rhetoric, their mistrust and their egos and their preconceived notions at the door, an atmosphere can be created which leads to 

a fair resolution of the issue. The mill workers found out that not 

all conservationists want to lock up all the lands and take away 

our jobs. And, on the other hand, the conservationists found out 

that not all mill workers want to clearcut every tree in sight. Congressmen, the majority of that agreement reached on the Lolo Forest is contained in H.R. 24 73. 

Beyond a doubt, the most valuable lesson learned was this: With 

a spirit of compromise, this, in fact, was a solvable issue. Without 

that spirit, those discussions would never have started. We commend Representative Pat Williams for coming up with a bill that 

represents the concerns of :people on all sides of the issue, keeping in mind the value and multiple uses of our roadless lands. 

We hope that you will look at the work Representative Williams 

has done on this bill to reach a balanced solution, a solution that 

protects our jobs, communities, and forests, both now and in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to us that Montanans want this 

issue resolved and they favor a balance between wilderness and 

multiple use. 

We believe we can have both. We can protect our jobs and local 

economies and protect those lands that truly deserve wilderness 

designation. Passage of this legislation will do just that. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we urge 

you to carefully consider this legislation and to make H.R. 2473, 

"Round 16 of the Montana Wilderness Act 1993," the final round 

in the debate over designation of Montana's remaining roadless 

lands. 

Thank. you. 
197 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mro Bush. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bush follows:] 
198 

LUMBER, PRODUCTION & INDUSTRIAL WORKERS 

Local Union ® No. 3038 

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA 

BONNER, MONTANA A823 

TES'l'DIOIJY OP JERRY BUSH 

SPIWtlJIG OK BEHALF OP '1'HB UJJI'l'ED 

ADDRESS OF WRITER 

BRO'l'HERHOOD OP CAJU'BN'l'ERS .JUW JODIERS or AHElUCA, Ltl'IIBER 

PRODUC'l'IOK .JUW INDUS'l'IUAL lfORltBRS UJJIOH, LOCAL #3038, AFL-ciO 

HPou '1'HB HOUSE JIA'.l"'RAL RESOURCE SUBCOMIU'l"l'EE OP 

JIA'l'lOJIAL PARKS, FORESTS, .JUW PUBLIC L.JUWS, 

MR. CH.lUlUfAI!I, FOR '1'HB RECOBD, MY KAME IS JERRY BUSH. I SERVE AS 

PRBSXDSlrl' or '1'HB LPIIf LOCAL #3038, LOCATIO Ilf BOIOO!:R, IIIOJITAIIA. I 

REPRESBM'l' MORE '1'HAJI 650 IIBIIBERS lfBO WORK Ill '1'HB LIJMBI!:R, PLYWOOD, 

AliD MAJIUFAC'l'UIUJIG IJIOOS'l'R.I.ES. I All HI!:RJ:I: '1'0 TESTIFY GBKll:ltALLY Ill 

FAVOR OF Hit 2473. liE SUPPOR'1' THE BO!JJIWdUBS, BUT WB WOULD LJ:D 

'1'0 SBB 'l'Bif-YDR RELEASE I.ll.ltGUAGE ADDED, BEIIIG AS otJ1t PORBST PLAJI 

IS CXliiXJIG '1'0 '1'HB BIID or I'l'S CYCLE! MR. CBAXRIIAJf, ALOIIG wr.t'B HY 

lf.Rrft'ID( S'l'A'1'1!:111!:MT, 1 'IIOIJt.D LID Slr1'I!:RBD Ilft'O '1'HB RECOBD LB'l"l'ERS 

l'RCII '1'HB JIOII'l'AIIA S'l'Aft APL-ciO, 11HIC8 REPR&SEII'TS 23,000 MOlfTAIIA 

1IORla!:RS f JDl HIU., lfES'fEIIII CODJICIL OF I.liDUS'f'IUA:t WORKERS, REPRBSJDI'l'llfG 1700 tiOlUtDS; AIID LPIIf #2!181 or LIBBY, lftllCil RBPRESEII'TS 

MEMBeR Of' INLAND EMPIRE DISTRICT COUNCil AND WESTERN COUNCIL. LUMBER. PRODUCTION & INDUSTRIAl WORKERS -'Cfii/J.,,..._,. 
199 

JERRY BUSH TESTIMONY, PAGE 2 

550 WORKERS. ALL OF THESE LETTERS OFFER. SUPPORT TO A SOLUTION TO 

THIS ISSUE, 

MR. CHAIRMAN, REPRESENTATIVES FROM OUR LOCAL WERE HER.B LAST YEAR 

TO TESTIFY IK FAVOR OF S.B. 1696. 111!: WATCHED THE PROGRESS OF 

S.B. 1696 AS IT WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE, WAS AMBNDBJl BY THE 

HOUSE, AM.BHDBJl AGAilf Ilf COMFER.BKCB, OI!ILY TO DIE A QUICK DEATH IN 

THE CLOSING HOURS OF THE CONGRESS, HAVIHG HOT BEEN ALLOII1!:D TO BE 

HBAR.D BY THE SENATE. 

IT WAS SAD TO ~BE S.B. 1696 JOIN THE PREVIOUS HDNTANA WILDERNESS 

BILLS IN THE GRAVEYARD OF UNCOMPHOMISI!IG SELF-INTEREST. 

THIS DEBATE HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. MONTANA NEEDS A BALAJICBJl 

SOLUTION TO THE DEBATE. WE HEED A SOLUTION THAT PROTECTS OtlR 

JOBS, OUR COMMUNITIES, OtlR WAY OF LIFE, AND WE HEED TO PROTECT 

OUR WILD LANDS THAT REALLY DO DESER.VB WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. 

MR. CHAIRMAJI, OUR ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE 

FOR OVER THR.EB AND ONE-HALF YEARS NOW. AFTER WATCHING FOR BE'l"l'ER. 

THAN A DECADE THE EXTREME ELEMENTS FROM BOTH THE INDUSTRY AND THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMilUIIITIES USB MONTANA AS A BATTLE GROUND, IT 

BECAME VERY OBVIOUS THAT IF WE SAT BY AND ALLOWED THIS TO 

COKTI!IUE, WE WOOLD 1fBVl!R REACH A RESOLU'l'IO!I TO THIS ISSUE. 

THIS OBSERVATION LED OUR ORGAHIZATIO!f TO SIT D01IN WITH COMSER.VATIOlfiSTS, OUTF:tTTERS, SPOR'l'SIOIM, AND A!IYONE BLSB WHO WANTED TO 

HAVE INPU'.r ON THE Q'Ul!:S':riO!f OF W:tLDERNESS AND TRY TO RESOLVE TH:tS 

:ISSUE 011 THE LOLO FOREST. WE DID JUST THAT, THIS AGRBBJm1rl', THE 

LOLO ACCORD, WAS THE FIRST OF ITS ltiiiD. 
JERRY BUSH TESTIMONY, PAGE l 

WE PROVED THAT WHEM PEOPLE COME TOGETHER AND BEGIH BY HANGING 

THEIR IUIE'l'ORIC, THEIR MISTRUST, THEIR EGOS, AND THEil!. PRECOKCEIVED HOTIOKS AT THE DOOR, Alf ATKOSPHBRB CAlf BB CREATED WHICH 

LEADS TO A PAIR RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE. THE HlLL WORltERS POUND 

OUT THAT HOT ALL COMSERVATIOifiS'l'S WAlfT TO TAD AWAY OUR JOBS AND 

LOCK UP THB PORBS'l'S, AlfD OH THB OTHER HAHO, THE COMSERVATIOifiS'l'S 

FOUHD OUT HOT ALL MILL WORKERS WANT TO CLBARCUT BVERY TREE IN 

SIGHT. CONGRESSMEN, THE MAJORITY 01" THAT AGREEMEil'1' RBACHED OK 

THE LOLO l"'Rl!:ST IS CONTAIHED Ilf H.R. 2473. 

BEYOND A DOUBT, THE MOST VALUABLE LESSON LIUo.RKED WAS THIS: IIITH 

A SPIRIT OF COMPaOMISB, THIS Ilf FACT WAS A SOLVABLE ISSUE:. 

WITHOUT 'l'HAT SPIRIT, THOSE DISCUSSIOHS lfOULO lfBVER HAVE STARTED. 

WE COMMEND RBPR!SBif'l'ATIVE PAT WILLIAMS FOR COMING UP WITH A BILL 

THAT RBPRESBif'l'S THE COKC£RKS Of' PEOPLE OK 80'l'H SIDBS OF THE 

ISSUE, UBPIHG IN HllfD THE VALUE AND MULTIPLE USBS OF OUR ROADLESS LANDS. 

WE HOPE YOO WILL LOOK A'r THE 1fOR1Ii: RBPRBSBif'l'ATIVB WILLIAMS HAS 

DOME OK THIS BILL TO REi.cH A BAIAHCBD SOLUTION: A SOLUTION THAT 

PROTECTS OUR JOBS, COMMUKI:TIES, AND l"'RESTS, 80TH IIOif, AlfD IK THB 

MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS OBVIOUS TO US THAT IIOIITAKAKS WANT THIS ISSUE 

RESOLVED, AND THEY PAVOR A BAIAHCB BITIIBBII WILD£RIIBSS AlfD MULTIPLE USB. 

WE BELIEVE WE CAlf HAVE BOTH, WB CAlf PROTECT OUR JOBS AND LOCAL 

BCOKOMIBS, AND PR0'1'BCT THOSB LAlfDS THAT TRULY DBS£RVB WILDBRJIBSS 
201 

JJmRY BUSH TBSTIMONY, PAGE 4 

DESIGNATION. PASSAGE OP THIS LEGISLATION WILL DO JUST THAT. 

IN CONCLUSION, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OP THE COMMITTEE, WE URGE 

YOU TO CARBFULLY CONSIDER THIS LEGISLATION AND TO Jl1oKE H.R. 2473, 

•ROUND 16 OF THE MOBTAMA WILDERNESS Acr 1993• 1 THE FIHAL ROUND IN 

THE DEBATE OVER THE DESIGIIA'l'ION OP MONTANA'S REIIAilfilfG ROADLBSS 

LARDS. 
202 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Reikofski. 

STATEMENT OF HARVEY REIKOFSKI 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. Thank you. I am here today representing the 

Montana Snowmobile Association. the Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association. the Montana 4X4 Association, and Montanans for 

Multiple Use. These four groups represent a membership numbering over 5,000 people and are representative of the many thousands more who enjoy motorized recreation in the State of Montana. Our members are not willing to give up historic motorized 

recreation areas simply to resolve the wilderness issue. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2473 and 

agree that the issue of additional wilderness in Montana needs to 

be resolved. However, we do find fault with some of the areas in 

H.R. 2473. We are also concerned that there is no provision to end 

the wilderness debate in the foreseeable future. 

Issues that need to be addressed include release language that 

allows management of those lands not designated as wilderness for 

multiple use and in a time frame that would contribute to the resolution of this issue and not allow it to be rekindled in 2-3 years. 

We disagree with the concept of wilderness designation as a tool 

for wildlife management when past history shows that motorized 

recreation can coexist in areas such as the Flathead National Forest. Wildlife officials in Montana have stated that deer, elk, and 

mountain lion populations are at an all-time high. But while elk 

herd numbers are up generally, they are down slightly in wilderness areas. Grizzly bear has achieved a 100 percent recovery goal in certain areas that snowmobiling and trail bike riding has taken 

place for the past 30 years. In a sense of fairness, it does not seem appropriate to designate 

more wilderness in areas that already have close to 50 percent designated wilderness. Yet the Flathead National Forest being one of 

these areas states in their 1991 Monitoring Report, and I quote, trends are static or declining for more vigorous t)'l)es of dispersed wilderness recreation uses such as backpacking. However, trends 

are increasing for the more service-oriented, less strenuous types of 

activities, end quote. Another misleading justification is the impact of motorized recreation. Many areas proposed in this bill, because of their pristine qualities, have remained so even with historic motorized use. Programs are in place on all forests to maintain and manage the use 

of forest trails, often resulting in the expense of time and money by Montana groups such as those I represent here today. National recreation areas should be managed at the same levels 

as they are presently. The public's input must be ensured to retain 

the traditional and historic motorized uses those areas have had. 

We vigorously object to the archaic method of allowing an individual determining arbitrarily the proper use of public lands put into 

special management. Again, the public needs to retain their rights for input on management of these areas and Congress gave us the 

direction on how this would be managed through the passage of the 

National Forest Management Act. 

We are sure that the committee will ~ that large-scale compromises are no longer possible. Meaningful changes on boundaries 
203 

of some areas through the use of trails and travel corridors as 

boundaries would go a long way toward the resolution of this issue. 

We know that there are management options that have worked in 

the past such as using Inspiration Trail as a boundai7 in the Lee 

Metcalf Wilderness. Several areas such as Dexter Basm, East Pioneer, Blodgett Creek, Flint Creek Trail No. 6~.1 Swan Crest, 

Thompson Seton, Crazy Mountain, and areas in me Great Bum 

would benefit from this approach. 

Currently in Region 1, al?pro:ximately 50 :percent of trails are 

closed to motorized recreation. H.R. 2473, m its current form, 

would bring total closures to nearly 75 percent or more of the entire trail system. 

I would like ·to point to the importance of motorized recreation 

to Montana and to its communities. The trails into our public lands 

are vital to their economic and recreational use of our national forests. Snowmobilin~, for example, has been a traditional nonresident tourist activity in Montana long before tourism became an 

industry funded by our bed tax. While the Institute for Tourism 

and Recreation has not tracked tourist spending on trail bikes and 

ATVs, it has found that nonresident snowmobilers are, and I quote, 

some of the largest spenders. The Institute has also found that, 

quote, the economic impact to the regions surrounding Yellowstone 

Park, Seeley Lake, and Lincoln is relatively large, end quote. On the Flathead National Forest alone, figures show that 77 percent of the recreation that takes place there is motorized recreation. The disparity of the motorized versus non-motorized land 

base is reflected by the amount of land use allowed by Region 1 forests which is allotted at just 25 percent of the total land base for 

motorized recreation. 

In summarizing, we hope that you will be able to study our SUJ.>-

porting testimon;r and hopefully realize the devastating impact this 

bill has on certain areas used for motorized recreation. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Reikofski. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reikofski and attachments follows:] 
204 

Montana . · >l-~ 'Ill :~ SNOWMOBILIIfJiiM= 

Association 

TESTIHONY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERIQ ITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS & FORESTS 

COHHITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

IJ.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTA'l'IVES 

HONORABLE BRUCE VENTO, CHAIRMAN 

H.R. 2473 

ROUND 16 OF THE MONTANA WILDERRESS BILL 

JULY 20, 1993 

BY HARVEY REIKOFSKI 

REPRESERTiliQ 

HONTANA SNOI#HOBILE ASSOCIATION 

NONTANA TRAIL VEHICLE RIDERS ASSOCIATION. 

HON'l'ANA 4X4 ASSOCIATION 

HON'l'ANANS FOR NIJLTIPLE liSE 

Mr. Chairman, honored members of the SubcOII'lll1ttee, my name is Harvey Reikofski. I am here today representing the Montana Snowmobile Association, 

the Montana ~ail Vehicle Riders Association, the Montana 4X4 Association and 

Montanans For Mul tlple Use. These four groups represent a membership numbering over 5000 people and are representative of the many thousands more who enjoy motorized recreation in the State of Montana. Our members are not willfng to give up historic motorized recreation areas simply to resolve the 

wilderness issue. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2473 and aqree that the 

issue of additional wilderness in Montana needs to be resolved. However, we do find fault with some of the areas in H.R. 2473. We are alao concerned 

that there is no provision to end the wilderness debate in the foreseeable 

future. 

Issues that need to be addressed include, release lanquaqe that allows 

management of thoee lands not designated as wilderness, for multiple use and 

In a time frame that would contribute to the resolution of this Issue and not allow it be rekindled In 2 to 3 years. 

We disaqree with the concept of wilderness designation as a tool for wildlife 

manageaent when past history shows that motorized recreation can· coexist in areas such as the Flathead National Forest. Wildlife o.ffiaials in Montana 

have stated that deer, elk and mountain lion populations are at· an all time 

hlqh. But while elk herd numbers are up generally, they're down slightly in 

wilderness. areas.' The Grizzly bear has aohieved a 1001 recovery goal in 

certain areas that snowmobiling and trail bike ridinq has taken place for the 

past 30 years.' 

* Footnotes, see attached paqe 
205 

In a sense of fairness it does not seem appropriate to desiqnate more wilderness in areas that already have close to 50% deslqnated wilderness. 

Yet, the Flathead National Forest beinq one of these areas states In their 

1991 Monitorinq Report, and I quote, trends are static or decllninq for more viqorous types of dispersed !wilderness) recreation uses such as backpack!nq. However~ trends are lncrea&ino for the more service-oriented, less strenuous, 

types of activities .... , end quote.' 

Anotherm!sleadinq justification Is the impact of motorized recreation. Many areas proposed in this bill because of their pristine qualities have remained so even with historic motorized use. Proqrams are in place on all forests to mal.,tain and manaqe the use of forest trails--often resul tinq in the expense of time and money by Montana qroups such as those I represent here today. " 

National Recreation Areas should be manaqed at the same levels as they are presently, the public's input must be Insured to retain the traditional and 

historic motorized uses those areas have had. We viqorously object to the 

archaic method of allowinq an individual determininq arbitrarily the proper use of public lands put into special manaqement. Aqain, the public needs to retain their rlqhts for input on manaqement of these areas and Conqress qave us the direction on how this would be manaqed throuqh the passaqe of the 

National Forest Manaqement Act. 

We are sure that the committee will aqree that larqe scale compromises are no lonqer possible. Meaninqful chanqee on boundaries of some areas throuqh the use of trails with travel corridors as boundaries would qo a lonq way to the 

resolution of this issue. We know that there are manaqement options that 

have worked ln the past such as usinq Inspiration Trail as a boundary in the 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness. Several areas such as Dexter Basin, East Pioneer, 

Blodqett Creek, Flint creek Trail 163, Swan Crest, Thompson Seton, Crazy Mountain and areas in the Great Burn would benefit from this approach.' 

Currently in Reqion One, approximately SOt of trails are closed to motorized 

recreation. H.R. 2473 in its current form, would brinq total closures to nearlY 75t or more of the entire trail system. 

I would like to point to 'the importance of motorized recreation to Montana 

and to its communities. The trails into our public lands are vital to their 

economic and recreational use of our national forests. Snowmobilinq, for 

example, has been a traditional non-resident tourist activity in Montana lonq before tourism became an industry funded by our bed tax. While the Institute 

for Tourism and Recreation has not tracked tourist apendlnq on trail bikes 

and ATV's, it has found that non-resident snowmobilers are, and I quote, some of the larqest spenders, end quote. The Institute has also found that, 

quote, the economic Impact to the reqions surroundlnq Yellowstone Park, 

Seeley Lake and Lincoln is relatively Iaroe, end quote.' 
206 

on the Flathead National Foreat alone, figures show that 77t of the 

recreation that takes place there is motorized recreation. The disparity of ~torized versus non-motorized land base is reflected by the amount of land use allowed by Reqion 1 Foresta which is allotted at just 2St of the total 

land base for motorized recreation. In H.R. 2473 the available land base for 

motorized recreation will be cut by 30t in the Flathead alone.' 

In •-rizinq, we hope that you will be able to study our supportlnq teatl~ny and hopefully realize the devaatatinq i..,act this bill bas on certain area• used for motorized recreation. 
207 

1. HUNGRY HORSE NEWS, Biq Game Numbers Continue ~o Rise Steadily, Thureday July 8, 1993, paoe 7. 

2. DRAFT EMVIROIIMEICTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, OPEN ROAD DENSITY STANDARDS, 

November 1990, paqe III-5 & III-6. 

3. FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, Annual 

Monitorlno Report, fiscal year 1991, paqe 16. 

4. MOBTANA TRAIL VEHICLE RIDERS ASSOCIATION, testimony on H.R. 2473. 

July 20, 1993, PIIQ8 3-4. 

5. INSTITUTE POll. TOUttiSN & ltKCRBA'l'IOif BI:SEARCH, University of Montana, 

Research Report #12, Kay 1990, paqe 3 (snowmobilinql. 

6. FLATHEAD NATIONAL PORES'!', M Ava. AHNUAL 86-91, Flathead National Foreet 

Recreation Vl.slts. FLATHEAD NA'fiOIIAL POII.ES'l' PLAN ROS M ACRES, Flathead 

Rational Fore.t Land Allocattona. FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, Forest Acree 

by Kanaqement Bmphaala, Fiscal year 1990. 
Outdoors 

Big game numbers continue to 

Improved wildlife habitat 

key to healthy deer, elk 

•w nCKY SHAY Staff WriiM 

KALISPEll. -Game herd popu· 

lllions ue on lhe rise. and so are suc- casful IMinoas. but wUI die uencl ...., lleaet babiW IIIII pme _,.. 

-ueJ*lollbo,.....wlly...,. 

aomben lane risea liace lbe 

aid-1970., ICCGidbll 10 Slaawa 

Riley, - wlldlifc bloqist far lbe 

- ~ ar Fla. Wlldll(e 

aod - (FWP) io JCalilpoiL He aid .... chlllellp io UopiDa 

......, .... tiel liCit io llllilaiDiaa 

luJer _..... ar e11c, moooe and 

deer, ""' 1o ..-.;.. tabiw ror -....mi. 

Oa.e lauvest statistics show 

elfons mllllpooe wilclli(elabilllue 

111Jiol olf ror ....__ Acccn1ina m FWPdala,-ill 

1974 ....-• 10111 ar 331 wlli~e­

,.ilod IIIII 1DU1o deer io die Nanh 

Fart ar die Flllbead River. '11111 fil· .,.,..,...llandoubledm737 in 1991. 

f"JCuruforl992ueiiCitJOlaYiillble. 

Riley said lho inaaoe r._ 1974 

"' 1991 .... .....uy beoalliP& bot 

Sleady. and is hiahet -"" "' inaases .,_ lho 1W 30 yean. llo 

lllltidlho-lwllahilized,porliall)' due "' poedalloa ,_ ..... ....... aod beus. 

.,. ... -... ........,. ........... popolodaa aod .... ,_ 

lbo lamen' bq," Riley ald. "AI 

- poial dlol II-,..-_ botiiCitlibly." ... 

He addod Clll elk ...nanlllp II 

--~.._­ • lbe IIIU1Iniat or--por11 

oldie....._ Riley alid doe .......... II oatCIIeolf_....,._._FWP 

-.............. _.....,.... cico ue biP io doe wloler. 1t1e 

clindiOr is-or 110tellc cam. ... ..mw:lllllil -lint binllday. 

Fawa ..m.c.ntUp io tile ....,Is 

~ylow,Rileysaid, -- llllmals are eewly bon IIIII .._. 

lhinJ is tryinl "' ... diem." 

O.me hlnl populitlana .._ liMn ......, on.IM 11M 8lra 1M 

"TladoeyJO~..;;,wloler ....,._-~lacta·ulboSGodo -

in I ---lilao dob, Farta(tiiOI'IIdloodlM, '1'11111 ellc -'J3

and k's - .. llaoa, • Riley ald. ..._ .. doe Soado Feldt. - 1990 

a .. wllile cit .... - ae ap ,...._ -. - ,_ 129 1o Rile

_.ly, they're"""" sJlPd1 ill 1990ml!llla 199LBol, -tho _....
2. Y!!!l!l!! 

209 

DRAFT EJIIVJRONMENT AL IMPACT ST A TEM£l'IT 

OPEN ROAD DENSITY STANDARDS 

Amendment No.lO to the 

Fbthead National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

For Non-Wilderness Ponlons of lhc Forest in 

Fbthc:ld. Lalcc, Lincoln, and Missoula Counties, Montana 

November 1990 

L Tllf-.cl _. End8ngetH Specie~~ 

bUUo-FBs~m;i.diirngp;p.iMkl-;d-t.fonthe~NIIIanll - Fanlllto be '*-1150 _. UIO tiJN" FEIS 1147).. . . • 

In 11188. 1he Mcnlana ~ d Fill\, Wlla. _. ..... illulld the 'Flnll 

~ 

P1011i*iiiiillc 

Moruna.'wNch.-..ed 

EmtiOIWIIIIbl 

S.to813~ 

ln.,.x s..n.. ..... on .. 

In the 

Gllzzlll 

U.S. podland 

S.. In ~ the NoriMm 

DMde~ (NCO!:). 'Thls---~--u.s. F"dhand Wllc8e s.Mce -ad J1J1t 11. 1988. biological 01**Jn an the UIMP • the bell 

I<UCe 01 current-- 01 !Jizzly t..IUIIbels In the NCOe. Tlw a.n..........., JIOIII.-Ion.d 1813 .,.294 g.tuly ... oft h....,_, ........ Fanlll .... .um Cil the 

11·5 
RECREATION 

I - RECREATION UsE 

210 

Table #1·2. ACTUAl RVD USE PER YEAR BY ROS ClASSES, FY 86-91; FlATHEAD NAnONAL FOREST 

RECREA110N OPPORTIJNITY ~ lAO$I 

P•riod Of Primitive primiijv• 

- primitive 

- Rural u.. Non- Motorized ........ .., FYM 140,900 27,1100 28,100 0 

FY&7 134,400 2tl,ll00 31,600 0 

FYae 125,100 27.- 27.100 0 

FY89 137,1100 30,1100 34,1100 0 

FY90 141,300 3:!,- 40,000 0 

FY91 199,200 39,500 41,500 0 

lwV 1:18,1211 31.130 34,020 0 .... , 

Fer lbe 191!6-1995 plannins period. the Foust l'IIVI 

projec1ed l.lmJlOO teen:alioft Yisi10< days (see Fomll'/Qn 

pasc U-9 andlbisn:pon 'sTable II· I andFiguno 11-1). Figure 

11·2 shows the ~and projccled lrelldsneeded 10acbieve 

lbe projecleddeeade avenge. Toadlievetheprojeaed c1ec00e 

a..,., ....,.,.;on use would llaYe to i~ to approxi· 

maldy I.SOO.OOO RVDs :IIUIUIIIIy. Dispersed use .oows an 

~ ll1elld. bur less lb:lftlbe FtNt:Jt 1'/mt projecled. Devd· 

oped ...., iacmlsed iA f...::al yet~~ 1991 yielcliJis a fairly level 

bmd. Wildc:r-.usedocn:ascd in lbc:al year 199l,yielcliJiga 

sli31lt down-.~ bmd. II is unlikely tballbe projected leYel$ 

oi ~ ...., will be auaiood during lbe planning period. 

Oew:lopedn!Creationuseforr..'!CIIIye&r 1991 was91% 

oltbepr<ljec1edavm>gc"'""ualuscforthedeeade. Tbeavcrage 

for developed RCrealion use for lbe fltSI six yearsol lbedeade 

isonly79%olthe projeaeda.......,annual....,for lbedeade. 

Winter use oi lbe Big Mounl:!in Ski Alea is considctcd devel· 

oped noc:reatim use. Winter use on Big Mountain incte:lSC:d by 

11.000 visiiOf days between fiSCal yet~~ 1990 and fiSCal yea< 

1991. Since fiSCal yea< 1988. winter usc on Big Mounlain bas 

incte:lSC:d by 34.700 RVDs (44%). Big Mounl:lin win~er use 

accwnts for 85% or tbt increase in developed n:crcalion use 

since fiscal yet~~ 1988. Campground conlribulions to devel· 

oped recn:o~im - accwnt for less than 6.300 RVDs (less 

than 15%) of tbt increase since f...::al yet~~ 1988. This is 

partially due to bel: or available developed siJe facilit«:.. 

Developed •••:rr::uion use wiiiiiOI reach tbt projection for tbt 

- Roodod 

u ..... Natu•ol ........ TOTAL Appooring App .. dno 

~ to-lop<Odl 

2,200 2114,900 198.700 683.200 

2.500 

- 206,100 

UDO 2117.1100 207.-H)() -·- &&7,500 

2.400 211S,100 237,600 729,300 

3,700 313,100 264,500 795.000 

5.700 336,100 292,900 -.900 

3,teo -·211 234.- - planning period. 

l>ispmed llXn>lllion- for fiscal yea< 1991 was78\\ol 

tbt projected a......, atn1ual use for the decade. Tbe average 

for disponed recreation use during lbe first six years or the 

decade is 61'1. or lbe projec1ed aYelllge.lnmastd.automobile 

1tavd along lbe Middle Fed: of the Flalbe:ld River and HigbWlly No.2 and an inc:R:ll!le in$UIIImeruseon Bi& Mountain are 

rbt major conlributors 10 lbe growth in dispersed use. Dispersed RCRalim UllC wiU 001 reach its proje(:led avemse 

amual. use foe the planning period. 

Tbe six·yea< ........., oi wilderness .... is 62'1. oi the 

average annual projection. U.C decre:lscd from fiscal 'I""' 

1986ro fi$Cal 'J"3C 1988tbtn btgon a gradual inc,..... tod:i(e. 

However. fiSCal yea< !991 use is still7% btlow the use level 

or r...,.l yea< 1986. 

Tn:ndsare st:llic ordc<:linins forth< more vigorous typ:s 

oi dispersed (wildemc:ss) n:r:muion uses such as backpacking. 

Howevcr.lrellds""' incn:asing for lbe 11>0<e service-oriented. 

less $ll'e!IUOUS.Iypcs ol activit«:. provided in compgrounds or 

in -oo-uro"-type activities (sucb as wbiJewater mfting). 

Wilderness use will nor rcacb tbt For<st Plan's projected 

20S.OOO RVDs per year during I be planning .,erio<J. 

Actual m.:rcation usc on lbe F1atbeod Nalioo:ll Foo:st in 

flst.J:l year 199 J ls 78%uf the 3¥Cragt!annuaii'U're:aaon visitor 

days {RVDsl projcct«< for the decade. Fisc.al yeor 1991's 

Flath~tuJ NatimUJI For~.u ,\muull M,miwring R~port FiJca.l Ytar 199/ 
211 

MONTANA TRAIL VEHICLE RIDERS ASSN. 

P.O. SOY. 2884, Great Falls, ~ontana 59403 

(406) 587-4505 

H.R. 2i.7J 

BOPND 16 QP TUE. MONTANA WILQERNESS ACI 

OF 1993 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Commi~tee on Natural Resources 

U.S. Houae of Representatives 

.'July 20, 1993 

by 

Linda Elli&on 

Land Use Coordinator 

3301 lleat Babcock 

Bo..-m, M'l' 59715 
212 

ECONOMIC OVERVIEW 

!lantana's National Faret<ts serv<:: a resident off-high'lay vehlcle (Otlv) .:o~tiJ!ur.it}'-

snolo."lDDbilers. tr.ail motorcycle. all-terr-ain vehicle riders+ ;'nd conventional 

d~ed four 11heel drive users - of approximately 300,000, pius an eHlmated 

!08,0001 non-resident r,;nowobilers and a simi !.or nllillber of summertime nonresidents on an average of only 25% of the total tra11 system.~ 

The retail market value of trail motorcyc1f and all-terrain vehicle !ATV) sales 

in Montana is esuotated at $38.5 million.· Approximately 3/4 of that !s j•1dged 

to be recreation oriented. ThiS does not address the direct and ir.direct econo.,ic 

values to communities near where these OHVs are used, vhere gas, lodging, and 

other purchases are JD.ade. There are an estimated 82 franchised and non-franchised 

motorcycle dealerships in Montana( employinl approximately 600 people, with an 

annaal payroll of $10.1 ailllon. There are an es£1mated additional 80 &hops 

across the state that derive at least a portion of their income from the repair 

of OHVs. 

Widely accepfed studies agree wilderness use bas been on a steady decline since 

the 1910's. Survey$ have regularly shown that approdmately 94" of all 

recreation takes place outside of wilderness areas. 6 Statistics in forest plan 

supporting docllJIIent~ indicate- that for many of the roadless areas under 

consideration, 110torlzed r:ecrea\ion is the largest single use calculated !n 

recreation visitor days (RVDs). ltany Montana c011111unltles need the economic 

stability of touris~. via eotorized recreation, to augment the seasonal effects 

of eommodity production. 

MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

OHV activity 1• pri.ar!ly 4 backcountry activity, dependent on trail ~esources 

and roadless areas for recreational opportunities. OHV recreation potential 

relies on trail networks to disperse activity, to provide varyinr derrees of 

challenging terrain, to provide •pecific aesthetic elementg (destinations), and 

avoid user conflict. Pue to inherent design eharacteristica of the vehicles, I!>Ost 

' SNOWMOBILING IN MONTANA, 'l'be Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Fall 1988. 

' ORV SUMHARY. Northern Region, U.S_ Forest Service. May 1989. 

' MOTORCYCLE STATISTICAL ANNUAL, Motorcycle Industry Counci 1. 

1992. 

Ibid. 

RECREATION 2000. A STRATEGIC PLAN. U.S. Department of 

Interior. Bureau of Land Management, 1988. 

RATIONAL TRAILS ASSESSMENT, 1$85. U. S. Dep'-'rtment of 

Interior. 

' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'l' S'fi\TEMmfl'S. Forest Plans: G.alla1:1n. 

Beaverh~ad, Flathead, Lolo, dnd Lewis ana Cl~rk National ~ores~s. 

(Re: specific area descriptions.) 

2 
213 

cannot be made "street legal" ·for llcef'.sing. and may not b~ used on C"Oi!d.s. 

irtcluding forgst ser-vice system roads, unless snch roads are cpec1ai1y de<i!gnated 

foe that use.· H.R. 2473 w1_11 destroy the con·ent p.atterr• of ~e:~reation use ~n 

M.ontana'e road.leAB areas. 

The majorl ty of the trails the liontana OHV prograHs depe!'lc o:~ ro atspr,rse cu,-~ent 

activity a!"ld fashion environmentally sound recr~ation opportuni::ies for th~ 

future are found throughout the3e roadless lands no01 under consideration - and 

nowher~ else! Although only a quarter of the tctal national forest trails ar~ i~1 

designated wilderness and artothec quarter in propooed wHdemess, this dues not 

mean that there are larg!l blocks of trail country in the remablr•g 50l; . 9 The 50'; 

of trail mileage outslde of designated or proposed ~ilderness is frequently in 

short unconnected, ond uninteresting fragmcnts. 1 gR. 2473 will increa9e 

fragmentation of the OHV trail system. 

Competition with other resources and the planning criteri« unique to O!N 

recreation severely llmlts our ability to "make do" with the minimal trail 

mileage elsewhere in the system. Considering the economic benefit to the ~tate, 

it makes good business sense to support our exc"lllent statewide OHV programs with 

an adequate land base and good environmental sense to expand the pro-active 

protection efforts of these programs. 

Acres are not the issue. The issue is trails. Snowmobile trails are not 

synonymous with opportunities for trail motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. 

North slopes and meadows where the snow lies deep in winter are entirely too wet 

for summertime access. 

Further, protection of groomed snowmobile trails is only half the battle. Groomed 

trails are mer.,ly avenue3 of access to the main event - snowrucbile play areas -

which occur mostly above timberline in deep and w.lnd set ,;now conditions. 

SOLUTIONS - k~ENDMENT CONCEPTS 

The creation of special management areas is one alternative to wildlands 

protection without lhe extreUle restrictiont~ uf w1ltleC"ne~!:i designdlion. However. 

for OHV management, past experience has proven that these "special" designations 

often fall short of providing that "middle ground." 

"Staodar;d language" does not adequately define ttNational Recreation Are.s..s", 

"National Education and Recreation Areas." or "Special Management Areas" with 

regard to continued motorized recreation activities. It fails to make clear that 

maintaining these are.as as ''roadless" is not '9ynonymous with "non-motorized." HR 

2473's discretionary determination of special management area activities is a 

step bach•ard in real! ty from current NEPA process. 

Creating tr.<dl cot·ridot:!-QL!!!J..l!.;.ing so~ trb!J_£.Q.UJdors 89 bcundar-i~s can help 

to aJleviate the OHV landbase crunch, allowJng us to maintain ties to aesthe!i-

'FEDERAL HEGLS'I'ER, Vol. 53, No. 178. Wednesday. Sept€mber 14, 

1988. 

WILD MONTANA, A Special Publication of the Hontana Wildet·-

ness Association, October, 1998. 

,. lb-'d. 
214 

:.::ally 1!!!PQ!"t.J;'l~ o:· hlst.~.·t:ft':ally u"Sed .1n:.H;, li:''l."!!!:fJJ~:,: ~~t~orc:~ l(1~e Tr..l!l:.Ci-x.t~t 

FGlOt addit1(Jf: to Absarola/?eart()Oth "· ~:t;·t~l.ine ·:~raii/(in--;3~ But:n fr,.J:pvsa1. 

Fieh~~r Poi!"!t"S;,ndsttlne RldgetQuiggo Pedk ?ro;:.f~r.al, .Stati•lin<~ :-ra1l/7ro:.Jt C.:reek 

Prvposal. 

SE.f.Jfi~Jl£U4~~ eaust <'II!Cfld HR 2473 to corr~ct ~he t~chnical GVt~rs!.t:Jht r.eg,ordin~ 

tr.e intent(,:- t:;ongress durin~ th~ creo:.tior~ of th?. Lee M~'!tcalf \.!Jldcrness H• 19SJ 

:o utilize :n~ph·ation Tr;Ul as ;~ motod zed b'Ju:'\c.i\!·y. for tul J y t"n yo?lH'". 

~~torlte~ use n~5 been un~ontested~ 

RELEASE/S. _ 393 

We strongly object to lh" add1t1on to and ~he retention of the re.ainlng ~:>ntana 

l<ilcierness Study Act Areal~ (Public Lav 95-l!SO) in v1lde1·ness study status. As a 

minimu~. a "$unset" provision should be provided in HR ~473 to amend Public Law 

95-150. The forest Plane need elbow room to work. ~e cannot do long term planning on land" tllott IQay be up for vildcrness consideration again within less than two 

year's time. 

ITeMS Of SPECIAL INTEREST 

Legislation liiPleaenting t.be Continental Divide !!aUonal Scenic. Trail vu specifically written so that OHV recreationists could retain access to portions 

of the trail. The CDRST is a national drawing card for OHV users as well as 

hikers for the aaJDe cultural, historical, and aesthetic reasons and 111otod:zed uee should be preserved on those portions where it nov ezists. 

We encourage consideration for restoring the Slough Creek Corridor throuch the 

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness as a .National Recreation Area with aotori%ed 

option$, 
215 

Snowmobiling 

Spending Patterns 

Per person pe;· day, in percent 

Retail 

Olber 

191.: 

Lodging 

81.: 

Travel Packqes 

321.: 

Snowmobilers 

Total $125 

Economic Significance 

Noo-resident mowmobilers are 

some of the JafBC'( speaders, 

averaging about $3,372 per 

lrip (4.5 days) per croup (6 

people). The majority of this 

lmOUIIl is 5pe11t oo lodciDc, 

SIIOWIIIObilo relalod retail, and 

eatiac and drinkinc ospeases. 

of Snowmobiling in Montana 

(1988 Dollars) 

Direct Effocts • 

ladirect Effocts 

ladw:ed Effects 

TOTAL IMPACT 

$!5,300,000 

8,700,000 

11,300,000 

$3S ,300,000 

Employee 

Compeosatioa 

$3,800,000 

1,800,000 

3,400,000 

$9,000,000 

'These· results may ~.i; tbo ;,p.,c,S&om clcbet ~·~ .. (soach u dowahill dciiD&). 

Tberelore. the impam r ...... tbis market ..,-.... nat be aMnbiaed with those ot att...-

sfcmenls as some oYertap·Woulcl Ottllt. 

Compared with other marlcet secmeats, the saowmobiliag compooeat of Montaua"s tourism industry is relatively 

small oa a state wide basis. However, the impact to the regioas surrouading Yellowstoae Natioaal Park, Soel<y 

Lake and Lincoln is relatively lar1e. Like the skiing segment, snowmobiling provides seasonal employment 

b<tween the peale summer seasons. 
216 

EFFECTS OF H.R. 2473 ON MOTORIZED RECREATION 

ON THE FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST 

The Flathead National Forest is comprised of 2,336,000 acres of which sot is 

currently des!Qnated wilderness. Forest Plan provides for an operatinQ land 

base for motorized recreation of 32 percent. Given these fiQures 32% of the 

land base equals 760,000 acres. The total acreaQe included for further 

desiQnation as wilderness in H.R. 2473 for the Flathead National Forest is 

253,119 acres. Clearly a little more than one third of the available 

motorized recreation land base would be lost. 

w attached paQes have been supplied by the Flathead National Forest, 

supervisors Office, Kalispell, MT. 
217 

FIATHFAD NATIONAL FORESE 

RECREATION VISITS 

M AVE. ANNUAL 86-91 
218 

FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST 

LAND ALLCX:ATIONS 

FOREST PLAN ROS M ACRES 
219 

FOREST ACRES BY MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS 

WILDERNESS - 50% of Forest Area 

WILDLIFE 

WATERSHED 

RECREATION 

<E- Acres in 

of Forest Area 

timber base - ~ 

of Forest 

TOTAL FOREST AREA IS 2,336,000 ACRES 
220 

Flathead 

SNOWMOBILE 

P .0. BOX 5041 

KALISPELL, MT 

Association 

59903-5041 

H.R. 2473 ROUND 16 OF THE NONTJINA JifiLDERNESS BILL 

OF 1993 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARXS AND FORESTS 

COHHITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 1993 

H. R 24 73 AND IT' 5 EFFECTS ON 

51UHJBILING ON THE FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST 

snowrobilinq has been taldnq place oo the Flatheai National l'tlrest since the mid 1960's. n.e first dealerships were established in and around Col 1M!! a Falls becauae of its prox!mi ty to 

the lm6t desired areas to BnOiooi!Cbtle. n.e early BnOiooi!Cbileno Wllnl naturally establlshlnq 

their play areas by uslnq the - areas ,they used in the other ....,..,., of the year. 

snowrobile cross-col.llltry r:aoas were first held on the roads surroundlnq 11\mqry Horse BeserWlr beolml:nq In the mid 1960's. '!he mre pqJUlar area to be ridden were the treeless 

alpine beslna and then the tree thinned ares :ra.lnl:nq fran 109t.linu activities. n.e Flathead 

snowrob1le Associatioo wu formed In 1972 to address the needs and CXIIlOel1IIJ of SOCIIoi!Obilinq. 

n.e first trail cp:ocmino beoan about the ~~~n& time and the trail systan has QrCWl since then to l!llfOI.Ult to around 200 miles of ancwaobile trai 1• In the Flathead today. 

'!he purpoee of the groared tralle Willi to aooess the llllllY play ar- the sncwrobllers enjoyed. n.ese areas lnchlded the followlnq: 

This area ls located oo the 'lib! teflsh Divide north of Olney lbltana. It is reached by 

climbino the Whitefish divide and travel!t~~;~ the rld<;le north fran a groared trail that ends 

at !lad Meadow Lake. There are ..-ral other alpine lakes in the vicinity just eauth of 

HUnteberQer. A trail that was onoe a l!lljOr arterial lowit~~;~ road passes Into the Whale Creek 

dra!naoe, this road is new shown aa a trail. It !a used aa a loop route by BnOiooi!Cb! lers that 

enter the area fran either Olney or Whitefish traYalit~~;~ the Divide to lbltsberoer Lalce an It 

provides access to and fran the orocmed trails. SlloWirlbtlers traYel to IIUntilberoer Lalce fran 

Willi- Creek. '!he Willi- Creek Trail is IIDOther llbllndoned lOOOltll;l road that has been 

proposed for a orocmed trail by. the Ten Lalces snowrobile Club. 'l.'his area has sionif!cant 

historical use and benefits ~Hers fran all of Northolest lt.lntana. This area has an abJndanoe of snow that enables ~llers to aocess it into late May and early June. 
221 

RED ME'AlXM RIOOE 

This area is within a few hundred feet of an existing and very popular groared snow:robile 

trail. Use of the area by sumer and winter recreationists is h\Qh, The Flathead Snow:robile 

Association uses the area to prarote family oriented activities~ Several lakes in the area 

include Link Lake. Chain Lakes and Na.sukoin Lake. Several abandoned logging roads are 

located in this area along with old logging activities which are used for or to access the 

rrany play areas and alpine basins. 

FAWN LAKE/OORIS LAKES 

This is a hiQh basin that is accessed fran the Alpha/Beta Lake road. It is an area that is 

extrarely challenging to get to and is used rrostly by expert snow:robilers in the spring. 

JENNY LAKE 

This Lake is accessed by traveling up the t:oris Creek drainages on an existing le<;jglng road 

throuQh a past loooing unit and up to the top of the crest. There are t.., smaller lakes that 

can be reached to the north by travellog cross country. This area has been recoqni2Eld by the 

Flathead National Forest as prirre SJ:I<>oiTObile recreation and has been given consideration by 

,....,ial !llllliSQEimellt variations of the open road dens! ty standards so that access to this arsa 

wi 11 continue after 1\pril lst. An abundance of snow and <>:>nneeting drainages allcw this area 

to be used until the end of May. 

HASH ID.JNTAIN 

This area is reached by traveling up the Lost Johnny Road to its end then traveling cross 

country to the Swan Crest at the top of Hash Mo\lntain. This area rivals the groared tails 

in the North Fork for .popular! ty and use. The Departrrent of Fish, Wildlife & Parks set out 

trail counters in the winter of 1983-84 as a rreans to docurrent the request to groan this 

area. Those fiQUres were as follow: Winter of 1983-84, 30 daYS counted. 580 !lll!W!Pbiles. 

Winter of 1984-85 30 days oounted. 1060 !lll!W!Pb1les. These figures were alm::>St as llllCh as 

was aCCIIIIUlated on the groared trails for the same period of time. There are several play 

areas on Mash tt:>untain that are used prittoarily for hill cli!Ti:>ing and cross country traveling. 

'J:his area is the center for exploring other areas to the north and south. Other areas such 

as Otilla Basin and Strawberry Lake are reached by cross oountry travel throuQh connecting 

drainages and ridQes. This area is used by family and expert sn<:Wn::>bilers. This area can 

be accessed as early as Nov!!mber and as late as ;tuly because of the abundance of sncw and its 

north and east facinQ slopes that hold sncw late into the year. 

STRAWBERRY JAKE This Lake is reached by travel !ng south cross country fran Lost Johnny/Mash ~ta!n. This 

is an area used by expert snowrobl!ers and caq;>letes or starts a route that travels across 

r1d9es and throuQh drainages to connect Hashtt:>untain. Otilla Basin. Silver Run, t:orls Basin. 

Jenny Lake and "No Nane Lake". The loss of this area would be ~stating to the 

snowrobillnQ cx:mrunity of the Flathead. 
222 

TCM TCM LAKE/NORTH BIGEIJ:M 

!his area is in the upper reaches of WMeler creek and can be reached fran "Wheeler creek or fran the Q.tintonktn Creek drail'lll.98· !his area provldea for sane spectacular scenery fran the 

!Win Crest and It provldea 11<11111 very challenqlnq rldlnq to access it. 1hls area can also be 

reached by lonq distance cross country travel fran a trail head at Sixmlle Creek In the sw.n Valley at the too.n of !Win Lake. An abundance of snow malcss this area accessible until the end of Hay to the first of June. 

SIX MILE 

1hls trail hall.d aocesses the Hall Lake, Hall Mountain, Q.ttntonkln and "Wheeler creek 

draifla9118. It Ia the challenge of the terrain that m:>tlvates tlrlOW!Obllers to ride this area and It provides for a very unique 1111CW00blle experience. All of the aNaS in the swan Crest 

are aooe&sed ustnq the QBilllr!l.l direction of Alpine Trail 11 in carl:>! nation wl th the rldQes 

that aprW fran It. Snolomlbllers are not In conflict of use by other groups in theM areas In the winter as they are IIOl:mlll!y the only f01'11l of rec:reation taklnq place In the winter. 

1hls area wu previously used for primitive 110111Dtor12111d rea:eation before lllplementatioo 

of the cw:nnt ~t Plan. It provided for.._ very unl~ q~~X~rtunitles for SllCW!d)Uinq 

unt11 ~t dlrecticn <ihlnOad the q~~X~rtunlty for acaess. It Ia ~tty reeded and has baa! ~ted for a 111l111Q811mt d1lmQe to allow sncwnobllinq In port!0011 of lt. .1\ooa&s 

used to bs fl'CIII the HUnQry Hone liiiiiMrYolr road and m:>re fAqUantly by crosa country t~l 

~ 

fran the SWIIn valley. '1'he residents of the SWIIn and the Flathall.d would like to - this area to sncwnob!llnq to help mltiQilte for l011t ~tunlt1ss In other areas. 

SlHIARY 

A lar:Q!I l!IIOIIIlt of the ._ Included In the SloB\ Crest and the North Pork are reactled by 

absndcned 10Qa1nq t'OIId8 and put ID~;PJino actlvlttea. the eatabllahnant of a boundary en the 

SWIIn Crest startinG at an elevation 1-1 of 5200 feet defeats the purpoee of SllCWIDb!Hno 

these ._. 'l'here are wry fw ._ before the 5200 foot elevation for off road WJe 

becaWie of the at- WOClded dral- that roods follow. Off road use bsolllll ~ the road 

ends, at around 5200 feat In el-tion. 

Respectfully submitted by, 

Harvey Reikofskl 

Chairman, Public Landa Committee 

Flathead Snowmobile Asaoe1at1on 
223 

Mro VENTOo Mro Ballard, if you would take about five minuteso 

I know you have testified before on this subject, and you have a 

long statemento So if you would summarize it, I would appreciate 

ito 

STATEMENT OF BILL BALLARD 

Mro BALLARDo Thank you, Mro Chairmano 

For the record, my name is Bill Ballardo I am president of a 

small independent oil and gas company located in Billings, Montanao I am a geologist by training, and my area of expertise has 

been the Northern Rocky Mountains throughout most of my careero 

I have served as president of the Montana Petroleum Association 

and also the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association in the pasto 

And I presently serve on the National Petroleum CounciL 

The oil and gas industry is anxious to resolve this wilderness 

issue, as I testified last yearo We feel that we have worked at it 

long enougho And it is time now to put this issue behind us so that 

we can get on with our development of our natural resources in the 

State of Montanao We presented you with written testimony which 

I ask you to read very carefully as you deliberate this bill in committeeo 

My oral remarks today I want to restrict to the findings of a 

study that was suggested by me last summer when I testified before this committee on the Senate version of the wilderness billo 

Chairman Vento, as I recall, agreed that such a study was in 

order; and it took about six weeks to complete this studyo We used 

data from various industry sources from the United States geological survey and from the U.So Bureau of Mineso And we compiled 

it all and put it together to try to help evaluate the oil and gas potential of the area, which is being proposed for wildernesso 

Representative Williams had an opportunity to visit my office in 

Billings after completion of this project last yearo And we did have 

a chance to discuss it with himo And I am happy to say that he 

has used some of this information as he put together this bill that 

is before us todayo 

In order to have an oil and gas field, there are certain conditions 

that must have been met in the geologic pasto There must be hydrocarbon source rocks present, reservoir rocks must be present, 

and trapping mechanisms must be presento As we discussed last 

year, the easiest thing to evaluate is the hydrocarbon source bed 

potentialo It takes nothing more than a rock hammer and a sack 

and then a chem lab in order to accomplish thiso 

Again, as I mentioned earlier, we collected the data that was in 

private company files, USGS files, and the U .So Bureau of Mine 

files and compiled it in order to evaluate the source bed potential 

in the area that we are considering todayo 

Now, after the hearings last summer and after putting all of this 

material on the base, we have been able to identify the areas where 

hydrocarbons have been generated in the area of the wilderness 

proposalo And this map that I have on the board here, which I 

doubt you can see from where you are sitting, has the areas that 

this data would show have had definite hydrocarbon generation in 

the pasto 
I have also identified with these orange arrows a refinement of 

these areas. In other words, we have gone beyond the source bed 

study and gotten into some company files and found areas where 

there has been geoP,hysical and additional ~~~gic work accomplished in order to 1dentify the trapping mec · sm, which would 

be step two in this hydrocarbon evaluation process. The areas that we would like to recommend to the committee 

that be omitted from this, there are several on here that would 

qualify. But we are focusing on three specific areas which have had 

source bed study accomplished. They have had the geophysical and 

the geological evaluation accomplished, and it is now ready for 

drilling. 

These areas are all comparable to the Waterton Field which lies 

just off of this map approximately 10 miles north of the border in 

Canada. 

We can show in Exhibit A, if you would refer to that in your packets, a very close analogy between the Waterton Field in both 

vertical dimension and horizontal dimension. So it is reasonable to 

say that with the data that we have, we can describe at least three 

years in the State of Montana which has this type of potential 

available to us. 

The areas that I would like to recommend be removed from the 

bill and from the wilderness designation would be a portion of the 

Elk Horse. Now Representative Williams has taken into account 

the study that we did last summer, and a portion of this was removed from what the Senate had been considering last year. 

However, the boundary needs to be about three miles further 

north than it presently is to take care of the full trap that has been 

identified thrOugh the geophysical means. The other two that we 

would recommend be omitted from the bill would be the Silver 

King-Falls Creek area and the Deep Creek area along the mountain front, Deep Creek being part of the Amold Bolle additions to 

the wilderness. There are several others that would also have high priority. But 

we believe that we are far enough along in the evaluation process that we can say specifically that these three areas have the oppor- tunity to be size fields in the State of Montana, and we have gone beyond the standard statistical chances that a wildcat well would 

have as you go into a process like that. 

Here, since we have identified the source bedsi we have identified the traffic mechanism. I think it is reasonab e to say that we 

are looking at a shot of maybe one in three or one in four as a 

probability for discovering a Waterton-type field on our side of the 

border. And this is opposed to saying the standard statistics of one 

in ten for a wildcat well. 

The fiscal side of this thin~ is important to consider as well. I 

was interested in Representative Williams' statement earlier about 

the plight of the taxpayers in the State of Montana. And he is certainly right on target when he talks about that. I happen to be one 

of them, and certainly we are aware of the situation in the State 

of Montana in terms of that. We have been going through a number of exercises in the State legislature trying to determine ways of handling our budget, cutting expenses, firi.ding new revenues, 

just as you have in the Federal Government here in Washington. 
This situation is such that if we could find one Waterton Field on 

our side of the border and if we applied the existing Montana severance and LGST tax rate to that production, we would produce $1 

billion in revenue to the citizens of Montana, to the State government, without taking one nickel out of the ordinary taxpayers' 

pockets. And I believe this is something that needs to be considered 

as we look at the wilderness proposals that are before us. 

When we asked for the removal of these three areas, we are talk-

!:fi1:bout approximately 100,000 acres in total land out of the 1.52 

·on acres that has been proposed. We do believe that that is a 

ve¥b!:'t:onable request. 

you for the opportunity to present this. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Ballard. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ballard follows:] 
226 

TESTIMONY 

OF THE 

MONTANA PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION 

AND THE 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN OIL 8c. GAS ASSOCIATION 

REGARDING THE 

MONTANA WILDERNESS BILL 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

JULY 20, 1993 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 
227 

My name is Bill Ballard. I am president of Ballard and Associates, an 

independent oil and gas company in Billings, Montana. I am a geologist, and 

my area of expertise is the northern portion of the Rocky Mountain states, 

including Montana. I am a past president of the Montana Petroleum 

Association (MPA) as well as the Rocky Mountain Oil &. Gas Association 

tRMOGA). 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement on H.R. 2473, 

•Round 16 of the Montana Wilderness Act of 1993•. I am speaking today on 

behalf of the Montana Petroleum Association, a division of the Rocky Mountain 

Oil &. Gas Association. RMOGA is a trade association representing hundreds 

of companies and individuals involved in all phases of oil and gas activities 

throughout the Rocky Mountain states. Our membership is diverse, and 

includes major companies as well as small and medium-sized independent 

operators active in this region. These operators account for more than 90% of 

the oil and gas resources produced in this eight state area. Continued access 

to federal lands for oil and gas exploration and development is of paramount 

importance, not only to our members, but to the local, state, regional and 

national economy as well. 

As we have testified before, the petroleum industry is not opposed to 

wilderness designation. On the contrary, we would support balanced legislation 

designating new areas as wilderness. We recognize that there are lands which 

are unique and sensitive and which qualify for wilderness protection. I and 

many people in our industry hunt, fish, hike, ski and enjoy the scenery, as all 

Montanans do; and we, too, would like to have certain areas set aside for 

wilderness preservation. 

However, we believe that there are two factors which must be taken into 

account in the determination of which lands should be designated as 

wilderness. 

First, in order to determine the highest and best use of various lands, Congress 

must have all the available information about the land's resources--both surface 

and subsurface. In many cases here in Montana, the information about the 

subsurface or mineral resources is sketchy, largely because exploration has 

been prohibited from occurring. However, companies do have some limited 

information about the mineral potential of these areas and this data .!llUJl be 

taken into account. 

Second, wilderness designation is not the only way an area's surface resources 

can be protected from harm. There are scores of statutes and attendant 

regulations which currently provide superlative protection for all environmental 
228 

-2-

resources. It is incorrect to assume that unless an area is designated 

wilderness it will not be protected from harm. Obviously, if that were the case, 

there would be no lands which would qualify for wilderness at all. The Forest 

Service has successfully managed these lands without wilderness protection to 

date. 

Industry's technological capability to operate safely in environmentally-sensitive 

areas, along with the extensive environmental laws, regulations and policies 

currently in effect, make wilderness designation unnecessary in order to protect 

the environment. 

We have heard the pros and cons of establishing more wilderness in Montana 

for over a decade. The only information that is lacking about most of these 

areas is an accurate evaluation of their mineral potential. This, of course, can 

only be accomplished through exploration and drilling. 

For some time now, all national forests in Montana have been off-limits to the 

oil and gas industry--even areas D.Qt. under consideration for wilderness. (In 

fact, no national forest land in Montana has been put up for lease for more than 

eight years!) Unfortunately, one of the highest potential areas in this nation--

the overthrust province--is almost entirely within national forest and potential 

wilderness areas. The inaccessibility of these lands is having an adverse impact 

on discoveries, on federal royalties that help fund education in Montana, and 

on investment and employment opportunities in the state. 

Even though the price of oil has stabilized somewhat in recent years, drilling 

continues to decline. The annual rig counts of the past five years echo the 

early 1950's, before some of Montana's most significant oil fields had been 

discovered. Further, Montana's annual oil production has declined to the level 

of 1955, and for 1994 is projected to be only 17.7 million barrels. If 

exploratory drilling doesn't occur, oil and gas production declines, and that is 

exactly what is happening. Montana mirrors national trends. This nation 

imported more than 8 million barrels a day in May of 1993, while producing less 

than 7 million barrels. This means, of course, that we are Importing over 50% 

of the oil that we use. 

Ordinarily, an increase In price triggers an increase in drilling, which happened 

in the late 70's and early 80's; but conditions are quite different in the 

petroleum industry now. Most of the smaller independent companies just do 

not have the funds for extensive drilling programs due to decreased cash flows, 

debt repayment and difficulty in finding investors. The larger independents and 
229 

-3-

the major oil companies only look for the • impact prospects •, or those that will 

significantly affect their reserves and bottom line. For the most part, these 

companies are investing a majority of their drilling capital in foreign countries. 

Does that overseas investment mean that America does not have any large 

prospects left? The answer to that is a resounding "No!". The United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that billions of barr~ls of oil and trillions of 

cubic feet of gas are yet to be discovered within our borders. However, the 

most likely areas for large reserve prospects are in Alaska, the Rocky Mountain 

Overthrust, and offshore--all of which have very limited access for industry due 

to various governmental restrictions. 

Here in Montana, it is a geologic fact that lands in the western half of the state 

hold tremendous potential for major oil and gas deposits. Many of these 

potential lands are already within wilderness boundaries, but there are other 

potential areas which can be explored, jfthev are not locked up. To emphasize 

the fact that giant oil and gas deposits may be present, I have prepared exhibits 

comparing an area near Townsend, Montana, and the Silver King-Falls Creek 

Area, with the Waterton Field of southern Alberta, which lies along the same 

structural trend as these areas. (Exhibit A, Figures 1-5, shows the relationship 

between the Montana Overthrust Belt and the Canadian producing overthrust 

province. It also compares the geology of the Waterton Field with the geology 

of specific projects.) The Waterton Field was discovered in 1956 and will 

produce 2. 75 trillion cubic feet of gas and 120 million barrels of oil before 

abandonment. The prospect near Townsend lies partly on fee land, and partly 

in the area proposed by this bill for the Elkhorn Wilderness. Because the fee 

lands exist, the company was able to obtain seismic data which allowed them 

to make a comparison with Waterton Field geology, and the accompanying 

cross-section shows a remarkable similarity. Geophysical data across Silver 

King- Falls Creek reveals the same similarity. The conclusion, therefore, is that 

an extremely high probability exists for Waterton-type oil and gas fields in these 

areas. 

We should be doing similar studies throughout western Montana, but this can 

not be done if an area is designated as wilderness. Without these studies. no 

reliable evalyatjon can be made in areas such as this. 

Modern geological and geophysical techniques are much more accurate in 

identifying potential oil and gas areas than older methods. Even data examined 

in the 1970's which led to labeling certain areas as having no oil or gas 

potential need reexamination with modern techniques before a decision to lock 
230 

-4-

up the lands is made. With our present high dependence on foreign oil, mt.I.CU 

shoyld be locked yg wjthout an eyalyatlon utilizing today's advanced 

technology. 

While it is not possible for me or anyone else to say with certainty the exact 

location of oil and gas deposits in unexplored areas, what I iaQ do is identify 

the general areas where conditions exist that favor the presence of oil and gas 

fields. These conditions include the presence of rocks capable of generating 

hydrocarbons (source rocks), rocks capable of holding fluid (reservoir rocks), 

and geologic mechanism for localizing oil and gas Into commercial 

accumulations (traps). 

Last summer, during consideration of Senate Bill 1696, I testified before this 

committee and the House Agriculture Committee concerning a study to evaluate 

the hydrocarbon source bed potential of the area as a means of grading the 

proposed wilderness parcels on their oil and gas potential. Representatives Olin 

and Marlenee and Chairman Vento suggested that this study be done as an aid 

in the wilderness evaluation. The study took approximately six weeks, but an 

opportunity to present it to these committees never occurred. (I did, however, 

have an opportunity to discuss it with Representative Williams during one of his 

visits to Billings.) 

The study identified specific areas where oil or gas, or both, have been 

generated, and any area of generation would have potential for accumulation. 

Work accomplished .~ina the source bed study involved accumulation of 

geologic and geophysical data for additional area refinement and, based on 

these studies, it is apparent that the following areas have extremely high oil and 

gas potential: (See maps in Exhibit B) 

Une Creek 

Elkhorn 

Volcano Reef (Arnold Bolle addition) 

Choteau Mountain (Arnold Bolle addition) 

Deep Creek (Arnold Bolle addition) 

Silver King - Falls Creek (Arnold Bolle addition) 

I propose at a mjnjmum that these areas be eliminated from the bill and 

exploration for hydrocarbons be allowed. The Badger-Two Medicjne area also 

has extremely high oil and gas potential, and exploration should be allowed to 

proceed there as well. 
231 

-5-

Other areas proposed for wilderness in this bill have high to moderate potential, 

but prospect definition is not as advanced as in those areas listed above. 

Nevertheless, Congress should not close its eyes to the tremendous oil and gas 

potential that lies within these areas. Based on my analysis and that of many 

other members of the industry, the following areas in the current bill should be 

considered to have high oil and gas potential and, as such, should be excluded 

from wilderness designation at this time: 

Italian Peaks 

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Additions 

Lee Metcalf Cowboys Heaven 

Camas Creek 

Mount Baldy 

Gates of the Mountains 

Badger-Two Medicine 

Mount Helena 

North Absaroka Wilderness Additions 

Sawtooth North Wilderness Study Area 

North Fork Wilderness 

Tenderfoot/Deep Creek National Recreation Area 

Jewel Basin-Swan 

The following areas should be considered to have ~ moderate potential, 

and should also be excluded from wilderness at this time: 

East Pioneer 

Lost Water Canyon 

North Mission Mountains 

Earthquake 

Black Mountain 

Blackfoot Meadows-Electric Wilderness 

Snowcrest 

It must be noted that an area's subsurface resources are potentially as 

important as an area's surface resources. An area's mineral resources must be 

explored prior to placing it in a highly restrictive status or to makjng permanent 

decisions regarding land management. This was also the approach taken by 

Congress for designating wilderness areas when it provided, in the 1964 

Wilderness Act, a 20-year window for mineral exploration and development 

before permanently withdrawing these lands from access. 

The State of Montana is a geologic frontier for oil and gas exploration. Less 

than 3% of Montana has been fully evaluated for its oil and gas potential. 
232 

-6-

Although four small oil and gas fields have been developed in the Montana 

Disturbed Belt along the Rocky Mountain Front, a major reserve hes not yet 

been discovered, largely because of severe access restrictions placed on high 

potential areas and the recent economic slump in the energy industry. 

However, it is important to reiterate that major production has been established 

directly across the Canadian border In Alberta, as well as to the south in the 

Overthrust Belt in Wyoming. Both of these areas are geologjcallv very sjm!lar 

to the Montana oortjon of the Rocky Mountain Front. 

The petroleum industry is particularly interested in exploration in Montana 

because in the 78 years since the first commercial wells, Montana has 

produced 1.2 billion barrels of oil and around 2.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. That 

2.2 TCF produced in 76 years is less than Shell Canada's Waterton gas field, 

50 miles north of the border, has produced in 30 years. The potential is clearly 

there, but Montana's frontier lands need to be explored in a careful fashion and, 

if resources are found, they should be produced in an environmentally safe 

manner. 

The oil and gas industry has proven that our operations are entirely compatible 

with the environment. In fact, in the Gros Ventre Wilderness, designated In the 

Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984, two well sites had been previously drilled 

and reclaimed with no noticeable environmental impacts. So unnoticeable were 

these impacts that the area was thought to be totally wild, and was found to 

be entirely suitable for wilderness designation, eyeo though drilling had taken 

~. 

Modern industry operational techniques minimize the area and amount of 

disturbance, and rehabilitation capabilities have reached such a level of 

competence that the impacts of oil and gas operations are virtually, if not 

entirely, unnoticeable, and in all cases, are only temporary in nature. Reclaimed 

drillsites on the Rocky Mountain Front and other environmentally-sensitive areas 

in Montana are evident only from the metal marker. In places where the marker 

was cut off below the ground at the land owner's request, there is NO visible 

evidence of oil and gas exploration. 

I would like to address several other areas of H.B. 2473. 

Fjscal Impact on the State of Montana 

Montana, like the Federal Government, is having problems balancing its budget 

and the State is considering new taxes for revenue enhancement. Qm 

Waterton Fjeld in Montana would yield one billion dollars to the State during its 
233 

-7-

lifetime, and studies thus far have identified .fiWr such opportunities. If allowed 

to develop these opportynitjes. a high probability exjsts that raising taxes on 

private citizens will be unnecessary. 

Release Language 

The most critical component of any balanced wilderness legislation is language 

providing for the actual oermanent release of lands determined to be unsuitable 

for wilderness designation. The "release"language in H.B. 2473 is a misnomer, 

since lands will not actually be released from wilderness study to nonwilderness 

multiple uses. In fact, the opposite is true. 

We have experienced the particular inadequacy of the existing "soft" release 

language included in the Wyoming Wilderness Act and other states' wilderness 

acts for which it has been adopted. The language seems only to ensure that 

nonwilderness lands will be released from wilderness study until the next round 

of land management planning; it does not release them f2r nonwildemess 

multiple uses or resource development. This weak release language provides 

that these areas "need not• be managed to protect their wilderness suitability, 

so the Forest Service continues to manage them as though they were 

wilderness, or in another highly restrictive, semi-primitive classification. This, 

we believe, does not provide an equitable balance for all public land users. 

Moreover, the release language in this bill only provides relief from further 

wilderness study until the next round of forest planning-which is already 

beginning and will be well underway for all Montana forests within the next 

couple of years. This can hardly be termed "relief" from wilderness study. 

While the bill states that forest plans completed prior to date of enactment of 

this act are exempt from further wilderness study, the fact is that all plans are 

being revised in Montana but few will be completed in the next 2 years. If this 

bill were enacted, forests would be required to halt their plan revision process 

and begin another wilderness study almost immediately! This would be a 

complete waste of time, resources, and taxpayer dollars. 

Our experience with "soft" release language is that it is tantamount to 

continued de facto wilderness management in so-called "released" areas. We 

believe specific changes must be made to the release language contained in a 

wilderness bill to ensure the practical release of lands, making them available 

for all multiple uses. We have submitted proposals for adequate release 

language on numerous occasions, but would be happy to work again with the 

Committee to develop acceptable language. 
-8-

Soecial Management Areas 

We must also voice our opposition to the concept of special management areas. 

H.R. 2473 would place 157,320 acres into a Congressionally-mandated special 

management classification, even though the Forest Service is clearly in the best 

position to determine how these areas should be managed. In reality, the 

special management proposed for these areas is no different than wilderness 

designation and should be recognized as such. With few exceptions, these 

areas will also be withdrawn from multiple use by the bill. 

Congress has already given policy mandates for land management to the Forest 

Service in the form of the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and 

the Rangeland and Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Besides the relatively clear 

direction of these statutory Instructions, the Congress has seen fit to fund the 

employment of nearly 35,000 permanent, full-time employees nationwide in the 

Forest Service to implement these directions. 

But still there is a perceived need by Congress to create special classifications 

and take the management of these lands out of the professional hands of the 

Forest Service. We believe that forest plans are the most appropriate vehicles 

for determining land management prescriptions. Forest plans are designed 

specifically to protect the resources of certain lands, and are developed by 

those professionals with the greatest on-the-ground knowledge of an area's 

resources. 

The alleged purpose of special management areas is to protect certain resources 

while permitting selected other uses. Yet, this is one of the specific purposes 

of forest plans. However, under forest plans, decisions are dynamic and can 

be changed as situations and conditions change. Special management areas 

which are legislatively mandated do not allow for change. 

Forest management plans are developed under a disciplined process requiring 

that lands be managed for as many uses as possible, and requiring that when 

allocations are made for single or few uses, the trade-offs must be recognized, 

analyzed, and justified. Further, such planning decisions are subject to appeal 

by parties adversely affected by the decision. Again, not so of the legislative 

process. 

We do not question the authority of the Congress to create special 

classifications of land. We only suggest that the classifications created in this 

bill remove the authority of the Forest Service to manage. even though through 
-9-

its planning process the Forest Service may reach the same conclusions about 

how these areas should be managed. The forest planning process was 

developed under the guidance of Congress, and although we have our 

differences with specific aspects of the process, we believe it is a 

fundamentally sound management structure. We also believe that the trained 

professionals within the Forest Service are best able to make the on-the-ground 

decisions necessary to implement this system. 

Thus, we respectfully submit that the process be allowed to work. We believe 

legislation should be limited to which areas should be designated as wilderness, 

and should leave the management of the remainder of the National Forest 

System to the Forest Service in accordance with existing Congressional 

mandates. 

further Study Areas 

The 163,000 acres of land proposed for further study in this legislation have 

already been studied for wilderness for more than 1 5 years. Unless •further 

study• includes a thorough evaluation of their subsurface resources, no amount 

of additional study will result in more information. In fact, the legislation itself 

does not require any actual study of these areas; rather, it seems clear that Mr. 

Williams simply could not decide whether these areas should be wilderness or 

not. We believe that if there is such doubt about their wilderness suitability or 

the best use for these areas, and, recognizing that no serious attempt is being 

made to learn more about the areas, they should be released to multiple use 

management under the forest plan. 

Similarly, we believe the decision to re-evaluate the 116,600 acres of the 

Badger-Two Medicine area under the pretense that further study is required 

(•study• which will be performed by a clearly biased committee) is a 

transparent ruse to postpone indefinitely the wilderness decision for the area, 

yet withdraw it in the meantime. 

Valid Exjstjng Bights 

Unlike most previous wilderness bills, the proposed wilderness legislation fails 

to recognize valid existing rights and therefore places current lessees at a 

distinct disadvantage. Payment for oil and gas leases is a strong indication of 

a company's interest in the geology of an area and of its commitment to 

development. All existing oil and gas leases should be excluded from the 

boundaries of the proposed wilderness area. 
236 

·10· 

However, regardless of the mere mention of protection of valid existing rights, 

the practical fact remains that it would be extremely difficult to obtain permits 

for operations on lands within the wilderness boundaries. Strong language 

governing the valid existing rights included in any legislation designating new 

wilderness, or in other special management areas, is vital. Such language is 

needed to demonstrate Congress' intent to protect the rights of the leaseholder 

and to assure that the leaseholder has access to his property. 

We have several examples of instances where, despite Congressional intent, 

leaseholders of lands "protected" by vague valid existing rights language are 

experiencing difficulty in maintaining access. The Gros Ventre Wilderness Area 

in Wyoming is one such example where access has been an issue of great 

controversy, even though pre-existing leases are present. 

In light of this need to protect valid existing lease rights, I am compelled to 

again bring up the Badger-Two Medicine Area. We strenuously object to a new 

five year wilderness study in the area because it is also clearly inconsistent with 

valid existing lease rights. In addition, the area has already been extensively 

studied by both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in its 

eight year preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement at a cost of more 

than $1 million. This additional study is redundant and an unnecessary expense 

to the taxpayers. Moreover, the language prohibiting surface disturbance "until 

Congress determines otherwise" could leave the leaseholders In the untenable 

position of having the study conclude that exploration is acceptable but 

preventing any activity until Congress specifically authorizes the project. 

Congress should recognize the valid existing lease rights in the Badger-Two 

Medicine Area, its tremendously high oil and gas potential, as well as the 

recommendations of the land management agencies in the area, and return this 

land to multiple use management. 

Montana Ecosystem and Economics Study 

This provision states that its purpose is to protect and enhance the ecological 

values of the Northern Rockies Ecosystem in Montana "and to ensure that 

disruptions to communities and local economies are minimized ... •. Yet the 

substance of the study pays only lip service to the economics of the State of 

Montana and focuses almost exclusively on ecological needs and environmental 

sustainability. 

Paragraph (3)(8) requires the study to address the kWilD1 contribution of 

commodity and non-commodity uses and outputs, yet no effort will be made 
237 

·11· 

to study the Potential outputs and contributions. As I have set forth in this 

statement, most of Montana's high potential oil and gas reserves are presently 

off limits due to governmental action. Any study that purports to look at the 

economics of commodity and non-commodity uses in Montana must realistically 

address the state's oil and gas potential along with the environmental values. 

To do less than that, as the Act now allows, sets up the framework for a one· 

sided and ultimately useless study, wasting additional tax dollars in the process. 

Miscellaneous Provisions 

The bill also withdraws 27,000 acres from the area depicted on a map as "The 

Gibson Reservoir Mineral Withdrawal Area--Proposed, dated October 199r 

from mining and mineral leasing. We assume the map referred to was one from 

last fall's Congressional consideration of the Montana Wilderness bill. Clearly, 

in order to keep the acreage designated wilderness as low as possible, for 

public acceptance, this legislation tries to accomplish virtually the same goal by 

withdrawing the area from mineral entry. No reason is given. Yet this is an 

area which has extremely high oil and gas potential. We urge the Committee 

to delete this provision for mineral withdrawal. 

Conclusion 

Section 2(a) of this bill lists the findings of Congress. The last finding in 

paragraph (41 states that Congress finds "that the wilderness designations 

recommended in this legislation have been developed with the support of 

Montana wilderness advocates and is therefore the product of years of 

negotiations." This statement is absolutely correct and reveals very clearly why 

we cannot support the bill. This bill has been developed with input ~ from 

environmentalists, wilderness advocates and select others, and is run 

representative of the concerns of the rest of Montanans. It certainly does not 

recognize any of the concerns of the oil and gas industry. In fact, despite our 

submission of specific geologic Information -- at the request of the Montana 

Delegation and this Committee last year-- NOT ONE OF OUR CONCERNS HAS 

BEEN ADDRESSED BY THIS LEGISLATION. 

Montana has already committed 4.7 million acres of land to national parks and 

national wilderness lands. These acres are withdrawn forever from oil and gas 

exploration and production. The legislation under consideration today would 

withdraw 1.56 million acres from multiple use through wilderness designation, 

and another 464,000 acres through special management and continued 

wilderness study. Moreover, the nonwilderness lands which remain will 

continue to be studied and withdrawn so that multiple users are actually left 

with very little land at all. 
238 

-12-

While we agree that some of this land should indeed be designated as 

wilderness, we believe the Congress should exclude any areas of moderate to 

high oil and gas potential from such designations. In addition, we recommend 

that stronger release language be provided to give multiple users the assurance 

that lands deemed unsuitable for wilderness can and will be utilized for the full 

range of nonwilderness multiple uses. 

Finally, we urge you to make a final decision on the 163.000 acres of further 

study areas or else permit oil and gas exploration activities in these areas. The 

Forest Service has wstudied• these areas for years, and yet has not made any 

attempt to better evaluate their oil and gas potential. This is the only missing 

piece of information about these areas' suitability for wilderness. Any further 

study of potential wilderness areas JIJ.U.&.t include actual oil and gas exploration 

efforts to learn more about what values may be foregone by a wilderness 

designation. Otherwise, we are wasting time, money and resources, simply 

because of a reluctance to make a decision or uncertainty as to whether these 

areas should be designated wilderness or returned to multiple use. 

We also encourage you to return the 157,320 acres of special management 

areas to Forest Service management. 

We applaud the members of the Montana Delegation for their continuing efforts 

to resolve this cantankerous issue. However, resolution at any cost is a far 

inferior goal than resolution based on sound reasoning and foresight. Any 

legislation must take into account the resource potential of the unexplored lands 

in Montana and those where the geology indicates significant potential for vast 

new discoveries. Congress can always designate those lands as wilderness 

Jatti, after they have been fully evaluated; but once placed in wilderness, 

Montana and the nation will never know the resource potential of these areas, 

and may forego their valuable contribution to our domestic energy security. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. I will be happy to try to answer 

any questions you may have. 

mtwikl 7/8193 
239 

EXHIBIT A 

Figures 1 - 5 
FLATHE'AD~ ,-----..X. ---

• K~I.ISPEU .. 

~· 

i 

(~ 

240 

0 ..... ~ ' 

__ - -- ALBERTt. . 

MONTANA 

• GREAT I'AI.I.S 

• BOZEMAN 

Fig. I INDEX MAP \s--
241 

EXPLANAJION 

ClOSS SECTION x .. x~ 

JU Vll:ft ktH4 .U'InlTIOH 

Figure 2. Cross section x-x• through the Silver King area in the 

Montana Disturbed Belt. For location see Fioure 1. The 

configuration of the beds is based on seist11iic surveys, geologie 

mapping and one hole drilled by A.reo. 'l'he potential oil or oas 

pools are silflilar to thrut~te4 anticlines which produce major 

amounts of oil and gas in Canada as shown on .Figure 3 below. 

Figure 3. Cros-s Section Y-'t' throuqh the Wa terton- f'lathead area 

jus north of the Montana border. The gas-bearing structures here 

are analogous to undrilled potential o-il and qas traps in the 

Montana Disturbed Belt as shown in Figure 2 above. 

X' 

I\IE 
242 

y y' 

WATERTON FIELD 

14 6 

TO IZ,34S' 13,tOz' 

DEVILS FENCE 

c 

WEST D 

LL~~===:J-.. IMAt.Ot:T~WT -:52 ---..--·! __ _ ot:=======mn=-·-· .... _.__.6 
' t, ,~,.... } .,.uuu .•• 

' \ 

'\\ •-.,.., PO'I'DI1'IAL GIANT OIL IJI!l GAS FIELDS IN ~. T<f' .................. OVERTHRUST BEL'l' CAll BENEFIT Maf'l'AHA ~y i IF 'l'HEY' A~ Nor LOCICED AWAY IN WILDERNESS. 

LEGEND 

' i " i 

~ 

~ Prutct.t wtl4erntu or no.llon-ol port V (no 011 oq~ot uploroHon oUowed) 

\ on or '"' Ucld l~ Ontttwvlt ••n 

0 AtMOtnlq MA-wihlcti\«U lltUb 

taef•at~l fOt viont on oncr 90.c: fl•14 

0 :ro 

FIGURE 5 

~ MlJNI'AlNS 

(DEVIL'S FENCEl 
244 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chamberlin, would you proceed for about five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAY CHAMBERLIN 

Mr. CHAMBERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the record, my name is Jay Chamberlin. I am manager of the 

East Bench Irrigation Unit, a Federal irrigation project which is located in Madison and Beaverhead Counties in southwestern Montana. 

I am currently president of the Montana Water Resources Association. I am testifying on behalf of the Montana Water Resources 

Association, referred to as MWRA. MWRA membership includes 

ditch companies, irrigation districts, individual farmers and ranchers, and other entities interested in Montana's water. The majority 

of our membership owns land lying adjacent to Federal lands and 

whose water supply flows from Federal lands, so which are included in the proposed Montana Wilderness Act of 1993. 

Our testimony will be directed to Section 4, Water. I wish to congratulate the authors of this section of the act in providing the 

means to operate, maintain, and repair visiting historic water resource facilities located within boundaries of the proposed areas. 

Prior to moving to the Dillon area, I was manager of the 

Bitteroot Investigation District. Several important, small storage facilities were located within the National Forest, which were later 

designated as wilderness. Initially, there was no problem with operating, maintaining, and repairing these small facilities. However, 

because of the vagueness in the language of the act, a new Forest 

Service supervisor made a restrictive interpretation of the act, 

making it impossible for the water users to operate and maintain 

the facility. 

The structures approached the point of becoming hazardous. All 

of this because of the vague language in the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Section 4, Paragraphs 2 and 3, of H.R. 2473 include vague language. For this reason, the MWRA cannot support the water language as written in the proposed bill. · In Section 4, Paragraph A, it states that there are no resource 

facilities located upstream of lands designated wilderness by this 

act. However, the proposed bill does not include a storage resource 

facility located upstream of proposed wilderness land. See Stoney 

Mountain map. The Burnt Fork Lake's water source comes from 

the Skalkaho Game Preserve area which is included in the proposed wilderness boundaries. 

It is the recommendation of the MWRA to move the proposed 

boundaries eastward to the top of the Continental Divide excluding 

Burnt Fork Lake and Burnt Fork Creek to prevent operation and 

maintenance problems. 

In section 4, Paragraph B, it states that there are no lands included that are suitable for development of new water storage facilities or for the expansion of existing facilities. That is not the 

case. There are possible sites that would allow storage facilities to 

capture spring runoff and release it later in the summer months 

which would help maintain low stream flows. This, in turn, would 

enhance the fisheries. 
For example, the Clark Canyon Dam located in southwestern 

Montana, has improved the Beaverhead River to being the most 

productive stream in Southwestern Montana. It was stated by Jerry Wells, fish biol<!_gist for Department of Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, that only the Big Horn River in central Montana can come 

close to the Beaverhead River's productivitm~d both of these rivers owe this feature to their damns. See 'bits A-1 through 5. 

Other concerns on H.R. 2473 is which the courts, State or Federal, shall have jurisdiction over matters related to Section 4, 

water? Which legal entity shall determine and decide the future 

challenges, problems, and interpretations related to water, its uses 

or nonuses, in this very controversial act. 

We strongly recommend that the act, as written, be amended to 

provide that the appropriate Montana courts be the initial legal entity for legal decisions on any and all matters related to water use, 

non-use, quality, and the quantity on all Federal lands, including 

the proposed and other wilderness areas within the State of Montana. 

The State of Montana has worked hard to appropriate and adjudicate the waters that lies within its boundaries through the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 

The State of Montana also has in place the Reservation Applica- tion process as well as the Compact Commission. The COmpact Commission is comprised of two house members, two senate members, and a number of citizens selected _by the governor. 

Be it resolved that The Montana Water Resource Association 

supports Montana's right to appropriate and administer all wilderness water and wilderness water nghts within its boundaries. 

And be it further resolved that the MWRA opposes the inclusion 

of existing irrigation and storage facilities in any newly created 

wilderness or national recreation area. 

We support the position of timber, mining, and motorized recreation organizations concerning H.R. 24 73. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank youl Mr. Chamberlin. 

[Prepared statement or Mr. Chamberlin and attachments follow:] 
246 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

JAY CHAMBERLIN 

IN THE HA'l"l'ER OF 

H.R. 2473 

"ROUND 16 OF THE MONTANA WILDERNESS ACT 1993" 

I wish to thank Chairman Vento for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2473, entitled "Round 16 of the Montana Wilderness Act 

1993". My name is Jay Chamberlin. I am the Manager of the East 

Bench Unit, a federal irrigation project, which is located in 

Madison and Beaverhead Counties in Southwestern Montana. I a111 also 

the current President of the Montana water Resource Association. 

I aa testifying on behalf of the Montana Water Resource Association 

(MWRA). The MWRA membership includes ditch companies, irrigation districts, individual farmers and ranchers, and other entities 

interested in Montana • s water. The majority of our membership owns land lying adjacent to federal lands and whose water supply flows 

from federal lands - some which are included in the proposed Montana Wilderness Act, 1993. 

My testimony will be directed to section 4 - water. I wish 

to congratulate the authors of this section of the act in.providing the means to operate, maintain, and repair existing, historic water resource facilities located within the boundaries of the proposed wilderness areas. Prior to moving to the Dillon area, l was the 

Manager of the Bitteroot Irrigation District in the Bitteroot 

Valley. several important, small storage facilities were located 

within National Forests which were later designated as wilderness. 

Initially there were no problems with the operation, maintenance, 

and repair of these small facilities. However, because of the 

vagueness in the language of the act, a new forest supervisor made a restrictive interpretation of the act, making it impossible for 

the water users to operate and maintain the facilities. The 

structures approached the point of becoming hazardous. All of this 

because of the vague language in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Section 

4, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of H.R. 2473 include vague language. For 

this reason, MWRA cannot support the water language as written in 

the proposed bill. 

In section 4, Paragraph A, it states that there is no resource facilities located upstream of lands designated wilderness by this 

act. However, the proposed bill does include a storage resource facility located upstream of proposed wilderness land. (See Stoney Mountain Map). Burnt Fork Lake's water source comes from Skalkaho 

Game preserve area which is included in the proposed wilderness 

boundaries. It is the recommendation of the MWRA to move the 

proposed boundaries eastward to the top of the continental Divide 

excluding Burnt Fork Lake and Burnt Fork creek to prevent operation 

and maintenance problems. 
247 

In Section 4, Paragraph B, it states that there are no lands 

included that are suitable for development of new water resource facilities or for the expansion of existing facilities. That is 

not the case. There are possible sites that would allow storage facilities to capture spring runoff and release it later in the summer months which would help maintain low stream flows. This in 

turn would enhance fisheries. For example, the Clark Canyon Dam 

located in southwestern Montana has improved the Beaverhead River 

to being the most productive stream in southwestern Montana. It was stated by Jerry Wells, Fish Biologist for Department of Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, that only the Big Horn River in central 

Montana can come close to the Beaverhead River's productivity and 

both these rivers owe this feature to their Dams. (See Exhibit Al5). 

Another concern on H.R. 2473 is which court, state or federal, 

shall have jurisdiction over matters related to Section 4, Water. 

which legal entity shall determine and decide the future 

challenges, problems and interpretations related to water, it's use or non-use, in this very controversial act? We strongly recommend 

that the act as written be amended to provide that the appropriate Montana courts be the initial legal entity for legal decisions on any and all matters related to water use, non-use, quality and 

quantity on all federal lands, including the proposed and other 

wilderness areas within the State of Montana. The State of Montana 

has worked hard to appropriate and adjudicate the waters that lies 

within it's boundaries through the Department of Natural Resources 

and conservation. The State of Montana also has in place the 

Reservation Application process as well as the compact commission. 

The compact commission is comprised of two house members, two 

senate members, and a number of citizens selected by the Governor. 

Be it resolved that The Montana Water Resource Association 

supports Montana's right to appropriate and administer all 

wilderness water and wilderness water rights within it's 

boundaries, and be it further resolved that the HWRA opposes the 

inclusion of existing irrigation and storage facilities in any newly created wilderness or National recreation area. we support the position of Timber, Mining and Motorized Recreation 

organizations concerning H.R. 2473. 

Again, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before this committee. 

Respectfully, 

~.~ 
J - -· 

. ,._ 

248 

.;;L --. ;.r_ . __ ; 

hMUil~lr~d·s of· tro ... ut ~ ~-~ ' --·--- _. ----· --· _ .. __ ..:.=-·--···· 

Ct JOPerlltloa between lrrlaatlaa farm· · era 1 md llahermen baa aoYocf the llYes of 

bunc !reds of ndult bro'lm trout Ia the 

Den~ •rbesd River •. 

Pd •r the last three JOan, bundreda of 

adult t brown trout baYe died Ia eorly July on d 1e .9enverhead River between Clark 

~ 

raised the tempemure of the water and· · •put the critters under additional atrea: 

lorry Wolb, fmhory bloloabt for, the Jlbh , ud Game Depllrtment IDid. ·~ - · 1b1l year, boweYer, fi:Jh losses were prevented with die help of Dick K~ 

and the Ba5t Denc:h Iriigatlon District.'': 

Wella aald be reqllCited the Bast Donc:h 

not to drop the water level durlag the flnt . bay erop a tbore was adequnte water left. 

In the Raenolr. -~kept-It blab and 

·co~ Dam ud Bllintt Stadoa. 1be 

ca1110 wa a bac:terlal dlleue, furwaculotls, brou&ht on by -1tre11. · A. c:omiDoa 

cllleose Ia batc:herla, furunculolls 

pieY.ued -wbea die : dyer now wu dropped for die flnt' baJ cuttlaa on die 

EaJt llonc:h Jut year, ' · Tho aucldon dedeue Ia the water leYel 

"':. ... _~--

- aYOided the n.b klli," Wella Ald. 

"nvorybody,_Diblna die dYer lbould 

realir.e that thO. operatorl of the dam dld 

euctly u·we requested. Pllhermea owe the But Bench lriipdou Dlatrlct a thank 

you,• Welluald. · . . . . ,.... .;_- __ 

·:.'i' 

.. - .,.. " I 

at the ribbon'• ___ end ----------__;,--,....,...-----....---.. ,..... - --··-
u1 ~cunu~ot:Aoni.t; N•fiWrtln 

H'• 1 spedllo.~l•r •llht, enouth to mft.lte • fbhernu~a thiM he .. , 

dlti::'ovn-td the UHhute Lure. 

f1sh are t:emins hont """whtre. Blc . on~. HUh OMt. rabtbow trout, bt""" lroul, .,.... whllelloh ood Ultle 

sculplns. AU JWimm\nt npid.lr '"''td • loot! palo u..,..s .nih • lritoJulor 

pft~olmet11l. 

ln •• K Motet toadMd the watu- wi.th hlJ staff tnd eomrn.nckd d the 

flshel lo 1wlm lo hlm. 

nu·r n·~ not MOllet, and lt'l not • llf!" lure. lt'l lhe . bfoiGtla\t rar the 

O~rl mf!'nl o1 P'lth, WUdHft: atad Parkl 

ennd!Jetlt'l." harm let~ etedro .. ttoctlna: 

llah ..... .,. •lana ""' U..-""'1 ru .. , ' 'lbe .. ont put tbout !HI wad.'' Jury Wt!tlt ~~~ u he Ufted tnother trm·adtln& nttf.t of bll hal'trbead. trout Into 1 lil'ftowtll on Hit 'bolt, " II t• kMW how manJ Utb trt here when JOU 

co.ne beck In Ute 1UII'mer and doft'l 

e~t<:h Rny." Wello L<n1 kkldltW. N lht Doporl· 

mmt't tr(l nsMrtn btotopt lnd en t11S"frt rtshennn, We'd1 ma1 kftOW m«t about U. BeomiM!od and Ito rmfl\t dtniteM lhtn anybody arc11nld. Andu Weill loquldllopolnlool, ,.,_ 

arfi • i(,( m nnn, denltt:nt to bow. ''The l\enerhetid Jlinr It the moat 

pl't)ducth~ lf('(ot atrtwm m Seuth- w"ttrJ\ . MonltM." . Wei.. •kl. "In fact. only the OiS Horn River In C*llrtl Moni.AM ttn eome dote lo the 

"~' f"rhNd'• pi'CidutUYHr. •nd both 

rl¥et'! tJ""~ thll fu~ to their dt••·'' 

IMMS'! IN mnst c .. e, a dNn an a 

::.'!w;:~~~!.'rt It c~t:o ;!Ike u! n .. ver~d. Clark canyon tlftm tftiM 

(11 hll~ pt'O'klfd tOftlt fl\tf11r111hc 

bc!IW!fil\. It was bulK Ia iiM • M 

ltriiAiion r'fOJect. 

249 

C!Vet•tuall)' J!!\deah:i<:o~l~te•t the botlotn ol the .01." Ft\ftunatfliJ (or tbe down1treem O.her)l, Welllllld, tho dam cltc .. rc• w•ter trom the bott<am vi the lake, 

pnAtnc out d• Mlrlett-<"Oil!Cftkated 

w•t«. 

"The upper rher reulvu • trtmendou. Hnent Inn tilts llluolloo," Wells IOid. '"!be boll'"" ••• I'QUt&t bt dhdw'p ... w lhlt • \ft1Y rim.,.~, .. .. 

\\18U..S AlJJO Aid the dltc .. fle water Ia ""lnl« '!ltenn atld wmm« 

cool,'' anoltler beotl'lt tar downltream trout. 

"I• the wlrrlfl the ntu tenperature 

eYera~eeu'bcNt40dqrea:'WelltMld. 

'"11rle it •tcaiflcafttiJ betttr f« ti1IUl 

.,._u.- """"'""' 

__ __ ..,, lha 11t1 n.lo .... Rlnr .. 

"Dwi,.. lhe nnnnar/' Wetll Nh!, "

~ 

lho tool nter at Goo bot- Ill lha .,...._... the water ltrapentl........,t leolll hllha upper rlverr ..... bec:omhoc too bit"- '11111otoo.....,. 

--~~~ ntF. CntollllNIIO -· olledt Ill opUimno ..... ._. .... ...,_ ..... -loqulto .. ldeolln-dl 

"'''"· w.no po~n~.,s.ot.tleuldbroom ud nlnbow t«M a'fll'llle aboa Mn!ft 

-l•lmlthlltl1e""'ollhelrllrol 

)'<•r• a b~ lncte ... ln IIR 

lrGm a ua1eca. 

W.O. went .. to •r two-re-r--eld bt·owa troat • .-.,. tl lnehel, two- J"II'-o1d ntnhowa aWJtqe It, lfne. JPM'-old browM nlll .... ,. tnchttt, and Une-ytet-41d nllhwl .,. • .,. 

ll. 

By comparilon, t ..... ,ar4td treNt tn lhe bluo-ribl>lm -loa rllhe Blallole Rlwer ORI)' anne at~ lacbetln leJC1h, 

ud three )'eu old trout uen1e 

A~cordlng llll!hlly loaa lhon u. to Wells. two me)or 

~neflll re!lllte to the re!!ltt'Yolr llself. It 

f"!rV~ •• a twce Mttftftt balift for rutrl~nl111, and lt It • n•t tempenture uculntot. "T11e ~~r¥Oit lt red by Red Rocll 

trH'It '""' llont rr.lrle Ctt:tJI;," We.111 e~trlt•lned . "Then 1t~m1 ere •«7 rich In nutrttntl. and these nut.rlenft 

'"t1te Bel'lert.ud Mt the tutllt crowD~ ('lllet-by rar-<ll•rtY •~am ht Sout~ternMontana."'Weiii..W. Ue added tNt 11~ tm dta'e hu .,._ • n""old lnttttM lft Ute mmben Gf ~t. end 1 three.folcl tnernn In the 

aYeraU poundap cl trout In tM river. 

TII~ .. t~ INl:REAB£1." Welle empha1lled, "IR enUreoiJ Uttoup the 

eGOper•Hon of tbe E••t B•nc:h lrtllallon t>lltrtet." F'.ut 1\eneh Clf'"llet Clu\ C.nyon 

Uim. will It trrlptknt l$ the r~olr'• 

s:rtm•11' runedon, lhe WIIJ Cast BftK"h 

c:onlrels dlochafl<l Is vllallJ '""""""I 

.. Uto - .... llobory. 

Aceordlnt to Weill. the Ut lo fl"~tM.Ct .. nlfll llirwe l.llh In Chi n"er, 

f!lll*lall)l !art• rtlnbow1, II • wtnter Dow el 200-ISO eubie (eel JN!I' MeOnd (cfJ). Tttll whiter the""* wa reductd to IOOds. 

.. When " 10 below M wt tt.lrt to m.natt," Weill 11id. "But 1 u:n· dlft:llnd wh7 tl!ert:•a 'betft • teductton thll ,..,. "tber. •lmplr tllln't ~ 

enouf1 preelplt.tktrl eo nu lht rutr· 

....... ·-Ttt.n they,.,.. the ....... _ 

H::wt~taukl. 

lUCk .KENNEDY, mllQIIIS' cf tl:ll 

Boncll, 1871"" rt<Oiftl ... ll1e ..... , ... 

•Wnwm wlnter water fl<lwt. "'Wt 

woukl Bke to ''" -.a feet," ltM- nedy Mid, "boll oar lnllowl dtlermlno 

""'-...... dl .......... Ac\uoli)' u.. ,... •• ..., Ill•• 1M no...., u.. · boiler Ills lor. bo<a\80 thol ...... 

we haff the wattr!' 

tnaddltlonlomlftl....,......,ll••"· -horl"' durlnt lhe ot>ri<W nln- ~~~'*"""111 Maloh Mflthe autvmd browfl 

trout tpawnlna .....,. ·~ eriUceJ. W.U.IIIId. . • 

&teTe S•ndo. a ftlherl• 1hldnl ttt.G 

it tvndudlns sptwnlnt tU«H• 

rs.rdl 011 1M river. ••ki water lhlduatlam enid afftt"l M'nft:l dlf· 

ltrM. Maces In ~In eue~. 

.. ,.wn. dra~• c:ouJcJ 4ef:rnre 

the ... uable •....-nine an:at," Sando .. ld. '"fhll 1ft lln t'Wlcl ~UR 

crowcUnt on remalaln1 are11." 

AI\NUO At.SO •ald very low drlwdowRI 11\111 detttale frJ IUM'I¥11 

by dopri•I<Wif1 al oho«Hna ..,;,., "I ~thiMlMy would be mort ¥YiatrabJt lo 

pred.lton, •• Sando Mtd. Accardlnf. to w~-u.. ...... water 

RocluatiW hlore ttlS Wt're the 

prlmny factor llmlUns tpttrlllftl 

-- Kl!ll"'dy .. ld, "In 1m otlfi41111!Wl Cl'me lf'llet.htr with I he P'llh and Otme, EM>t Dl"nch Rnd lhr Army Cerr- o( 

Enclneen. Sli'IC'e then we'n Men tr)'ln« to rperRte tht thlnt for lhl benttit of evnyone wttt'ft .-. can.,. 

pie NlaMI kl two or ·tlnl dHr~ 

·~=:::~~Bench ... lhown up In lM IIUmb«t ol M In l.ht river. ''There ate probablr more Rib In th9 rivet" _,. than evu;' Wen. ..ud .. 

tt." Well~ nld. lie lndle~t~ U.at tempetRture dtflnlt!l end nftrOilt" 

.. turaUon probk:ms 1houkl be <:on· 

oldered, but Ktnntdr lndkated •- rrobl• nlJ ··Ut llol develop . 

'"1\'e donolloi,.lhat kind """'d lor llllitf'OI"I tatwalJNI.," Kna<~fdJ 11kt. 

"Attl!lldon'l~t.J•weeettc:bt.nc;etbe 

tempfratvM cl tht water." 

kl!llnody polni..J wl tl1e otlompb 

f.l!t Rf!Oeb hill mllde to,._. wattr 

Uuchretton• durlnl the IIJ8"'"'"' uuons. "About ~te September" try lo delennhMI what the mc.l f'MIO•btt: minimum now wiU bt," KenMdy Hid. T1~n ohCe we aet It •• IM" II." 

111e tl•ble fAll no. btncRII the 

brown trout sp~• nlrc. 

' 'IN 1UF.S,.ft1NG whm the nlnbowl 

spa~n. about the Obly tJdrc that c:oukl t"'J'PM would be to lrten!Hf! the water, 

bul trOe usually Mid It aNI atretc:ll R cut 

untllthttn~efi Aprllbf!fOAweltftrt 

nlnstn1 a tot or It," Kennedy said. Motl nbtbow sp~~wnlnc I• onr bJ thll 

time, be noted. Kenfll'!dy also 1111ld lhll •-en d~rfng 

the 111'1Jitlon •e .. on he trtes to 

mlnlmh.e OUduatlo111 bJ ~banclre tiM' 

- llnporlllnl r.- In lhe 

=t.;~~=~ .. the 

lt;:kk ~.= ~=-~ ~ ~~ ..::;::;:;. w_.--::,~t bn!llkl the veloeltr or tiM c:urnnt tnd It 

atabUbetl Ute ltl'ftm '**· •·1n fad. •hde han lhowtt tt.ere we three lo tow Umt"t more fish tn 

~e"CUont wtth cowr .. oppaaed lo ~PCUons wltMut CO¥ft' on wveral rtven 

m Soutmratem Montana..•• 

~ 

For tM future, Wt:U. Mid, he .. 

...... .,. ......... -.. elec!lrie ~raton: at UMI duo, but bt 

mpew: lhe el'fecll on UM rlwer wUI be minlm1t. 

"N lonl u IIIey ke.p II 1 boUom ck'ew I Cln ue no nu1jor problem with 

"'11tt reta• .m not be ctmwed. •• hi •ddtd. TUF. UF.rAUTatf!NT of Fbh, 

Wlldtl~• tnd. f'atlr.a hall been •tudytnc lhe 8U\'tr~d tlnee IHI, "Wf! 

llf'obnbiJ hue more dllta on lhla rivu 

Uw' any ~ther." Wells uKt. 't'he .tluclel CfflatniJ seem lo be 

worth'«<hlk:. "ntis 11 an a~k1tullly valuable 

r\ver btcaute olllt tbtHty to pr~e 

tarce numben or trout . and tarse "''~ af hn·• lnNI," Wen. lftfd. "We lt:el obhpted to me.. a& much 

ab~Jut It u we can." "1'he Deaver head 1:1 1 urdque river;· 

Wtlb .. 1d. "11'1 deliolt•lr one a1 lh• 

bell." 

Exhibit A-2 
Exhibit A-3 

250 

Beaverhead river 

should be hot spot 

Byi'EIU!.Y BA~U8 

Flt!lwmt!ll had a beautiful day to b...Jt out thole booto, dlr out tboH rod• 

and ..,. and hoad out to tholr favorito haunts on opening day Sat...U.y. From all repoJt.o flohlng ...., gr~~~~t. 

Gloela HUdreth of Clarit Canyon --..olr o.ld fishing both on the reservoir and 011 the rivor wu "vE17 good." · 

She nld one gentlemu uught a lh and thnle q- poulld rainbow, "whleb wu no! too bad. He....., pretty happy ... 

"U 'WU a good opening day," •he o.ld. 

The Beaverhead River had reeonl numbers of big broWII trout lylnr In walt 

for a Well aimed glnlle bug or a toaty looldn« glob of olghterawlero to eome 

floating h:r. acconllng to lillhai ... biologl.t Dlek Oonld. 

' ':The numbers of big fisli In the Beavemoad have nevor bea~ hlghor," 

tm..id ·o.ld about the atneleh of ri-from the dam down to the Bamtt'a diYoraloD dam. 

"Thlngo eouldn't he bel.tor In the Beaverb"'"'," he oald, adding th,... _.. 

oome "whoppillg fish" In that river. "The .thing that puta the Beavemead head and ohouldors above any other 

Jivorln the otate II the numhor of four pound and larger llah you could eateh." 

"But juot beeauae they're th ..... they are atill hard to eateh," O.wald said, 

adding he hu aboeked the rl-for a numhor of yean and probably hlllldled more big fish In that time th111 a fisherman would evor eateh In a llfalme. but 

"I' .. eyat to eateh mr 11r1t huge one on a fir.'' 

"I'I"UUST A hen! river to fish, thtn loa hell ofa lot of ovemanglng eover aDd It lo a deep and owlft river'' 10 that mabo It bani to wode, be oald. 

Oawakloold the......, the Beaverhead Rlvorla eueh a good f11hery hu a lot 

to do with the """"'olr. The "gn>wth and comfort nu>ge'' of the DeaYerhead ota:yo oomewltot 

<Oftllallt beeauM the nter It drawn off the bottom of the .......... olr, he o.ld, 

adding oo In the wmmer the -tor Ia eooltll' and In the winter It' a .....,. •• P11111 the ........voir tellda to Iettie out the Mdlment 10 the river' a water teoda to be "Iuper dear," he o.Jd. 

And the nutriellt rieh .......,oir water "kleka off a ehaln of produetlon that' a jUIIW~beUovable.lneeet aamploe are higher than anywhere eiH iD the alate," 

he aald. 

Tbe·effeet from the _,olr toper~ off u It goeo down the river, be o.Jd, 

adding It Ia almoot done with br the thDe It gato to Bam!lto. 

·a-Id laid iD ooe otreteh of river he and hl!l emr ohoeked thlo year they 

eame up with over 480 bn>WII trout In the 18 lneh elias or lug.... . . · With 20 lneh and blggor floh eommon, oven abulldant, thla makea the 

Beaverhead a verr ueeptlonal river, he o.ld. 

The h(Jh no... the river hu ~ fll)llrienelng during the Jut eouplll. of 

7..,. have ..Il7 helped the llaherlea, be laid, OIIJ>"clail7 for the larger flab the 

.winter no...""' erltleal. 

OSWALD SAID 800 efa Ia the optimum flow and Jut winter It never dropped below the optimum In the wlnt«. "The wintor of 1984 handled the 

birgoot number of live pound aDd largor trout that hu ovor heen halldled II\ 

theriv•~" 

Other riven aleo had good ,..,., he o.Jd, 

"Wfl'ft had three atupendouo :yean iDa rowln the Big Hole Rh•er," he eald. In the apeelal teplatloaa area bel.- Divide Dam and Melroee Bridge .. .,...,. had overnelmlng .-be70ild our wlldeat dreamt.'' 

Tbenumhoroftrout 18111eheo and lqpr havelnmoued from 41) por mlle II\ 11182 to 11111 per mlle laat ,....., · · 

· He oald bla dopartmmt bu 711! to ro throuch th•lM data. but It appeo.ro "It "'"1 have flnall7 topped out." 

Oawald laid lloh......., on theM~ Rl•er abould t&k• eanoful notlee of 

""""'II "'11Jlatlono for the area they plan to lloh. "lt'o our teotlnr gtOUnd." 
261 

Exhibit A-4 
' W'~;~tnnv'lli\'CK.us '· . . :•.,·,\.1 .,, ~ : -,~ ' 

Arm riv~ and ~lrs look very pioo. 

mislug ror opminr day or f!&bin.J ~~~il 

SatUrday. ·--., · •· , AttanUng ,. 

Oswald, the 

bctt« tnierr 

holding ' .}. brown trout,i.:twhic:b l'eall 

ftt_Uon J,han. wy~ ~,..ever 'obnrv• •lDett~ 

.~-~~m~built.,;~·· ·~, -~ ·.·.-..,!,·. ···H1h •'rl:M_'rJle! !'umbe, of tropHy ninbow Lrout.bve -~ puunds plnt, have been on a down ... ard t.rend, 

'•in«}U£1.4, .h_•, ~·-but t.J.;nt'• ~·onl,Y tempo. •· ~ry, .. ·,..~Jl>.~!;...c,.~.._,.,.., __ ···~-- · ..•. ,,,... .• Oswaldes.plained that lnl983-8ttbeBeaver-· 

head held U1e largt:Sl number ot big n&iPbowt:; __ ·,_ .. 

coming off a grst ftProdudive ye;.n· of urn ... ~,·~-~_:· .. i:~happily . ... 11H: bad new. iJ \hoseolda'&b •re ·.'. ·;· ::Jout.ide 

fat1ing out of the pleture, but tM good MWII 

i.s thut. 1982·83 wat an uul.klnt reprodud.loa. Y""' and the river b just lood"' with 18-l!Z _', .' ineh rainbov.11 Yihich •hould- reeull in the au 

one to thnJe yeart .t1.~ing MW aU \i tot" numbers or troph;r fbh:· Tlt~.ONJ~Y NEGATIVE news on tb• .. ., , 

!':~,~:a!j!i!v~~ !!:aa!=: ::h~;!i:; ~~. p~ueed aom' ald:nn7lJsh, Oswald Nld 1• ~ '., 

, addina u..t _...,dil.loo Ia. on~ taopo...,. """ . ~; 

ljme, u~u~ftown~~1-~ the'{lali.abould bou""" bod< u ·. . 

~~~~., ... . uppll'll••-lllould COillldw the,.t' of tn. riV•.'•!'~'~. :~~- ~; ,' 1 '> :.'f' .: . , ·• 

. Alotof-JOO.h!Mupper-·-·, 

boea ... lht!1imoW II holdt a lot of larp . lllh, he oald, wllllio tho not. of tho rivor -·1 

252 

Exhibit A-5 
253 

Mr. VENTO. And, finally, Mr. Riley, I invite you to give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES S. RILEY 

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I am Jim Riley, the executive vice 

president of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association. 

I would like to correct for the record that my central office is actually in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, not Lewiston, as reported. 

I am here today representing our Montana members and on behalf of my affiliate office in Helena, Montana. That is the testimony 

I bring to you. 

Joe Brook of Eagle Studs Company from Hill, Montana, had 

wished to testify and was unable to do so because of confusion last 

week about the witness list and how these panels were going to be 

organized. I am sure Joe will be in touch with members of the committee as this bill moves forward. 

I hope all of you will appreciate how difficult it is, at least for 

this forestry spokesman, to speak dispassionately about the issues 

before us here. We have, for the last 12 months, been besieged, in 

our view, by a flood of new Federal forest policy issues which 

threaten to engulf us, just the same as the mighty Mississippi has 

wiped out the heartland of this country. 

Last fall, the Forest Service came to us and announced that they 

were going to begin a new program of ecosystem management in 

the forests of the West. Disturbing to us was not so much their 

commitment to look at new ways to do things in their woods, but 

their abandonment of the long-standing commitments that they 

had made in their forest plans in maintaining a continuity of programs that our businesses and communities depend upon. 

While we were in the middle of trying to work this out with the 

Forest Service, the President announced this spring the brand new, 

low-cost sale policy. Ironically, the Forest Service ecomanagement 

program requires tremendous new investments and reduced revenues in the woods. And at the same time they are doing that, 

President Clinton comes forward and identifies eight-we learned 

today-national forests in Montana which will no longer have a 

timber sale program because they don't have the right measure of 

financial return. 

As we are grappling through that, this summer we are besieged by the summit recommendations from this President, which announced a substantial declines of timber sale programs on the West 

Coast. Those programs that were put in place almost surely have 

an impact on Montana as well as ac:ljacent States. This fall will be 

the season when we try to deal with the wilderness bill and an appropriations bill which sets record low levels for the Forest Service. ~ainst all that, I come to you today fresh from a meeting in 

Kalispell that I was at late last week where we were in the woods 

with a group of foresters and loggers from Montana and some representatives of the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The simple issue we had before us was, wasn't there a way to 

harvest the standing dead white pine timber, some of the most valuable in the country to existing products. In many cases, the trees 

could have been logged without even moving off of the existing 
roads in a way that was consistent with removing them before they 

were dead beyond recognition. . We have listened to a long day of litany from our Forest Federal 

employees about how that was impossible and a long list of reasons 

why that couldn't be done, which is certainly not at all gratifying 

news for people who are struggling for the very wood to sustain 

their businesses. We were done with that. And we are sort of having a debriefing session amongst ourselves. And I hate to tell you the intensity of feeling that exists in Montana that one of the 

logger friends of mine that remarked to me that, as Members of 

Congress are spending their time waxing eloquently about letting 

Montana being the last bestllace, Montana loggers have come to 

think of Washington, DC an the policymakers here as the worst 

place for them and their families. Today Montana's forest industry hangs on the balance of a preci- pice of mill closures, shift layoffs, and employment dislocation unprecedented in Montana's history, all because of a gridlock and tremendous declines of forest timber programs. 

In 1992, timber sales from the Forest Service lands in Montana 

dropped 250 million, the lowest level in decades. And amounts to 

less than 40 percent of the levels set by the forest plans. Throughout the State, the Forest Service and those of us who 

rely on this agency to carry out purposeful and timely management 

programs are nothing but disappointed and frustrated. The government has proven itself repeatedly to be unable to put in place, and 

then to execute, reliable management programs for our national 

forests. 

The Forest Service has become an agency which is able to do 

nothing and whose credibility has all but eroded completely 

amongst our members. 

Mr. Williams, you offer this bill today; and to use your words 

earlier on the premise on the need to resolve the economic chaos 

in Montana. We have pledged our support to work with you in the 

past to achieve this objective. We certainly agree that chaos exists, 

and this is an objective that needs to be acliieved. And we, again today, pledge our cooperation in working towards this goal. 

In reviewing the legislation you offer, we offer four considerations that we believe are necessary to meet this objective. All of 

these are issues which we have discussed with you before and 

shouldn't be particularly new news, the first of which is, we believe 

it is essenti8.1 to resolve the wilderness study areas in Montana. 

Many of these areas have been studied for more than a decade; 

therefore, some of them have been identified as proper for wilderness, while others have been recommended for multiple-use timber 

man nt. And there is nothing really more to be learned by 

more ay and more study. It is time to decide. 

We have provided your staff in previous years with our recommendations for each of these areas and will do so again to atteD1pt to get this issue resolved. 

We also have asked and reiterate our request today that this 

committee include the fundamental release measures in this bill 

that have been adopted by this committee since 1984. That includes release language which exempts the Forest Service from 
255 

conducting new, highly contentious wilderness evaluations on all 

lands for a 10-year period of time. 

Release language is also needed which prohibits continued litigation over Forest Plans and implementing actions because of wilderness issues. These are small but, in our view, essential concepts 

which, if you are interested in support for bringing variety to this 

debate, are essential to achieving that objective. 

Third, we have taken issue with the new requirement in this legislation for a whole new layer of ambiguous planning. If anything, 

in our view, the Forest Service needs more streamlined and more 

workable plans, a way to make the pristine planning process work, 

not yet another requirement to do more planning and less action. 

I have, in the past, expressed our support for looking at the N ationa! Forest to the spectrum of ecosystem management and some 

of the concepts that are borne therein. We continue to do that but 

suggest that, if we want to change the Forest Service process, the 

right way to do that is to reopen all the planning considerations 

rather than require them to take yet another unworkable layer of 

planning. 

Beyond these fundamental concerns for the framework of the bill, 

there are issues which we have raised in the past; and I won't go 

through the details today because we are on the record about them, 

about specific area and boundary considerations we have raised. 

Throughout Montana, they are included in this recommendation 

areas of timber lands most suitable and tentatively suitable, using 

the Forest Service jargon, which we believe should be made available for multiple-use management. 

Before I close, I want to speak to the issue of jobs. There has 

been a lot of debate, both in the press and here today, about the 

issue of what jobs are at stake and what alternatives exist for jobs. 

I am not sure I am going to throw another number into the pot. What I do know is that there are 10,000 direct jobs in Western 

Montana which depend on the forest products industry. There are 

approximately 30,000 indirect jobs which result in the support sectors, in the gas stations, and the restaurants because of that. 

By recent estimates, 50 percent of the western Montana economy 

is dependent on the forest products industry. And I would tell you that all of those jobs are in jeopardy today unless we can find a 

way to bring rationality back to the forest management process. So that there is no confusion, I want to make sure that you are 

clear. Our industry is looking for the opportunity to harvest approximately one-third. And that is all of the growth of the available 

public forest lands in Montana. Our logging companies are some of 

the most technologically advanced of anywhere in the world, and 

we are confident that by working with other professionals, we can 

find ways to do that which are fully consistent with the principals 

of sustainable ecosystems. 

As you know, our people in Montana also have a strong commitment to doing the job right and are second to none anywhere in 

this country in their dedication to that principal. 

Mr. Williams and Mr. Vento, I know your intent is to move this 

bill forward as quickly as possible after this hearing. I would hope 

that maybe we could look at some of these broader issues. But I, 

again, want to pledge my support, if you do move this forward, for 
256 

trying to work with you on amendments to the issues that I have 

raised in this discussion. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. [Prepared statement of Mr. Riley and attachments follow:] 
257 

STATEMI!IIT 

OF 

JAIIES S. RILEY 

INTERIIOIIHTAIN FOREST INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE IIITI!RIOR AIID INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ON 

HR 2473 

ROUND 16 OF THE MONTANA FOREST WILDBRHBSS ACT OF 1993 

July 20, 1993 

703 Lake.,ide Atcnue • Coeur d'Aiene,Jdpbo 83814 • (208) 667--+641 
258 

Mr. Chainaan, with the poamiaaion of thia all))coaaitt_, I a aubaittinq a written atat ... nt today Vbicb vaa preaent~ to thia 

aubc01111ittee in June 1992 by - Kobrt, General llaM9U of I'H Stolt•• Land and Ll.lllbar C011pany of COlUIIbia l!'alle llontana on behall.' 

of our orvanization on the pradacaaaor lavialation to HR 2473, S 

16!16, The llontana Wildern ... a Act of 1993. 

HR 2473 doaa contain ..veral new wildarnaaa and ap.aeial -~~-t additiona Vbicb wara not included in 8 16!115, Vbicb we have analya~ in vanaral and whicb - viah to ba on record todaL aa oppoainv baeauae of their adver•• i~et on an already erit cal 

federal t~r availability probl .. in Montana. Wa are eonduetin9 

detailed analyaea at theae araaa Vhicb wa will provicle to 11r. 

Willi~ ancS the SUbeomaittee aa they are eoapleted. 

The poaitiona and iaauea outlined in our 1992 atat-t ......,in 

valid today with reapaet to HR 2473. I do note tor the record, 

however, that our aaaoeiation believe• vilclarnaaa lavialation, 

particularly HR 2473, will do little but exacerbate the alr.acly critical t~r availability criaia in Montana, rather than 

brinvinv about • ...,. 111Ucb neecSecS atability an<! certainty aa previoualy hope<!. 

wa appreciate thia opportunity to taat1ty. 
259 

STATEMENT OF 

REMKOHRT 

GENERAL MANAGER 

m STOLTZ£ LAND AND LUMBER COMPANY 

REPRESENTING Tim 

INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

AND Tim 

MONTANA WOOD PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE Tim 

HOUSE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBUC LANDS 

ON 

Tim MONTANA NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACf OF 1992 

5.1696 

JUNE9, 1992 

703 l.4knide Awnue • O....r d'~. ldtzho 83814 • (208) 667-4641 
260 

I am Rem Kohrt, General Manager for FH Stoltze Land and Lumber Company. I 

am testifying today on behalf of my company, the Intermountain Forest Industry Association 

and the Montana Wood Products Association which represent the forest industry in 

Montana. 

With me today is 1ames S. Riley, Executive Vice President of the Intennountain 

Forest Industry Association who has followed tbe details of this legislation for several years 

and wbo can answer specific questions which may arise out of my area of expertise. 

I am encouraged by this hearing today. I have personally been a part of the 

wilderness debate in Montana for almost two decades. Since that time ~ separate 

wilderness bills have been enacted for Montana which have created the 3.4 million acres of 

wilderness that we have today. 

I am encouraged today in what I bear to be a sincere interest in compromise • an 

interest in maldng •principled compromises" and "striking a fair balance between protecting 

jobs and the environment" - to use Senator Baucus's most welcome words when he first 

introduced this legislation. 

Although the Montana National Forest Management Act of 1992, the bill before us 

today, is the largest wilderness/special use public lands bill ever introduced for Montana, I 

am here today to make our pledge to work with other reasonable people in the state to put 

this issue behind us. 

The forest industry has a great deal at stake in this legislation. So does Western 

Montana where our industry is the base for close to SO% of the entire economy and employs 

tens of thousands of workers. This is an issue about land - but it is also an issue about 

~-

It has been frustrating to watch as national forest management in Montana has 

dragged to a standstil~ with the Forest Service's multiple use management plans remaining 

far from accomplished. Today Montana forest businesses are elooing at record rates, 

workers are being laid off, communities and local economies are being disrupted, all because 

of inadequate log supplies. Nearly three times the amount of timber dies each year on the 

Montana National Forests than is even planned for harvest. Bu~ our federal forest 

management programs are in complete chaos. Forest Service managers spend their days 

planning and re-planning, analyzing and re-analyzing, and responding to appeal after appeal 

and court case after court case - meanwhile the timber resources which are our lifeblood and 

our future are left to rot in the woods. 

WilL THIS LEGISLATION SOLVE THE PR08LEM? • NO • but if done right, 

it may help. 

We view enactment of a reasonable wilderness bill as a ~ in bringing back much 
261 

needed stability and predictability to Forest Service management programs in Montana. But 

if this step, once completed, is not followed by a desperately needed second step of 

reforming the Forest Service appeals, litigation, and planning process, this legislation will 

only serve to further inflame an already intolerable situation. 

Completing this legislation will require addressing three equally important challenges. 

1) RESOLVING RESOURCE CONFLICTS 

There are serious resource consequences of S. 1696. In spite of broad claims to the 

contrary, there are considerable acres of highly productive forest lands - lands which the 

Forest Service plans for harvest ~ which will be placed off limits by this bill Also there are 

hundreds of thousands of acres of productive timber lands which the current Forest Service 

plans classify as "tentatively suitable" for harvest -lands which have commercial potential but 

are not scheduled for active management at this time. These so called "tentatively suitable" 

lands are extremely important. Many national forests in Montana currently plan for 

concentrating too much timber harvest in accessible areas, while leaving other areas 

unmanaged. Criticism of Montana forest plans is already showing this to be an unwise and 

unworkable strategy. In order to maintain the productivity of Montana's forest lands, as well 

as the sustained flow of forest resources for Western Montana's economy, flexibility must 

be maintained to manage a larger land base, less extensively. 

Tentatively suitable timber lands are also important as we face the exciting challenge 

of developing " new forestry" techniques, or as some call it "environmental forestry". Our 

experience with these new silvicultural techniques in recent years has been most rewarding, 

both on public lands and on private lands. I think we have already shown some promising 

new gains for both forestry and for other environmental and multiple use interests. 

However. our abiJity to make new forestry work in Montana wilJ again depend on the 

flexibility to manage more land, less intensively than current practices. 

Other witnesses today wiJI discuss ·a wilderness proposal from the Western 

Environmental Trade Association to help resolve this debate. Montana's forest industry has 

been an active participant in developing the WETA proposal and we stand firmly behind 

their recommendations. We believe this is an important proposal which deserves your 

special consideration. We have, and continue, to pledge 120% of our efforts to work with 

our WETA coalition co1leagues to find a solution which is acceptable to an of us. 

Last fall Senators Burns and Baucus reached a compromise agreement on the area 

and boundary considerations of this legislation. Their compromise includes many new 

wilderness areas which our industry has long advocated for multiple use timber management. 

This legislation is a bitter pill- a very bitter pill indeed- for many of us to swallow. Yet we 

know that in order to resolve this issue we must be willing to work within the area and 

boundary balance offered by the two Senators. Provided this bill truly resolves the 

wilderness debate in Montana by resolving wilderness study areas and by extending 
262 

meaningful release language to the non-wilderness lands, our industry is prepared to stand 

behind this proposaL However, r want there to be no doubt that thjs bm presses us to ow 

absolute limit • In fact, this bill goes beyond the limit for some of our members. Any further 

additiom of productive multiple usc forest land to this legislation will press us to a position 

of active opposition. 

2) STIJDY AREAS 

The authors of this legislation and the members of this committee have discussed 

time and again the need to resolve the wilderness issue in Montana. We, too, are anxious 

for such a resolution. But, for this legislation to meet that goal illll!lll resolve the status of 

the wilderness study areas in Montana. There hu been much discussion of the so caUed 

s.J<n lands • the nearly SC\11!11 hundred thottsand acres of wilderness study areas established 

by the Montana Wilderness Study Act of !977. T'nnber harvest and other resowce uses of 

these areas are prohibited by the !977 Act until Congress passes legislation to resolve the 

status of these areas. 

Resolution of the wl1demess study lands is a threshold issue for us. These lands were 

recognized in 1977 to contain some of the most difficult resource issues in Montana. Those 

issues have now been studied for more than 15 years in many cases. The Forest Service has 

accumulated extemive data on each of the areas and has developed forest plans which 

provide their management recommendations as wen. In many cases the integrity of the 

timber sale programs on several Montana National Forests depends on an adequate 

resolution of the S.3'n study lands. 

5.1696 stops far short of resolving the wilderness study areas. In fact, S.1696 

establishes new study areas in the Thompson-Seton and Sheep Mountain areas. To reach 

the goal of resolving Montana's wilderness debate, wilderness study areaslll!lll be addressed. 

Enacting S.1696 in its cwrent form will only create yet another platform for the debate to 

rage on and the incentive for some to obstruct the development of released roadless lands 

because of the inevitability that a future wilderness legislation will be forthcoming. 

5.1696 does, for some study areas, establish the concept that studies should nor 

continue indefinitely and terminates, for example, the study for the Sheep Mountain area 

after seven years. At a minimum, this concept needs to be extended to all study areas in the 

legislation and the time period shortened to three years. 

3.) Bfl fA§E LANGUAGE 

Mr. Chairman, the other central issue in this debate is release language- what it does 

and how long it should Jut. 
263 

In 1987, we testified before this committee on Congressman Williams' 

wilderness proposal H.R. 2090. At that time we requested an amendment which would 

provide a more complete resolution of the management questions on all roadless lands in 

Montana. It was the industry position at that time to oppose any wilderness bill for 

Montana which did not include such an amendment. In the ensuing five years our position 

has changed. Although we would vastly prefer a bill which extends greater certainty to the 

future management of released roadless areas, our industry is prepared today to accept a 

Montana wilderness bill without such provisions, provided (I) the areas designated as 

wilderness do not preclude the timber supplies necessary to sustain the continued operation 

of our businesses, (2) the bill brings some degree of fmality to the wilderness dispute by 

resolving aU current Wilderness Study Areas and does not create new Study Areas in the 

State, and (3) the release language in S. 1696 is written to extend at least ten years. 

Our change of position is llQ1 because the problems we identified four years ago have 

been resolved. To the contrary, they have become demonstrably worse. However, we have 

received commitments from the Montana Congressional delegation to pursue a solution to 

the broader forest management problems following enactment of a Montana wildem= bill. 

With these commitments in hand, and being desperate to find some solution to the timber 

availability crisis in Montana, the forest industry is now prepared to support enactment of 

a wilderness bill within the criteria set forth above. 

Specifically on the release language in S.l696, I wish to respond to those who are 

critical of this bill today because of the release provisions. The release language in S.1696 

wa! negotiated in the spring of 1990 in the Senate at the request of Senators Baucus and 

Burns. We participated in those difficult negotiations along with the professional staff of the 

Senate Energy and Agriculture committees and representatives of environmental 

organizations. Our discussions were limited in scope only 10 developing langnage which 

would implement the release concept agreed to by this committee and the Senate in 1984, 

but would make the language current with Forest Service plans as they exist today. The 

result is the language included in S.1696. 

I am astounded today that some of the same organizations who helped produce this 

language in 1990 are opposing the same language in this legislation today. 

The allegations that our industry single handedly drafted the release langnage and 

that the language goes beyond the long agreed to release formula are patently false. 

Attachments A & B to this statement include memos from the Wilderness Society and the 

National Wildtife Federation which verity this position. 

The one legitimate problem with the release language in 5.1696 is the question of 

timing and expiration. It has been a long standing principle of the Montana Wilderne .. 

debate that release langnage must extent for at least one full cycle of forest plans. This 

position is consistent with the 1984 release language agreement reached by this committee. 

The language in S.l696 Wl1l expire, on some national forests, possibly as early as next year. 

4 
You will find a supplement to my statement which provides sugge.oted language to insure a 

full forest planning cycle will be available after enactment of this leplation. Without these 

additions to S.1696 the release language section will serve little, if any, purpose and defeat 

the fundamental objective of bringing about a true resolution of this issue. 

CONCLUSION$ 

As we face the dlftieult challenge of the days ahead to complete this Jesislation, I 

bellevc the one facet of the debate which will make, or break, this bill is this committee's 

wtllingness, and in paltic:ular the willingness of the Montana delegation memben to reject 

the POWTIC$ OF POI.ARIZATION which has characterized this debate for more than a 

decade. 

People in orpnlzations who have, and wbo continue, to work bard on compromttlng 

should be encouraged and rewarded for lltelr prOjlCSS. Our lnduotry is very intereoted in 

continuing to support a reasonably balanced comprontise. We showed our support fut 

comprontise in 1987 when we offered a new and very large wilderness proposal and we have 

done so again in workin& through the WET A coalition to arrive at the proposal they have 

described today. As we have made these steps it has been extremely <listresslng to see or 

advenaries on the other side of the issue moving away from the middle. 

For -.nple, as WETA moved from a position of "no wilderness• to a proposal 

approaching the magic number of almost one million acres, the Montana W"ddemess 

Association simultaneously announced a change in their position from 2.6 million acres. to 

nearly 3.5 million acres. It seems clear their intent is only to polarlu: the debate without 

ever reaching compromise. 

It is up to you gentlemen who will ultimately make this decision and tbe memben of 

this committee to decide whether you wtll allow this to happen. In my view you have an 

opportunity today to make very clear to those of us who are interested in working hard to 

lind a reasonable middle around that our efforts wt11 not be in vain. Also, you need to send 

a message to those who are interested only in extending the fight by advandng polarlu:d 

positions and colll:rCI\'mies, that they will not gain leverage in these deliberations by 

advancing extreme positions. 

I welcome the opportunity to testify today on be happy to answer any questions at this time. 
265 

Excerpt from S.1696 - The Montana National Forest Management Act 1991 

Susgested additions in l!old a!!d !!!!derlbttd S~ed deletions in 5IMeettl 

SEC. 5 RELEASE TO NON-WIIJ)ERNBSS MUL11PLE USE. 

(a) FINDINGS.- The Conpess lindlllhat-

(1) the Department of Agriculture bas adequately met the wilderness study 

requirements of Public Law 94-SS7; 

(2) the Land and Resource Management Plans and associated 

Environmental Impact Statements (bereina!ter referred to as "Land and RC$0urcc 

Management Plans") for all the National Forests in the State of Montana bavc been 

completed as required by section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Rcoourccs 

Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976; 

(3) the Department of Agriculture, with substantial public input, bas 

reviewed the wilderness potential of these and nther areas; and 

(4) the Con~ bas made its own examination of National Forest System 

roadless areas in tbe State of Montana and of the environmental and economic impacts 

associated with alternative allocations of such areas. 

(b) On the basis of sueb review, the Con~ determine! and directs that-

(1) without otherwise pwing on the qUCJtinn of the lepl and fllctual 

oufliciency of the La!!d and Resource Management Plan and their lWOCiated environmental 

impact statements for National Fote!t System lands in the State of Montana completed print 

to the enactment of this As:t, print to the revision of such plans oa or alllr leg DID !'rom 

tiJt di!J or epetplelt o( tl!ll Act decisiotls to allocate roadless areas to wiiclerness oc 

n<mwilderness categories, and the environmental analyses directly related to such allocations 
266 

shaU not be subjected to judicial review: 

(A) Pro!Nhd. IJoweom; That, except for decisions allocating lands to 

wilderness and nonwildemess categories, notbioJ in thit section sball preclude judicial review 

of Department of Agriculture decisions implementing sucll Plans or decisions made 

concerning the management of National Forest lands subosequent to their allocation to 

wilderness and nonwilderness categories: 

(B) ProvidM.furtluer, That, eseept for decisions alloc:ating lands to wilderness 

and nonwiklemess categories, notbioJ In thit section sball preclude judicial review of Forest 

Service regional ,cuides and other departmental polkies of aeneral applicability, nor pre~~ent 

a court from lnvalldatlng forest planttin; decisions w!ticll fail to comply with applicable Jaw; 

(2) exoept as specifically provided in sections 3,6, 7,8, and 9 of thit Act and 

in Public Law 95·150, with respect to the Nalional Forest S,Stem lands In the State of 

Montana which were reviewed by the Department of Agriculture under Public Law !14-SS1, 

the unit plans tbat were in effect prior to completion of RARE 11, the 1978 Forest Plan for 

the Beaverhead National Forest, and the Land and Resource Manaaement Plans, tbat sucll 

reviews shall be deemed an adequate consideration of the s~itabiUty of sucll lands for 

Inclusion in the National WUderness Preservation System, and the Department of Agriculture 

sbaU not be required to review the wilderness option prior to the first nMsion of the Land 

and Resource Management Plans tD m:nr 01 or tft.rr In Dll'! D:om 11M; cia!! ofwstmeJit 

lli:.W1Al;!. but sball review the wildemess option wben sucll plans are then and thereafter 

revised, which revisions wiU ordinarily occur on a ten·,ear cycle. or at least every fifteen 

years, unless prior to that time the Secretary finds that conditions in a unit bave significantly 

changes; 

(3) thoR Nalional Forest S,Stem lands in the State of Montana refetm:l 

to In parasraph (2) of thit subsecdon which were not desigllated wilderness, tpeclaJ 

manaaement, or wilderness study areas sball be manaaed for multiple use In accordance with 

land and resource management plans pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland 
267 

Renewable Resources P1anninJJ A<:!, as amended by the National Forest Management A<:!, 

and those areas need 1101 be 11111I111p1 for the purpose of prote<:liDg their suitability for 

wilderness designation prioF to or durinjJIIUim rcMslon of the iiBiiel Land and Resource 

M"""B"'B'"nt Plans 09 or a!1!r 1e!! mn flw t!ae d!ok .,.,........,, !)(tl!ls Ad: 

( 4) if revised Land and Resource Management Plans for the_ National 

Forest System lands in the State of Montana are implemented pumuutt to section 6 of the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resoun:es Plannin& A<:!, as amended by the National 

Forest Management Act and other appHcable law, areas not recommended for wilderness 

designation need not be JIIIIDII8ed for the purpose of protect1na their suitability for 

wilderness designation prior to or durinjJ MYision of such plaDs. and areas recDIIIIIleAded for 

wilderness designation shall be managed t'or the purpose of protecting their suitability for 

wilderness designation as may be requited by the Fores and Rangeland Renewable resources 

P1anninJJ A<:!, as anteoded by the National Forest Management A<:!, and other applicable 

law; and 

(S) unless expreuly authorized by Congress, the Dcpertment of Agriculture 

shall not conduct any t'ortber llatewlde roadJess area reriew and evaluation of National 

Forest System lands in the State of Montana for purposes of determinina their suitabillty for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Presetvation Syltem. 

(c) ~ used in this section, and as provided in sectioll 6 of the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resoun:es P1anninJJ A<:!, as amended by the National Forest 

Management A<:!, the term "rerision• shall 1101 irn:luded an amendment to a land and 

resource management plan. 

(d) Except as where specifically provided elsewbere in Ibis Ad, the 

provision of Ibis section sball also apply to those NatioDal Forest System roadless lands in 

the State of Mootana which are less than fMe thousand acres in size. 
268 

ATTACHMENT A 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

June 22, 1990 

MEMO 

TO Interested Folks 

FR Michael Scott . SB New Release language and the Kootenai and Lolo Agreements 

There has been some contusion about what the release lanquage agreed to tor the Kootenai and Lola Forests means as well as who 

agrees to it. 

The original draft of the lanquage was developed by Jim Cubie, 

chief staff person to Senator Pat Leahy on the Senate Agriculture 

CoiiUIIi ttee. He had steve Quarles, representing the timber industry, 

and The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, National Wildlife 

Federation and National Audubon· Society review it and otter 

suggestions. After an involved back and forth we all agreed to the 

lanquage attached to this memo. 

WllAT TO LANGUAGE MZAHS 

Background 

The release language developed in 1980 and refined in 1984 was designed to deal with the legal invalidation of the RARE II EIS. 

The Ninth Circuit court of Appeals had ruled the RARE II EIS 

inadequate to determine the allocation of roadless lands to 

wilderness and non-wilderness categories. Thus, any person walkinq 

into a Forest Service office could have challenqed any development 

decision in a roadless area by invoking California y. Block, the 

Ninth Circuit decision. . The timber industry argued to Conqress that it needed a provision in wilderness bills to insulate the RARI! II EIS from 

legal challenge. This was needed, industry said, to prevent 

"double-dipping" wherein a wilderness bill pass- and the next day someone attempts to lock up all the remaininq roadless lands by invokinq calitgroia y. Blgck. · . ·· · 

congres~ agreed that .. double-dippinq:was _not ·appropriate and 

crafted l_anquage, added into each wilderness bill, 'Which prohibited 

challenqinq development of released roadless lands ·on the bads of 

Calif'ornia y. Block. ··- · · -

Tbe CUrrent I11ue 

Because Montana has taken such a lonq time to deal with. 

wilderness, the Forest Service, by· law,· had to restudy all the 

roadless areas in the state in each forest plan. The timb~r 

NOR'TlmRN ROCKIES REGIONAL OFFICE 

105 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE E, BOZEMAN, MT 59715 

(406) 586-1600 
269 

industry argued that, because forest plans had restudied the 

roadless areas, the RARE II EIS was no lonqer the document that 

made the decision about which lands to recommend for wilderness and 

which to release. 

Industry wanted to update release language to insulate the 

wilderness, non-wilderness decision .contained in forest plans 

rather than the RARE II EIS. Conservationists had resisted this 

update because of concerns that insulating allocations in forest 

plans could affect the ability of citizens to challenge development decisions in released roadless lands. 

The Solution 

'l'o accommodate the concerns of industry and the needs of 

conservationists, Sec. (b) (1) of the standard release language was modified and a new preamble added to Sec.(a). 

Sec. (b(l) now insulates the wilderness allocation decision 

in forest plans and the environmental analyses directly related to 

such allocations. 'l'o insure there was no question that peo,Ple 

could continue to challenqe development decisions in released 

roadless lands as well as the type of management area prescription released roaclless lands were allocated to, two provisos were added. 

'l'he first proviso makes it clear that "except for decisions 

allocating lands to wilderness and non-wilderness categories, nothing in this section shall preclude judicial review 

of ••• decisions implementing ••• Plans or decisipns made concerning 

the management of national forest lands." 

'l'his proviso says people can challenqe development decisions 

implementing forest plans in released roadless lands as well as appeal forest plan planninq decisions affeetinq roadless lands. 

Thus, for instance, people will still be able to challenqe timber 

sales as well as the allocation of released lands to a timber 

prescription. . 'l'he second proviso·· insures 'that people will be able to 

challenge decisions made in regional guides Which might, region~ 

wide, affect released roadless lands. :. . . 'l'hus, See. '· (b) (l) .cml.l! precludes citizen challenges to 

allocation of lands to wilderness or non-wilderness cateqorles. · 'l'his was. the ·essence of the original release .. formula and is 

preserved in this version.. . . .. .. · .. · ___ ·-:..:...:.:::. ..... :' .. ·· .. . '· 

Finally, ·it ·is ·important to nota that'this new version··ot 

release does not, in any way, effect. the requirement that the 

Forest Service re-exemine its lands for wilderness in the next 

forest planning cycle. ·- 'l'his proposal is not hard . :release. . .xt 

preserves the ori;inal. soft· release formula..···:<:-·":· • ·· . :':--~.· -"'·•<:, 

Xn addition, the ~ttaChacl~langj.iaqe adds.-fiitdings Uldng the·; 

langua;e specific to . the . KOotenai 'end Lolo ''and ~ the section: 

contained in at&n4ar4'releasa which prohibits th6 Forests~~ 

from conducting any further statewide wilderness -:review~ ' sinGe: 

this is not a statewide bill, such a provision is not needed... . ::.~ 

According to the attorneys for our various or:ganizations the 

changes in release languave.preserve all the rights we bad under 

the old formula and gives us the ability to revisit the issue as it affects other foresta. · •. · · . · ·: ·· · · · .. ·. 
270 

AT'J'AC/IIIEft' B 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center 

240 N. Hiuins, Missoula. Montana S9802 

MEMO: January 31, 1992 

TO: Larry Mehlhaff, DouiJ Honnold 

FROM: 'rom !'ranee 

RE: Montana release language 

( 406) 721-&i'OS 

I appreciated receiving Doug's memo and the Club's testimony on release languaqe contained in the Burns-Baucus wilderness 

legislation. I have a few thoughts in response that I would like 

to share with you and any others interested in the issue. 

First, as the Club's testimony correctly pointed out, the 

so-called •standard• release is out of date, since the RARE II 

EIS has been made obsolete by Forest Plan :IlEPA documents. .As 

such, I completely agree with the Club that since the •standard• 

language means nothing in a legal sense, there is no need, 

leqally speaking, for any release languag-e. Where I part company 

with the Club, I guess, is on falling back on •standard• release as a c0111promise. If it has no legal meaning, I have a hard time 

arguin9 for its inclusion in leqislation. 

While no release languaqe might be preferable, the senators 

apparently f .. l that the compromise forged in the wake of 

California y. Block to prevent litigation over wilderness 

evaluations after Congress has acted needs to be c:a.z:Tied forwa:cd. 

As you both know, the languaqe included in the Burns-Bauc:us bill was first developed for the Lolo-Kootenai Accords by Jim Cubie, 

chief staff on the Senate .Agriculture Ccmlaittee, and then 

reviewed by lawyers with both the timber industr;y and the 

conservation COIIIIIRUl.lty. .As a CQ!IIPromise effort it .ls certainly no IIIIOdel of legislative drafting, but I do not share Doug's fears over how 1t would be interpreted in the courts. 

Doug's concern focuses on part of one sentence contained in 

the release provisions of the bill which states that Forest Plan 

decis1ons to •allocate roadless areas to wilderness or~· 

nonwilderne .. categories and the env~ntal analysili c11rec:tly 

related to such llllocat1ona shall not be subject to jud1c111l 
Release language 

January 31, 1992 

Page 2 

271 

review.• According to Doug, since this language has no perfect analogue. in the Forest Planning process, a court mishk broadly interpret it to preclude appeals, and litigation over every aspect of forest plans, including plan implementation. 

I think Doug would concede that his analysis of the 

provision in question is a worse-case interpretation. While he 

is certainly correct that the exact te:ms used are not found in 

forest planning, a plain intent of both the language and its 

context within a wilderness bill is to deal with wilderness 

questions and not the larger issues of forest planning. More 

importantly, Doug's evaluation ignores not only other language in 

the same sentence, but whole provisions in the bill that not only preclude the interpretation he offers, but expressly maintain 

rights of appeal and litigation beyond the wilderness issue. 

To begin with, the sentence that concerns Doug begins by statinga "without otherwise passing on the legal or factual 

sufficiency of (forest plans) ••• • This language underscores the narrow purpose of the release provision by articulating a clear 

congressional intent to not deal with any issue except wilderness. The bill goes on in two separate provisos to state 

that •nothing in this section shall preclude judicial review• of 

decisions implementing the plans, regional guides, or other 

policies of the Forest Service and Department of Agriculture. In 

other words, to reach the result Doug fears, a court would not 

only have to first agree with his worse-case interpretation on the wilderness allocations language, it would then have to 

totally dismiss express language preserving judicial review for 

other causes of action. Without wanting to become overly legalistic about this, a court would have to ignore all the ~xims of statutory construction to reach such a result. 

While I think Doug's analysis does not square with what the 

release language in the Burns-Baucus bill says, it is certainly not my purpose to qat into a legal argument with Doug that can't 

be finally resolved this side of a Supr- Court opinion •. ,. I have 

said for years that if you concede the need for release.!&nquage 

at all, then it becomes a drafting probl- wherein the issue is 

fashioning language which does nothing more than simply extend 

the •standard release• language to forest plans. Two years ago, in analyzing the ltootenai-Lolo bill, Doug wrote that his concerns could be addressed by slightly modifying the release language. Specifically, Doug proposed the following change (which I have 

taken the liberty of adapting to the Burns-Baucus bill) a 
Release languaqe January 31, 1992 

Paqe 3 

272 

Prior to the revision of such Plans, decisions 

recommending for wil4erness or not for wilderness in 

[forest plans] and the environmental analyses directly related to such recommendations shall not be subject to 

judicial review. 

Doug Honnold memo, June 28, 1990. 

I can see no reason for not suqgestinq this change to Burna, 

Baueus, Williams, or the appropriate committees, and I can see fewer reasons why it would not be accepted at some point of the 

process, although how Congress does business never ceases to 

ama:r;e. I have just recieved a copy of of the Senate cOIIIIIIittee 

report lanaguage, which I have attached, which emphasi:r:es the narrow scope of the release lanaquage. I am fairly certain we could find even more room for the kind of clarification that Douq seeks in the leqislative history of the bill on the House side. 

Please feel free to share this memo with anyone you think 

appropr.iate. 
273 

Mr. VENTo. Well, we appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses. There are outstanding differences concerning various issues. 

For instance, Mr. Reikofski, you worked a lot on the issues of 

snowmobiles. Are you suggesting that we open up the boundary 

issue again to substantially expand or reduce the size of wilderness 

to afford snowmobile opportunity? 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. I believe in certain areas that we should. 

Mr. VENTO. What about the public opinion polls in the State that 

suggest that three-quarters of the residents feel that there should 

not be additional areas open up to snowmobiling? 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. These are traditional areas that we are talking 

about. They are areas of historic use that have been used for the 

past SO years. 

Mr. VENTO. You disagree specifically with the platted or other 

areas which have been or remain open in this bill, as I understood, 

that there were basic negotiations that went on over most of these 

areas, weren't there? 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. No. There are some areas in the Gallatin that 

are of contention also. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Ballard, I appreciate the work that you have 

done on the mapping for these resource areas. I think some of them 

are contentious areas, but we will take another look at them considering the work that has been done. I will talk to my colleagues 

about that. 

Mr. Ballard, a lot of what you said is that there is continuing disagreement about the impact of the language. Obviously, there is a 

world of difference between a timely exemption from plans versus 

the Rare II study process. 

There really, I think, was the intent to fill the gap between the 

Rare II process and the time for the plans to actually be engaged. So there is a fundamental difference here. And I think what Mr. 

Williams has tried to do is to provide some opportunity without judicial appeal and administrative appeal. 

Mr. Bush, you talked about trends and factors. And timber jobs 

have been discussed greatly here. We are not announcing any news 

here. We are just repeating articles that the timber industry released to the New York Times several months ago in terms of the 

low-cost timber sales. 

In fact, Mr. Montrey was unwilling, unless there is something 

new that the Forest Service has come out with today. Are you 

aware of that? Is there something new that has come out today, Mr. Riley? 

Mr. RILEY. I hope I followed you on that, Mr. Chairman. We did 

not release anything to the New York Times. The first we learned 

of the specifics of the Forest Service for the Clinton administration 

proposed low-cost policy was when the New York Times, much like 

mllllY Members of Congress. 

What we did do was 2 years ago before the Senate Agriculture 

Reforest Subcommittee, which Secretary Lyons came and testified. 

At that point in time he said pointedly it was his position that they 

would not be implementing the program as defined by the New 

York Times. 
274 

Mr. VENTO. I hope they try to include you some more in the process, because you have been so helpful in terms of this particular 

issue. I am certain that you are going to win a lot of cooperation. 

You certainly have impressed me and your industry in terms of 

that process. In any case, the trends and factors affecting loss of timber jobs in Montana is, even as the cuts have gone up, as in other areas, 

has been a definite impact in terms of modernization, as a factor 

in job loss. 

We keep hearing stories about out-of-state purchase of Montana 

timber. Is that actually occurring? And is it affecting timber jobs? 

Mr. Bush, are you aware of any of these? 

Mr. BusH. Yes, I am. I know for a fact. In fact, I helped cut off 

some stakes off a logging trip last week as a matter of fact, that 

were being hauled to Idaho, from eastern Montana, because of, you know, their inability to get lumber any closer. He was making a 

1,300-mile round trip. 

I know that there have been some Oregon mills that bid runner 

timber. You know, I am sure the reasons that they are bid runner 

timber right now is because there isn't any within their-you know, 

for them to bid on. I think they look at it as a way to prolong their 

business rather than to shut it down. It is kind of a last resort. 

They have been paying rather high prices for that timber. 

As far as mill closures, there is still Summer Mill and Bardy, I 

guess. Our own particular mill is Champion Mill. They haven't announced a closure because of the market, but they have recorded 

a lot of losses, you know, because they had great gains earlier in 

the year. But right now, because of what they paid for logs due to 

these other companies coming in and bidding on timber-and when 

the market dropped it really-they are losing money now. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Also, with this panel, I want to thank each of you. We will continue to work with you on your suggestions and recommendations. 

This bill is open for amendment, as we say; and I appreciate you 

being here and look forward to continuing to work with you. 

I did mention at the beginning in my opening statement my frustration, and there are at least a couple of Members of this panel 

that add to that frustration. Because no matter what we do, no 

matter how far we move to try to satisfy some special interest 

groups in Montana, that can't get the job done. Even though we 

move far enough, we can't get the job done. 

Let me speak to you about that, Mr. Chamberlin. I don't know 

how we can move any farther to protect water in Montana. If we 

can, I am willing to do it. You want to be assured, according to 

your testimony, that all adjudication takes place in Montana State 

courts. We moved way beyond that. We left you behind. We don't 

allow any adjudication of Montana water that flows from wilderness areas in this bill. We don't allow any adjudication. It isn't a 

question of which court is going to adjudicate. Here is what the 

bills says: "Neither the Secretary, nor any officer, employee or 

agent of the United States shall assert any claim. And no court or 

agency of the United States shall consider any claim asserted by 
275 

any other person to any right with respect to any waters in the 

State of Montana." 

Now, how can we beat that? How can Montana be more protected than to _pass a law sa;vin¥ no one can challenge us, including the 

United States of Amenca m any court? 

I think your association has a totally different agenda than pro- tecting water, because we have ultimately protected it. And you 

come here to tell us that is not good enough. 

Do you care to respond to that? 

Mr. CHAMBERLIN. Mr. Chairman, Representative Williams, we 

appreciate the language; I think you have come a long ways to accommodate us in the last bill and the language with the storage facilities and such. 

I guess the only thing that, again, we are concerned about is the 

administration on the local level; and that seems to be where we 

have run into this same problem is with the storage facilities, with 

the water language as it 1s. 

It is not so much what happens here, it is what happens to the 

folks out in the field, and with those people that interpret this law, 

of those that are trying to administer it. We thought the same 

thing with the 1964 act, that those storage facilities would, indeed, 

be able to continue to be operated and maintained in a safe, orderly 

manner. 

You are familiar with the Montana Dam Safety Act that is going 

to be enforced shortly in the years to come. We thought those peo- ple were protected, too. But due to the interpretation of a super- visor, we run into some real major problems. I guess as far as the association is concerned, I don't know why 

we have to leave some vagueness in there. Why don't we just say that all waters that lie within the boundaries of the State will be 

controlled or administered by the State process? I appreciate your lm:tguage, but--

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is better than what you want. It is better for 

Montana's water users than what your association is requesting. It 

says you can't adjudicate it. It doesn't say you can go in this court 

or that court. It doesn't even say, Montana water users, you are 

going to run the risk of courts ruling as:ainst you. It says nobody 

can challenge you. Bingo. You win. I don t know why you come here 

and object to that. 

Now, I am going to go back and look at the bill with regard to 

the Burnt Fork Lake problem. I thought we had taken care of it. 

But as a result of these hearings, you raised an indication here 

that perhaps we haven't. 

With regard to the High Country Dams of the Bitteroot, that is 

an issue that I think I have tried to ~rovide some leadership onI have disagreed with the Forest Serv1ce. We have some regulatory relief on it. 

And, then, in this bill, we just grant legal relief for the work on 

those dams. 

Well, in any event, it can be frustratinf. I don't think you intend 

to come here and frustrate me. I mean don't mean to act angry toward you or your association, because I am not. But we really have done all we can to try to protect Montana's water rights. And 

I have said in the past and say on behalf of Senator Baucus and 
276 

Senator Burns, because they have said it publicly as well, and that 

is that no bill passes this Congress that jeopardizes Montana's 

water rights. Mr. Reikofski, let me, in the interest of time, just go to the end 

of your testimony. You mention that in my bill, quote, "the available land base for motorized recreation will be cut by 30 percent 

in the Flathead alone." 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. Correct. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is almost meaningless. Because you use available land base instead of trails. 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. Because that is what I am most interested in is 

the off-road travel. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, sure. But I mean the conclusion of that is 

that you want it all, because if it is available, you want it. 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. It is not all available. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You use all available. 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. When you already have a million and 69,000 

acres in wilderness--

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a different issue. But we are talking about 

whether or not we try to protect trails. Myself and my staff, Senator Burns, Senator Baucus, and former Senator Metcalf-the 

three things we spent the most time doing on this bill is spreading 

out the maps, getting down on our hands and knees with our staff 

looking for patented mining claims, trying to identify the best oil 

reserves. Although, as Bill can tell you, that is hard to do, even if 

you are in the industry-making sure we protect water and roads 

and trails for off-road vehicle use. And we have spent more time 

on snowmobile and trail bike protection for that use over the past 

15 years than we have any other single element of this bill. 

For example, this bill protects 95 percent of the current trail use 

in the Flathead. Ninety-five percent. The problem that many environmentalists in Montana and in the Flathead have with this bill 

is that it protects 95 percent of the snowmobile and trail bike use 

in the Flathead. I mean it is a difficulty of no matter how far you 

go, you haven't gone far enough. 

Now it is, well, you didn't protect our trails; now, well, there is 

other available land out there, and we want that. 

Why don't you respond to that. 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. The issue was not the trails. The issue has always been the off-road destinations adjacent to those trails. And we 

have stated that many times in the past. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the big play areas we protected. 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. What play areas are you--

Mr. WILLIAMS. You go up this trail, and we know that this is a 

major play area and it is a fairly significant use. We protect it. 

Now you go beyond that and say, yeah, but there is another 30 

miles out there that we would also like to go to that shouldn't be 

wilderness? Well that means that potential wilderness would 

shrink significantly in this bill just to protect what snowmobilers 

and bikers may want to do. 

That is an impossible task for the Congress. 

Mr. REIKOFSKI. Well, they weren't protected in the north end of 

the Swan Crest play areas. 
2'17 

Mr. WILLIAMS. As I said, we spent a lot of time doing it. Let me 

just say-and then I will conclude, Mr. Chairman-there is one 

reason in the West Big Hole that my bill goes below the wilderness 

recommended by the Forest Service, one reason, bikers and 

snowmobilers. Had to go below what the Forest Service itself recommended for wilderness, which is way below what some people 

want. And I went below the Forest Service, one reason. Two associations in Montana, and the bike and snowmobile rides I took my- self on the West Big Hole to see what they were talking about. 

Dexter East Point, same sort of thing. Lion Head, the Chamber of 

Commerce practically drew the boundary for Lion Head based upon what the snowmobilers needed, and it is in this bill. And the environmentalists and some others don't like it, but I did it because I 

wanted to protect historic motorized use. The the trail was left 

open. 

We created NRAs for the purpose of motorized recreation. You 

are saying to us, but you ought to take away from the Forest Service any latitude to manage those areas with regard to that use. I 

think that is going a step beyond what would be appropriate interference by this Congress in the management direction of the local 

foresters. But I create NRAs specifically for your users. 

Let me just give you one other thing. Your association and the 

other motorized association in Montana supported the Senate bill 

last time-there is the irony of that-and opposed my bill. My bill 

kept more trails open for you than the Senate bill did. It kept more 

trails open. It kept more play areas open, protected snowmobiling and trail bike use beyond what the Senate bill did. Your association officially supported that bill and opposed mine. I question the 

agenda when that happens. Thank you, Mr. Cha.mnan. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. I appreciate the patience of the witnesses. This concludes our 

hearing. We will take statements, as I said, for 10 days up to the 

tenth legislative day. We will be acting on the bill in the near future. And we would engage others in the process as is appropriate. The hearing stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

JULY 20, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

UNDQUIST & VENNUM 

-L..w.L Cf-

--

congressman Bruce Vento 

....,.,._ 

tGSOuTH EIIMnt sn-r ~....._,..A~ 

~81N'11-1211 

F~812471.,a'7 

July 8, 1993 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands u.s. House of Representatives Washinqton, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

.. ~ -.......... o..r- eoo 17nt tm&T. am tt• _C>ll.alooO........, 

--

Will you please make this letter a part of the hearing record for 

HR-2473 on the Wilderness Bill? 

X have been visiting and am interested in the Middle Fork Judith 

River area in the Little Belt Mountains ever since the early 

1930's. Although my home is in Minneapolis, I visit Montana 

regularly and always try to get into that area, which is one of 

the moat beautiful that X have ever known. 

X strongly urqe that your committee protect the Middle Fork 

Judith River as a wilderness area. I certainly oppose allowing loqqing in this beautiful spot and the same goes for off-the-road 

vehicles. The area is accessible by horseback and by one "4-

wheel drive• road. I have personally qone 'in by walking, horseback, jeep, and once by helicopter. 

NLNI!Illlla 

Enclosures 

(279) 
280 

WA't'NJ!l!.LINNEl.L 

NOUIAN l. fiEVo'JtAll 

WARD E. TAL£Rl 

JOHN I'. PAUl. 

tiCKAlD I. M.U:11M 

k£\ltN C. WliEX 

.J.IUN$0~\~l..XE 

LISA SWAM UMANSKY 

EOWAaD C. Al..£XAHDEI; IUTI'Ietl) 

WILUAM (t &.\l.lf:U!. ;I;£Tlt£0l' 

OVlFILE M067-0l 

June 29, 1993 

N. L. Newhall, Esq. 

Lindquist & Vennum 

4200 IDS Center 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 

David Newhall, Esq. 

Lindquist & Vennum 

4200 IDS Center 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 

Dear Dad, Dave and Phil: 

Mr. Phil Newhall 

5309 Rogers Drive 

Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 

For lack of a bigger dupe, I was recently elected the first 

president of the Island Range Chapter of the Montana Wilderness 

Association. This is a Great Falls based organization whose 

primary purpose is to see that some small amount of wilderness is 

preserved in the island ranges east of the Continental Divide. The 

island ranges, of course, are those mountain ranges, such as the 

Little Belts, that are detached from the main portion of the 

Rockies along the Continental Divide. Aside from the Little Belts, 

they include the Big Snowies, the Judiths, North and South 

Moccasins, Highwoods, Big Belts, Crazys, Elkhorns, Bear Paws, 

Sweetgrass Hills, etc., etc. As you know from your experience in the Little Belts# these ranges often contain areas of outstanding 

scenery, as well as excellent wildlife habitat, blue-ribbon trout fishing and unusual geology. 

Since the island ranges are east of the divide, they are semiarid, receiving approximately 12-15 inches of moisture per year. Being in a semi-arid climate, the forests in the island ranges are much slower to recover from resource degradation by logging, roadbuilding, mining and off-road vehicle use, than similar 

wildlands that are west of the divide and which receive consider· 

ably more annual moisture. Additionally, the island ranges are unusually accessible and, as such, are no doubt tempting to logging interests in particular. The Little Belts are already receiving increased pressure for logging and if you have any doubts about the 

impact, I suggest you take the back road from the ranch to Monarch 

and drive off on any one of the numerous logging roads that are approximately 2-3 miles east of Dry Wolf Canyon. 
N. ~- Newhall, Esq. David Newhall, Esq. 

Mr. Phil Newhall 

June 29, 1993 

Page 2 

281 

The Montana congressional delegation has wrestled with 15 

different wilderness bills, all of which have been unsuccessful. 

Most of these bills have addressed wilderness lands on the Rocky 

Mountain Front (east of the divide) or in lands which are west of 

the divide (near Kalispell, Missoula, Butte and Bozeman) . The only two significant areas of the island ranges in northcentral Montana 

that have been mentioned in previous bills are the Big Snowies and 

the Middle Fork of the Judith. Both of these areas were set aside as wilderness ~ areas in Senate Bill 393, passed in 1977~ 

Since then, virtually all of the unsuccessful bills have 

ignored the island ranges. Our lone congressman has just introduced a 16th bill which comes up for hearing before a House 

subcommittee on July 20. We have been in contact with the 

congressman's aide and are advised that he is amenable to amending 

the bill to include some areas in the island ranges. We are pushing particularly hard for inclusion of the Middle Fork of the 

Judith. !f it is not included, its wilderness study status may be 

lost and it will become susceptible to multiple use, including logging, mining, roadbuilding and off-road vehicle use. Designation as wilderness protects it from these uses, but does not impair 

its existing recreational uses, i.e. hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. Additionally, access to the Korell/Amott private lands in the 

middle of the tract is grandfathered in, as are the forest grazing 

permits. 

With respect to the ~ittle Belts in particular, they are the 

largest single mountain range in Montana without any designated 

wilderness; they contain fourteen separate, inventoried roadless areas (including the Middle Fork of the Judith), none of which are presently designated as wilderness; and inclusion of the Middle 

Fork of the Judith as wilderness would involve less than 20\ of the 

total acreage of the ~ittle Belts. 

Interestingly, the most influential congressman on the House 

subcommittee is Bruce Vento of Minnesota, who is the chairman. 

Thus, I think it would be particularly influential if he received a flood of letters from various Minnesota people expressing their 

support for wilderness designation of the Middle Fork of the Judith 

(you should use this full designation, lest it be confused with 

another "Middle Fork• that is also part of the wilderness bill). The letters need not be long. A large number of letters is 

probably more influential than their content. 

A letter from each of you would help. It should be written in 

time to be made a part of the record before the July 20 subcommit- tee hearing. Dad, would you also send an alert to the ranch 

00l03liii.WP 
N. L. Newhall, Esq. 

David Newhall, Esq. 

Mr. Phil Newhall 

June 29, 199.3 

Page 3 

282 

owners, sons 1 daughters 1 grandchildren and any other potential 

supporters (e.g., Bop Doerr)? Thanks. 

Very truly yours, 

~;u 
288 

WILDERNESS BILL ALERT 

Congressman Pat Willlams has Introduced his Wilderness Bill. As written, the blll contains no wildet 

designation whatever for any ot the island ranges in northcentral Monta~a - noneB Williams has comman1ed Ptt~: that ne is agreeable to appropriate amendments. Hearings oo tho bill are July 20. To hava any effect on this 

legislation, totters must be received by Williams and other influant1al congresspeople no later than July 20. Please 

write Williams immediately to correct the billrs obvious omissions. You don't need to be a technical expert to votce 

your support tor Montana's wild places. Tha most effective letters are often short and handwritten, but heartfelt. 

Mention something about yourself, your work, place at rasidenc& or roots in Montana. Clearly state your support for 

protection as wilderness of specific road!ess areas: Tenderfoot Oeep Creek along the Smith River and the Mlddle Fork 

Judith in the Little Belt Mountains, the Big Snowies or Rocky Mountain Front. Be creative. tnclude a snapshot. Add 

more signatures to your letter or include notes from friends, relatives, daughter, grandmother, neighbors, or hunting 

partnets to bo included in the hearing record. Be brief, be clear and respectful and you will be heard. Encourage your 

friends and relatives to write also. Thl$ m11y b6 y-Our lll&t ch11nce to hs1111 any input into this important lssua 11ff8ctlng 

IJII of northcentnll Montan11. 

Solow is a checklist of Ideas that you m"y or may not wish to include in vour letters, AU letters should bo 

copied to Bnwe Vento, Chair of the House Committee that will hear the bill. You should specifically request that th~ 

latter be .. made part ot the hearing record for HR 2473 ... 

Cungressman Pat Williams 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2457 Rayburn Suilding 

Washington, D.C. 20515-2601 

(4061 771·1242 

Sen. Max Baucus 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

(4061 761-1574 

Sen. Conrad Burns 

U.S. Senate 

· Washington, D.C. 20510 

(4061 452·9585 

Congressman Bruce Vento, Chair 

National Parks, Forests and Public lands 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Congressmen George Miller, Chair 

National Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

1. The number and diversity of Montana's lsiand ranges make Montana uniqua. 

2. As in the case of our national park system which began over 100 years ago, our wilderness areas will 

seem small and overburdened in 50·100 years from now, when the world population has nearly doubled. Our 

grandchildren will commend us for our foresight if we act now. 

3. From the period 1980 through 1990, only five counties in Montana experienced population growth. 

All five of those counties were adjacent to existing wilderness areas. That population growth ia not a coincidence. 

Wilderness has an appeal which will work to Montana's long~ term e.:;onomic benefit, We should not sacrifice the longterm economic and environmental welfere ot our grandchildren in exchange for short-term gain. 

4. Comments of politicians to the effect that wilderness is supported only by outsiders and movie ste(S 

is a blatant .attempt to prejudice the wil~erness debate. The most steadfast and consistent opponents of wilderness 

are the lar-ge timber. mining and oil companies that certainly are not Montana owned. The persons working for 

wilderness at the grass roots are M-ontanans who recognize that Montana has a unique opportunity to preserve wild 

lands th.at no longer exist in any of the othar 48 states. 

5. Recent wilderness billa have failed to protect significant areas in the "is lend* rangaa such aa the Ut:rle 

Belt Mountains {Middle Fork Judith River, Tenderfoot/Deep Creek aod Pilgrim CreekL Crazy Mountains and the Big 

Snowies. The Middle Fork. Judith River and Big Snowies were designated at wilderness study areas in the Metcalf 

bill of 1977 and should continue to be protected. Similarly. Tenderfoot/Deep Creek has been suggested for wilderness 

study status in subsequent bills. 

6. The entire northcentral portion of Montana, incfuding virtually aU of the island ranges, should not be 

totalty excluded from wilderness consideration. 

7. HR 2473 does not contain one acre of wilderness in the Little Belts even though the little Baits are 

the largest single mountain range in Montana wlthout wilderness designation and evan though they contain fourteen 

separate inventoried roadless areas. 

8. Areas in the island ranges that deserve wilderness protection include areas of critical wildlife habitat, 

blue ribbon trout fishing, unique geology. rere plant life, and unusual fossils. 

9. A recent public opinion survey commissioned by the u.s. Forest Sarvlce shows a strong majority of 

people favoring management of forest lands for wilderness values and opposing the construction of mote roods. A 

large mafority oppose opening up more of the forest lands to off road vehicle~~a .and nearly four times as many people 

stated they hod been hiking or horseback riding 177%1 as tho.., who mentioned driving off road vehicles 120%). 
Wilderness backe

attack bill __ 

Group says important ranges omitted 

By MARK DOWNEY Tribune StatfWrhtr 

Except for the Crazy Mountains 

by Ylhitt Sulphur Springs, cenuaJ 

Mo ntan.a'J isJaDd mountain rJJ"'ges are not included in !he wilderness 

bill Congressman Pat W'Uiiams in- troduc~ last ·eek. 

''At this point in time I think the 

bill is .. bust in eastern Mont:~na and 

tte.:trs us a.s though we don'r even 

e:oti.s!," Norm NewhaJi. pt~ident ol 

the Jsb. nd RJ.nst Chapter ot 11\e Mon1ana Wdd.tmess Association in 

Orear Falls said Wednuday. 

'We're cftsappointed,.. be nid. 

'"We're net tsking for the moon." 

W'llliUI'Is' bill would designate 1.4 

million of the 6 million ac~s ot 

buiea.Jly road!~ Na!lonal Forest landl in Mo ntana a5 wilderness. 

The de!Jate over Montana's potential wild~mess is entering it.s 16lh 

year. 

The Island Range Chapter ot the 

Montana Vlilde cnes:s Associ<~lion 

was fornted in M:m::h to work spedf · 

ically (or prote<:rion ol the island 

mountaiD ranges. Island mountain 

rangtt art jU$t whar their n:une lmpli~ - isQJattd groupings of 

mountains not connected to maj

ranges. ' 

"We're hopeful thiU the bill can 

amend~ to include suitable acf"

ages in the island ranges," Newh

sai.d. 

He added I hat during discussio

with Williams' representatives du

ing re::ent w~ks he: und erstood th

the isla nd ranges would probably 

ucluded from the inili.U bill. 

"Tht Little Belts contain l 4 lnve

toried roadless arens but this b

doesn't contain one acre of them 

wiltlemess." he said. adding that 
Smith River Canyons 

Tenclerfoof·Deep Creek 
286 

Island Ranges 

Tenderfoot Deep Creek 

(Smith River) 

Conservation proposal: 93,440 acres 

Stunning riverside geology, blue-ribbon 

t1shing, trailside waterfalls and undisturbed elk 

habitat ctmracterize Tenderfoot-Deep Creek. 

along the Smith River. The largest remaining 

roadless area in the Little Belt Mountains is just 

27 miles south of Great Falls. 

The limestone canyons and pristine reaches 

of Tenderfoot-Deep Creek are a big reason the 

Smith is one of the most popular river trips in 

Montana. 

Tenderfoot Creek is the largest tributary of 

the Smith River. tumbling through a series of 20-

30 foot waterfalls before reaching the main river. 

Unlike much of the surrounding country, the 

upper watershed ofTenderfoot Creek is still 

intact and unlogged. contributing critical lateseason flows to sustain one of Montana's finest 

blue-ribbon trout fisheries. 

Deep Creek and its many parks and 

meadows provide excellent habitat for elk. mule 

deer, black bear, mountain lion and grouse. 

Boundary Rationale 

Tlte proposed boundaries foUow 

topographic features and national forest 

boundaries along the banks of the Smith River. 

These boundaries protect the upper watershed of 

Tenderfoot Creek and the excellent wildlife 

habitat of Deep Creek. abutting 25 miles of the 

beautiful Smith River. 

Potential Conflicts 

Timber. There are 9,600 acres of suitable 

timber lands within the proposed wilderness. in 

the Tenderfoot Creek watershed. 

Logging and roading would come at great 

cost to downstream fisheries, water quality and 

backcountry hunting opportunities. 

Minerals: Hardrock mining activity has 

occurred outside the proposed boundaries. There 

are several patented mining claims in Deep 

Creek Park and near Taylor Hills. There is very 

low potential for oil and gas. 

Off-Road Vehicles: Off-road-vehicle abuse 

is the main source of resource degradation 

occurring in the Tenderfoot Deep Creek roadless 

area. Despite the efforts of Great Falls 

conservationists and local landowners. the Lewis 

and Clark Forest continues to allow ORV abuse 

that is destroying traditional reeteation and 

hunting opportunities and degrading wildlife 

habitat and wilderness values. 

Traditional Uses 

Hunting, ftshing, horsepacking. floating, 

canoeing and hiking are increasingly popular in 

this area. A number of guest ranches and 

trouliitters depend upon the Tenderfoot Deep 

Creek watershed and proposed wilderness. 

Legislative History 

Tenderfoot Deep Creek was included as a 

wilderness study area in legislation introduced 

by Senator Baucus in 1987. 

Conservationists urge Congress to include 

the full proposal as wilderness. using wilderness 

study in areas of intenningled private lands. 
287 

Island Ranges 

Middle Fork Judith River 

Conservation proposal: 87,000 acres 

The Middle ForkoftheJudith Riverwilderness 

study area lies on the east slopes of the Little Belt 

Mountains, 40 miles southeast of Great Fails. The 

proposed wilderness encompasses the Middle and 

Lost ForksoftheJudith River and adjoin the Judith 

River State Wildlife Range. 

Both forks of the Judith River have cut 

deep, twisted canyons through multicolored 

limestone cliffs. These river canyons form the 

heart of the wildland. The higher elevations to the 

west are fo rested with lodgepole and Whitebark 

pine. To the east, Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine 

are interspersed with open parks and meadows. 

C.:ntral Montana's largest elk herd, over 1.200 

animals. depend upon the Middle ForkJudithstudy 

area for calving, spring. summer and fall ranges. 

Winter ranges are located on the newly e:o:panded 

Judith River Wildlife Range. 

The Middle Fork Judi!h is also home to mule 

deer, black bear.lynx, wolverine, golden eagle and 

prairie falcons. The study area contains over 29 

miles of rivers and tributaries loaded wi!h native 

cut!hroat and rainbow trouL 

Boundary Rationale 

The proposed boundaries will maintain 

excellent wildlife habitat, primitive recreation 

and hunting opportunities in an area of otherwise 

heavily impacted national forest lands. 

Potential Conflicts 

Timber: There are 11,000 acres of lands 

classified as suitable for timber production in !he 

Lewis and Clark Forest plan. Poor productivity, 

rugged topography, and extremely slow growing 

conditions typify !hese lands. 

Minerals: A 1979 U.S. G~ological Survey 

repon concludes that me area holds little promise 

of hardrock or oil and gas developmenL There 

are several patented mining claims totaling less 

than 200 acres near Grendah Mountain on me 

western border. 

Private Inholdings: There are 1.150 acres 

of private lands along the Judi!h River. 

Conservationists support eventual aquisition on a 

willing seller basis. 

OtT-Road Vehicles: A primitive four-wht:el 

drive route is occassionally used to reach private 

inholdings on the Middle Fork. Some four· 

wheel drive use occurs on the periphery where 

several shon jeep spurs penetrate !he edges of 

the wilderness study area. 

Traditional Uses 

Hunting and fishing are very popular in the 

Middle Fork Judith wilderness study area.. wim 

hiking, backpacking and horse travel on the rise. 

Legislative History 

The Middle Fork Judith was selected as one 

of ten premier wilderness candidate areas when 

Congress passed the Montana Wilderness Study 

Act of 1977, S-393. The Judith was selected for 

its outstanding wild resources and the complete 

absence of designated wilderness in the Little 

Belt Mountains. 

In 1992. the Senate-passed legislation 

included a provision to remove existing 

congressional protection. The House-passed bill 

proposed to maintain cunent legislative 

protection. 

Historical Values: As a young man, 

Montana's renowned cowboy-artist Charles M. 

Russell spent years hunting, trapping and riding 

the forks of the Judi!h River with mountain man 

Jake Hoover. Here's how Russell described the 

Judith River backcountry: 

"Silut off from the outside world, it was a hunter's 

paradise. bounded by walls of mountains containing miles 

of grassy open spaces. more green and beautifultlum any 

mo.n-made parks. 17tese parks and the mountains behind 

them swarmed with deer. elk. mountain sheep, and bear. 

besides beaver and other smo./1 fur-bearing animo. Is. The 

creeks were alive with trout. Nature had surely done her 

besr, and no king of the old times could have claimed a 

more beautiful and bountiful domain." 

-Charles M. Russell 
288 
289 

~ 

., ..... p" .. t:.:,._ .. , ... ,. .... t .... 

WILD COUNTRY 1111 

slm1'und pholn In• iW/ C!tlflllll,ttham 

Middle Fork Judith 

Backpacking Montana's heartland 

<:las.c;ic Charlie Rus~cu cououv? 

\Vt.•ll. snrt nf. Although the ne:.uhy town of Utica was one of Charlie's 

(;tvorilc hangouts, it may well he that 

he never a~iually set foot in the upper 

Middle Fork of the judith River drain-

>Re. Still. these central Montana 

mountains form the disrnnt horizon.of 

many of the famo(is :ani~1's most well 

known p:ainting:;: images tharcapture 

t~ spirlt of Montana's wilder, 1es.1i 

developed dar--a spirfr that lives on 

ina witdlamlwithoutroads. Wec:.all it 

the M1dtl1c Fork iudith. 

This 91.000-a(re madless area is 

loc:tt"·d in the he-.!ft or the expansive 

l.iU\c th•!l P.f(.unt~lins on the Lcwts and 

Clark N;ttinn:d Fore~t. Hemmed hy 

nmds ~•nd hvdroloAiC divides. the 

roughlv t.in.:ular prx:ket of t.·ountry 

strctt.:hc,; ne:.trlv 17 mlles, from the 

rromincm he~;dwalt hnsins of the 

;\1iddlc and Ln:-;t forks of the judilh 

Rh·t.:r. 10tst to lmvcr fo<>thill and can~ 

yon count~-. with a north-south ex~ 

ten( of 1.\ tnHcs. 

.\1<,st of the steep-walled mot.lntains 

ri~t.· st.•vt.•raJ thousand fcetab<>vc rush~ 

in~ streams. with dev:Jtion1'> ranRinR 

from the H.HOO'summit of Yogo Pe-..tk 

on the nonh-,enlrJ.I boundary to the 

'5,040' point where the Middle Fork 

leaves lts roa<.lless he-.Jdwaters at the 

eastern extremity. The hroud ridge 

tops have g<..~tleto moderately roUing 

topogrJphy, with open parks and 

meadows. Every so ofren an outcrop 

nf limestone cliff Or rock adds a striking rontr.ts:t to biankets of lodf.tep()le 

pine interspersed with gras5y parks. 

Middle Fork Resoun;~ 

CIO!!erLook 

M1 >.">!: nf tht: area's ~l.·ology consists 

of ma:;sivt.•. tanw<:olorctl linte.!<•rooe 

and dolomites. Th!;!>se carbnn:.tte 

ro<.·ks \vt:re dcf>OSiled on an uc.:ean 

floor some :{flO co 400 milljon years 

a~o. SI:~Jt1in~ around 70 mHiion ycar:i 

ago, a mounrain-huiklin~ period 

,,.::tiled thL· Nl.;1ramidc orogcnyN pro~ 

Uuccd the Little Be!tlbngc. The entire 

~m·:1 w:ts donK·U up. with igneous 

rocks lntnttlin~ inio th(! ~xb1in~ scdim~nt~Jry rocks. fom1ing' .'\i~nificanr 

Jt..•po.o;;its of s;lpphircs. The fam~.-'tl 

Yngo.~pphircdcposit li(.'!'< :tlt•n;~ tlh' 

onrthe;tst comer. Th\.· 11at ..;(•din~<.·nmrymcksofthclost Forkandi\lid\tk 

Fork were gently tillt:d t.~:lslw;ml. 

Subse;::quent ernsion has prrKhtu.:~l 

today·s ,..-aricd land<ieape. 

M)• several trips into the ~Iiddlt: 

Fork have rcinforct.-d two Uomin:nn 

impressions ahout tht.• art.>a 's "·e:ttl1t'r: 

constant winds and su<.h.lt'n tcmllt_'ra 

ture changes. Although mo!>t ol the 

annual p«-~lpitation falls as snnw, 

w>Jnn chinook winds keep ~Kt·umu~ 

lo.Hed snowfall down to an avL't:li .. W of 

16 itKhes tn the lowl;mds ;lnd t11 t mh· 

;J couplcuff..._-c! in 1hc high{_•rnnunry 

t\:<> you'd expecr. the ~mon-.ono' 

:->eastm <~rrives in May and ll"l•ally h1"1s 

until late june 

Thi.s relative ahum.l;~nce of 1nob· 

turc, comhint.-d with a :ituhle '..V;~H·r~ 

:ihl.:'tl. t::-t:plainswhylh~: Middk F•;rk h 

lht• only )'C~IN'llUOd Slrt.':tm llP\\ Hli! 

f~um the l'a~t .-;ide of !h(..• l.ilflc lkh" 

'£1;t: vcgcratitm tsryph::<tl1 ,f e:t.<.t·"'' li, · 

Montana fmt.-st.-.. Dou~la-. fir ;111d 

pondcrn,'a pint.'" min~k:• on snndn:m:hcd :mutlll'm :--lopcs. Spruvc is 
.:l .. n found at low~r dcvation.o;: and 

\\ 11h Douglas fir m tht: stream hot:• 

If 111h, P;ttt.JK-s of-doghair"" lodJ,tcpoJt: 

I Hilt.' grow on th~ prott:«:tcd :.;.lope:-; 

.ttld lti~h..:rupthc- ntountainsidt.>s. The 

nppt ·r Htuhcriinot! consi..,t,o; mostly of 

u hth: h~tck pint: and subalp1n~ Or. 

1 :ll'-'n rid~te--s anti dry p..trk.s art: Uc)lni~ 

n.trvd hy hum:hgr.1M. wirh limolhy 

;l! :d ii w.:~r.l!'i:'i- w-owin~ in mobt nm~ 

tr1m Lmd-.. 

F;H ·h of tht.~ diverse hahitaas p«r 'Jtlt:~ :..t home for a variety of wildlife 

.. llt.h ;I" mule dt:cr, ~-:rouse. black 

l •car:-.. a t'ct\' white-tailed <.k."t."r. mounl.tta li•ms. \vo!,,-crint.-s, l;·ruet • .es.goiden 

\.'..lgk· .. :.md pr.tjrie fak.uns. Tht:cndangcrL·J bald ~agie som<:timcs is spoued 

1.harin.~ sprinR :.1nd fall migr-Jtiuns. 

~utf.tllh:. un,x-cupit:d ru..-sting habitat 

I' n p~ .. ·n.'J.Crlnc falcons has het:n found 

~H 1 11.: <.'1 mtlut:ncc nf the Lo.on and 

.\Iiddle fork,:>- of th~ judith. 

B-ur nf ~~~ lht.-st: vark>d and fascinar~ 

n~ "'"Hi.l <.T(!'atures none bas 5tim-d ;o,s 

n1u ... h puhlkconcc:masdkv-:ily wap-. 

iii. I f~tving <»nee ht.."Cn wiped out, elk 

\\ere pl;~nu:d in the Liul~ lklu in 191S 

and :t.twln in 19.Za and have f.1red 

t.·x .. ·cptionally wt:il. The Middle fork 

ht. .. rd t:o> one of tht: most f)rolilk in the 

~~~tlt.·. With :J t;OW-<:alf r,,l,(j() t:XCt..""ttdinR 

'S.t' r)!.:rct:nt :u times. 1'hl.'ii herd of some 

L.!u 1 anim:.ds relics on the Middle 

Ft,rk·sspnng.summer:mdf;~llran~. 

t htri-ng tau: fall the elk mlgr.uc nunh~ 

c;t.-.. m an.l to the wimer rt~ngt: on the 

;uJI~ .. .-o:.·m stal~··oper.uc.»J Judilh River 

( ~,;.tt nt..· N:anMc. 

S. mu: 20 yc-.tr.. ago the f'~t Sen·· 

in.·lx~;tn seiling timhcr in the uprer 

:l:"llhcs ul th~.: ~liJdlc Fork. \V~th 

.nl1i1li(m~tl pmpo:-.als ftx ru3ds and 

290 

lO)tging in the mure pnstmc l.n.o,t fork 

tributary. With on.: of the hugc."St dk 

herds in the state (X.'l'Hp}'ir\~ ont: of 

the laq.;csl '-·cntr.tl J\lc uuana wikl :u·· 

t:"Js, Montana spc:,ru.mcn, notahly 

Hil~r·att:'..t r-.tnchcr John GilpatrK.·k, 

sou~huome fnrm of-cnmpromL~ that 

would prot~.:o:.·t th<.• an:;.1 and Its wiJd· 

life. At:c.·ording 10 him. ~Th"· i\lkldlc 

fork anJ l.u.-.t l•nrk-hoth ar\.• n~.trlv 

· synonymou.'i-rt..·pre~nt one of 1~ 

largest 01..-".trly uridcvdopt..•tl ar!:'.ts in 

the Littl~ Bc:lt'i. As sut,:h. the)' pnwidc 

nc...-d~...>tl scdu:-oiun to >-'~tl.,.·ing dk in thcsprlng and \'ital csc-..tpc <.·ovl!r in the 

fail if we are to ftl;lintain unllmitt..'*d 

hull hunt in~.~ Th~ aw.1 is adiac.·cnt to 

the statt:~ownc:U judith Gounc Range. 

which winters amund 1.200 elk. :.lnd 

ad.'> .. sa st:.~ginH and di .. •opcrsal arc:-.1 for 

them. Gilpatrit:k cxplainc.-d. 

Apprnximatciy ~) mik"S of the 

Mid<.Ut: and Lu.'il forks and their larttcr 

tribula.l'H:s provide f;lir tl,hin~t for 

r...tinhow and \..'Utthmat tmut, A srrutll 

str4in of nnduoat c:xl...,t:i in d~_upl)\.'f 

Lost fork dt..ospitc a fairly hi~h sUt lo-..1d 

in the strt:>.lm frnn1 str<."".lnil'r..ank en>· 

sion along Burris and Sandpoint 

ctt.··dcs. Trout habitat is a':tuaily he. 'ftc..~ 

inrhcMiddlcForkt.luch)lcs.."JsUt:.Uk»n. 

A past as colorful as the 

m.ultl..:oloted UmestoM 

Q.,ologi<-JI hostory Is "-"-"rd.!d in 

se>J :tnd animal IO:i."'ils t:mh~ • .oddcd in 

limestone ditl:'l. Thc:rc is also ahun· 

thlnt t"Vidc:nc:t: of prchi!'>torU: usc of the 

Middle Fork hy lndmns. 

In' lfrf79 runinrs of ti,:h plat.'t'f'S in 

y,~ Crt..-ek ~n .... Jled a Hold rush ~nd 

t,~..,~·dupmc..·m of luwnsih:S.. YoJ.to City 

:u1d llum·cr Clty, on t~· north~-m 

t:t.ihJC of the area. The hust GlHh .. 'a.., ...... 

qui<:kly 3!'>Cht.: ho<)1il an<J hv the ~·nd t ,f 

the fin;t :->c<.tsc:.m lllost o{ lhl!' l.'illll 

minti'S hatl left. It wasn't un1il IH\1 1 

that four pro ..,p:t..·lors "A'nndcn:d if the 

UuJc hh.1c Mones in tht..·ir slui<.:;: hox 

haO any value. 

"Wh~u in lu:U is :1 :-~:.~pphin..·-~n ask1.:d 

miner ff"Jnk Hobson wh~,..·n inforttK<t! 

as ro what they weT>.:. Tim . .; bcj.t:tn ilK· 

fanK.-d Yogo Sapphire n\.·s-~oJW 

source of the s;.~pphir{:s in the cnm 11 

jc.-wel-. of England. It is likely that 

som~ S4 million worth of .'klpphircs 

Wt..'t'C' cxtrJc:u:d until thl.! rnint:S were 

dOS<..-d in J9l9. Even during th~..·tr 

ht..oyday tlw mln1..*S were lOugh 10 

N'J.Ch. Tht!Y were a ion~ w;.1y frof\1 the 

r.dlruad, and :mpplics h:u.l w lx: 

it.~culcd over :J wagon mad from Utit.·a 

orv~:.& horsc:c:md fmm Nt..·iii~H1 at:n:l~' 

the mountain. Ttx.bv. >l n:n:m discm·~ 

cry and nHx.icst d~vch l()lll\.'nl of ~~ 

sccont.l ~pphirc mint.• i .... tX:t.'urrintt 

jum nnnh uf tilt.! Middh.: F1 lfk. 

An acldtllonal hi~ioric.l\ point of 

intc~ L"i the 1909 JuUith Ciu~uJ ~t•t· 

tlon n<:".ar the mouth of the ~liddil· 

F<Jrk. Titi~ pi<.:rt.tn:-"<p.t\.: II lfV"'I t.~tllitt i:-. 

heingnominat(,.,..j a."ia natitmallti:-.t{Jrk 

she. 

Middle Fork manall"ment 

The Midd~ Fork, lik~..· mo:-.t mhcr 

unaJlocatecl roa<.lk:ss areas in Mon~ 

l:lrti, •nd like th~ pruverl>ial f'<'ndu· 

lum. has a future that sct."flt."' ro s~·ing 

bc..~"L"ff endurin~ wtldcm"~"" man3~ement and aJI.-out (kvdopmcnt. In 

re-.t!ily, nt:ith~roflh~SI.."C\'CnlS i) likdy 

in tht! forsee>J.hJc future. 

Yc."'.Jn;:Of public,·onl.'Cm l)\'crchcdk 

herd resulted in the Milldk~ Fork Ju~ 

dith bt...'"\.-oming one of nine cnngres~ 

skm;.tlly--mand:ued wilderness stU<Jy 

are-J.." in the 197i Mom:.m~t Wilc..ll·rnc!'is 

Study A<..1 au1hott:tl hy Scn;uur Lt.·~ 

Mt:R'Ollf (I)..MTI. In ll)til th~ Fore.~ 

Scrvi<X comptctc.."(j the wildt.m~..•s.r" 

bludy reputtand rt."l."tl!llrllt.•ndt:d m~rt· 

wildemcs.'i "'ith a hlc:nc..l of d~:v~lop .. 

mern and semi~primitivc n!CTt..."' . .uion. 

Titl! l\lll6 l.ewi.• & Clark Fun.'!il Plan 

reaffimkd this ll)' proposing that 

nt:urly 11.000 acres in· a ma~>r f\1kklk• 

fork trihuwry-H:trrison (.;n.'"l-·k-hc 

av-Jilabk: fnr ~in~ with most of I hi.• 

remaining ro;«.Ut..>s." lantls H> he man .. 

a~c."\i forsc:mi~primilivt: n:':n:osti(IO. 

Um.lt..-rtermsuftlw~itmtan;,~ Wik.l\.'r~ 

nes.'iSlUd\' At.:t lS.5'-J51. C.m~n.-~"' h.1s 

fC!'Ot..'fVt..:d llu: fin~ti ~ry ~~.., lt t hnw !! w 
,\liddl~./ Fork wilt he m:magt.•<;,t, Ikp. 

l':lf Wi!li;1m:-.! I)~MT) h;:u.; intnxlm.:t:d<l 

f h>tt~c~p:ts.'K.·d M(mtnna wildh1nd!<i l)iil 

!h:u ;.vould dhnin:m: thQ wikl;.trm:ss 

:-.ludv 'l:nus<lllhl.·.~llt.ldlc F(n'k. M~ln· 

,.,.lli!c, Sl.·n~ll()r Mnx Bauc~1.s i D-MT) i.s 

spunsorin).t k:gi:ilation that W<ruki 

t:omill\1(." tht: {'H'CSt:f!t wildcrnt>.s.s 

.'>ludy ,'it:ttu:-;. !\O !h:tr a scp~1r.1te r..k:d~ 

~itut <::m lx.·rendcn:d aftcrpassag~:nf 

the iong-:nvaitct.l Mont;ma .smtcwhJ~ 

wikk·rn ... ·ss hill. Until Con~re:\S dc-

~.:klt.·.s. the Foro:st Scr'Vicc is n:quircd to 

flMimain !he ~;:<:i!oitin'K Wiklt:mc~s p<,._ 

tcntial of rhe ~lid<..lle Forkju<..lith Wiidt.:mt.~~ Studv Art;'.l. 

Th<: mana~mcnt question ~" C\'>m· 

pli(.'Jil!d hy thc existenl"t!' of ~ix different privarc in .. hnldcrs: ownin~ 1.1 )4 

at. R.'S in a .single block along the 

;\Iiddle Fork in tht: he~rt ofthr: :-;rudy 

an::L Another .2<:i0 :u.:n.'ii :;1re priv:.Hdy 

nwm .. '\1 on four patented minin~ 

t:..'l:llm!'. On sc.:vt:ral cX:C;J:;ions the: Forc:oor Sl..·r:in· has trit.•d un..,.tt<.·-.·t.-s..'ifuil\' to 

..:x<:hangc or purchase one j()()-~cre 

inholding. At th1s v.·ntin)t. M!!~otialions havt: t:(.!ascd. 

Tu the south and direcrtv ai'X)\-'e 

!hc:-:c priv:u~ inholdin~s ri:-;~s H.211' 

S;_ln<.l Potnc from whidl one of the 

'gr-J.ndl.."m \'if...'\VS of the :iUffi)UOdinJ( 

wlkl nlwmy l~tn be <.·njoyt:d. It wa:-; 

nt.::lrllt•rc,mju1y6, t~41) !hat [iJ!htninJ! 

stn.Kk rindt.•r-<.lr~t fuels. <.TC"Jting a 

fin::-;tunn !h!lt t•on.omml'tl mott.• tl~n 

(l,OOO acft..~ un !lktr clay alone. By the 

ttnu.· tht.• lire wast.•xtint.tuish'->tl. i I .• ~)IJ 

:u:n.»s of ti"R: 2'5,\lQO .. aci'C' Lo.~t Fork 

dr.tirn.t~c w:.as left in ashes. Concern 

imsm.'tliatdy ct.-ntcred on the impact." 

of incrt:;t.'){.-d sediment on lhr.! Uppc:r 

Missouri o:;unhro;,u trout, a Mont•tna 

SfX.*(.'ics uf Sf'Ct:i:ll <..·onf..-cm. 1,e n<.·xf 

month the t;;m:st Scrvk:c hc:~an heH-

<."'pte:r ~ding the stw.am bottOm'\ 

and fin:lil'\t::S with ~rn..._,_ s<,."t:d. Emsimt 

was funht.T <."ontmUcd with rrr.1d dn· 

,"\Urt."S«Ul :tmJ n~Jr;o;:.tnd Point and l.o:;t 

Fork Rid~c. ·nt::tnks in part t<) tht<sc 

pn ...... "t-ntivc mt. .. .t!'ilH'C"$, narur..1i vt..>gt.'ta· 

tivl.· suc.xc::.;sion airc-..tdy is takin~ hn\J 

in 1lw l1)H'5 hum ;Jf'\:'..t. 

lltc '-'fUirc 9l.OUO~acre studv :.trt:'J is 

within an -an:'J·wid(! vehidc: · dosurc 

un<.lcr the Ffm.-st Tr.tve! Plan. Lewis & 

Clark ft.>n.:st Supc.~'K>r D-.1lc Gomt.~n 

cxf'Main:; that -au m<XqriZ\.'ti u~ is 

rt.:~tri«.:t(.•tl totksignatt!cl roadwnvs ;tnO 

tr.tils durinR t.'t.."ftain times of th~ yc~r 

In minimize potential dTccts on the 

coxi:-.liOA wil<JcrM'l."SS <.:h:trJ.<.'U:ri.,.tics.-

291 

Thi:-. m;.:::m' lh;;i nnsx--t:ountf\' motorit.L'tl u."i.l..' is pn'l1il1ih .. '\J and th~t t'L'ft;tin 

!ralls an.· open only 10 nomnmnrizcd 

U.st• during: hltf\(iOj.t :if..~ISOO tO s.:tf(:-

gu~trd wikllif~..: h~thil:lt, 

Middle Fork recreation: what to 

do and where to do it 

Compan.:tl In mon..· a(,'ccssJble n:trional f'i lft.'SI lands. th1: rcmnte Midd[c 

Fork olfL"rs its rl'l;uivclv few vi!oiitoni 

:unplc :-olittuk•. Tht.• t'no.~ popubr 

:.K1ivity is 1hc annu:.~J u:t.Jtumn j")llr!\:Uir 

ofhig g;tmt>, MotoriZitd n..--cn:Jtion is 

fairly widcsprc:Jd. cV<!O though mt.K"h 

nf the art:~t':;, i) .. miiC'·Iong trail svstcnt 

is dc1.«<:d to motuti7.<.~1 vchidt.>s Junn~ 

hunting sc-J~on.' R~g:m.llc:s."i of mod~ 

of tr~m~port. mo...r \"isitors arc drawn 

to the ~•tlclJic Fork ludith for hunrin~. 

fishin~. hiki~ mld taking in wiid 

mtluntam s<.'cnc:rv. 

A pnmltiV<.:, !o~~.sw.ndanl mttthvay 

up !hl' :\liddk: Fork offt:rs \'ehi<.."tllar 

;~d\·cnrun: for risk-1akcr.>. 'X'ith .'ltmK' 

30 Mrt.·am crno;siogs. one mi~ht t·on~ 

dlH.Il• th;st \V:J!king llf h(lr,iC•h:l<:k fi(Jin~ would make ~orc sense. This past 

:->Umll'K'f ~tw ('tlfnplctinn of the Arch 

c,,t.ill.·c..•trJil.;l·t. whidi<:t\'clidsm(lst elf 

liK· riven;nJssin~.;. in I he lmvcr Middle 

Fork. Tht.• m.:w I~Jil ~:Arts fmm Wooddlopper R:id~t· lto;ld X2~ o1nd joins 

lrail4:\- ~11hc mnuth of Arch Coulee. 

Conlimlt.'t.l tr:til rclo<.::lfion is pl:mm."tl 

ur the.• \lilkUc fork. whkh \\illotvnid 

priv:l!t' bmt \VhCrt.."\'t:r ["KlS."'iihlc and 

n.·du;.·t.• the.· number of river <"rO."-'iinwo. 

·ni~: -.tt·cp King Cn:<.•k tr;lil ~~- wa-. 

alsll rt•t:onstrtl<.'!l.:d durin'-! tltl.' "ttmtttl·r 

of 19M":'. This rnuh.' ~ti.c.., off in nH 

p:u;.:m\."\l mining1.:laim~ n;.::u·f ~n·ml.1h 

i\lliUI'llain and j_, j'X:rh~1p:o; lht· 1111 '"t dirt.•<.·t ;u:.:n:;-;s tct thl.." gr.I."'Y ra~k-. ;tl, •t\~ 

tht.· m;tin ,\flddk· Fork, 

1·o t 11t·ir t'r<.·dit 1 he !;1 nd• 1\\-nt·r" lt; 1 \., • 

allo\Vcd puhlk acn:ss an"'"' 1 h. ·ir 

flrl\'~tif.: prnp<:rty ;L'< lnng ;;.; 

,'>t<IV t)fl \he lr.li!s anti In ;m 

litt~·ring or di.'>!urhin~-: lin.:~t11d.; :1nd 

buiidi~w-- , 

Ifyot(n.:::n an~lt:rwith :1 yt.•n tnnfw 

naturJI .'icttin~.t. tht.•n tl1t.· ~liddk· :md 

Lost forks arc !or vou--+..:\'t:fl ilvnt~h 

th~: :J<.'Iion i...,; r:m:iy b.«<. 11u: ht.nuing 

l.'an he better, (!Spt't.."i;tily in th~o· <·nu11· 

rn.· unrnuchcd tw the :oi:md Pt ·irtf fin:. 

Thb 1:-. ~:hen: £hid.: forest \.'\i\ "<.·r pro· 

vh.k:.s h<thifar and c.st:apcu J\'Cr t't ;r dk. 

If \·ou'n: in the m:1tkct for :;,t.:vnel"\'. 

fX'rhaps Eh~ sin~h: mu~t ;.;pt:~1:KLll;sr 

~utrJ<.'tton i~ rht•!ow<.:r f( 1ur milc~~~r !Itt.• 

~Iiddle Fork drJina).tc wilh ib 'hl·er 

limt:.'it<me dill:.;;. \.':tnvons :tnd tll> !l..t.·n 

1opography. SanJ "Point olfl·r." the 

lx:st view ofrhc inwrior(;ftlw \fiddk: 

Fork. i.u:-;t Fork and 19H::; hum, F•lt~f· 

Wht:Ch.-d YC:hit.'[CS l'~ltl drin• !he fir..,.1 

3'.! mtk."!'i of prtmith't.' ro;.!dw;t~ 1, t!X. 

Durinj.t humin~ setson, thl~ fm;.~i 1wn 

mil\!s 10 S:Jnd l'oint a~ do.,.~:J 111 odl 

t1ltltorir.~;.·dtr.Jtlk. 

l11c winter enthusiast e:m n.·n1 1lw 

Forc~t Scr\"k'l: <.-ahin ;Jtor Kin~." !!ill 

on Hij.thway tW on rhc WJ:."Mt'f!lH'!tJ'r 

tip of the smdy ~n::t. rmm hen_• 'uHARDY PLANTS FOR MONTANA I Tired of ~pending money for planiS that die! Wishing mail-<>rder plants 

W<"re more reliable? 

w~ have the answer to your dllemma! 

Our hardy plants are seleCted for Montana's rugged growinR condi· 

lions. We offer an exce-llent selection of treest shrubs and perenni.li!<, 

plus we guarantee plants to arrive in top shape. 

Se sure to ch~k our no nom~ns,~ 

list of windbreaklshelrerht»ll 

pl:anrs tl$ wen as qua lily 

(ruitll'efl. 

HC 8i Box 22~0-M 

Kilt Timher, MT 5q011 

or phoM t406J '132-"' f<J5 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 
292 

Island Ranges 

Big Snowy Mountains 

Conservation Proposal: 99,840 acres 

Lewis and Clark National Forest: 92.940 acres 

"Twin Coulees" BLM study area: 6.900 acres 

South of Lewistown, gr:rinfields and 

grasslands end apruptly in a massive mountain 

arch. like a great whale rising from a sea of 

prairie. The flanks of the range are deeply 

dissected by rugged limestone canyons; long and 

densely-forested on the north. South aspects cut 

the craggy face of the Snowies into huge bowlshaped dr:rinages. The entire range is composed 

of sedimentary rocks exposed in numerous 

limestone cliffs such as Knife Blade Ridge on 

the eastern edge of the range. The crest of the 

Snowy Mountains yields excellent fossils from 

prehistoric sea-beds. 

Mule and white-tailed deer, mountain goats, 

elk, bobcat. mountain lion, wild turkey and black 

bear inhabit the Snowy Mountains. 

The Big Snowies include excellent hiking 

trails chat lead through remote canyons ta 

delicate tundra atop the crest of the range. Here 

your feet encounter a thick carpet of wildflowers 

eight miles long. Under chis immense sky, light 

and shadow dance across distant crag and forest 

as winds push cumuli clear to the rounding edge 

of the earth. 

Surface water is scarce. Many canyons 

support seasonal streams due to the porous 

nature of the rock. However, the Big Snowies 

provide Montana residents with the state's purest 

drinking water. Snowmelt waters fllrered 

through miles of limestone bubble to the surface 

at Big Springs. where it is bottled and shipped 

across the stare. 

Boundary Rationale 

Much of the roadless boundary corresponds 

with the national forest and ELM boundaries, 

excluding the main access road and camground 

at Crystal Lake and some old logging sires on the 

southern periphery of the range. No further loss 

of wilderness characteristics should occur. 

Potential Conflicts 

Timber: There are 4.500 acres of suitable 

timber lands according to the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest. in scattered pocketS. 

Minerals: The U.S. Geological Survey 

reportS chat mineral potential is very low. 

However. Shell Oil has applied for leases 

covering the southwest third of the Snowies 

in 1986. No development is allowed in the Big 

Snowies Wilderness Study Area until Congress 

acts. 

Off-road vehicles: Off-road vehicles are ·· 

generally limited by access and the travel plan to 

the periphery of the range. Backcountry trails 

from Crystal Lake are for non-motorized uses. 

Traditional Use 

Hiking. hunting, narure observation and 

camping are the major uses of the Big Snowies 

wilderness study area. The Snowies are a vital 

watershed replenishing underground aquifers 

and springs of the surrounding plains. 

Legislative History 

The late Senator Lee Metcalf included the 

Big Snowies in the Montana Wilderness Study 

Act of 1977 (S-393). This legislation prohibits 

the U.S. Forest Service from permitting activities 

destructive of wilderness resources. Portions of 

the Snowies have been included as wilderness in 

three bills introduced or passed by Congress 

since 1987. 
298 
Thursday, June 24, 1993 Great Falls Tribune 

."iNS. DE: ~

Obituarie
295 

Board of County Commissioners 

July 30, 1993 

The Honorable Rep. Bruce Vento, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks 

U.S. HOWle of Represeutatives 

Washin&ton, D.C. 20515 

Cil)l Coanl)l Buildillll P.O.Ikl<1n4 

318Nor111Partt Hlld,II..,_ISIIS24 

T...,_ 40&'447-1304 

For the off"ICial hearing record of H.R. 2473, Montana wilderness 

legislation 

Dear Rep. Vento: 

Lewis and Clalk County is one of Montana's Jaraest counties. It spans tbe 

Continental Divide in westcemral MontaDa and includes significant portions of the 

Helena and Lewis and Clark National Forests. Since 1979, its board of 

commissioners, comprised of three individuals elected at Jarae in the county, has 

taken areat interest and played an active role in the consideration of wildemess 

desipations within the county. 

In our county's 14 years of involvement with the wildemess issue, the 

makeup of its governing body bas tumed over continually, but its support for 

wilderness has not wavmd. In fact, from the county's initial involvemeut in the 

question of roadless land llllllllpment, wbicb was to voice local support for the 

protection of the southern Rocky Mountain Front from oil and ps development, our support for wildemess designation of deserving roadless areas has 

streqthened. 1be commission maintains its steadfast interest in protectina the 

Front, but we now believe that protection for a couple of other areas addressed 

by Rep. Pat Williams pendiiJI wilderness bill, H.R. 2473, should be expanded. 

Here is bow we believe H.R. 2473 should be amended to address key 

roadless areas in Lewis and Clark County: 

• Falls CreekJSUver Killg (Rocky MoulltaiD Front) 

We appreciate Rep. Williams' inclusion of the Elk Pass area as wilderness 

is H.R. 2473; this is an important improvement from previous bills. We are 
Rep. Bruce Vento 

July 30, 1993 

Page Two 

296 

concerned, however, about two areas within Falls Creek/Silver King that are not 

included in the bill: 

1) in the area around Crown Mountain (far northwest end of the Falls 

Creek/Silver Kin& area), three or four sections which include trailhead segments 

of the Crown Mountain and Petty Creek Trails should added to the Scapegoat 

Wilderness. This is a highly scenic area, and we know of no substantial reason 

why the area bas been omitted. 

2) at the southeast end of the area, the roadless portion of the Alice Creek 

Basin, extending east to Lewis and Clark Pass, should be desigllated wildemess. 

This area is important grizzly bear habitat and popular with hunters and hikers, 

and it also includes an intact segment of a historic route (the "Travois Trail") 

followed by mountain Native American tribes to reach buffalo hunting grounds 

east of the Continental Divide. If this valuable piece of Montana's history is not 

protected by wilderness designation, it may eventually be lost to recreational 

vehicle use. 

• Renshaw Mountain/Sawtooth Ridge (Rocky Mountain Front) 

As a land bridge and wildlife corridor between the Bob Marsball 

Wilderness and the renowned Sun Rivec Game Range (Slate of Montana) on the 

foothills to the east, this area constitutes one of the most biolopcally important 

tracts on the entire Rocky Mountain Front As the winta home to large herds of 

elk and other game species that migrate from the Bob Marsball Wilderness, the 

SunRiva Game Range represents a signiiu:ant commitment of state and local 

resources; we must not undeJ:mine that commitment by failing to protect the 

federal madless land that borders it. 

Wilderness designation of Sawtooth RidBe is particularly important, as it 

forms the entire westan boundary of the Sun River Game Range. While we 

linderstand that H.R. 2473, as introduced, would withdraw the northern bulk of 

Sawtooth Ridge from mineral entry and mining activity ("Gibson ReseJVoiJ 

Mineral Withdrawal Area"), we think that a stronaer form of protective 

manaaement is necessary to limit road construction and off-road vehicular access in a highly SCllSitive area for wildlife. 

(As for vehicular reslrlctions to benefit wildlife, you mjpt be interested to 

know that the Beaver-Willow road, which separates the Renshaw Mountain 

roadless area on the west from Sawtooth Ridge on the east, is closed during the 
Rep. Bruce Vento 

July 30, 1993 

Page Three 

297 

critical elk mi&ration period each autumn.) 

• Nevada Mountain 

As the Helena National Forest's largest unprotected roadless area and an 

important wildlife link on the Continental Divide, Nevada Mountain is deserving 

of much more wilderness protection than the 19,000 acres designation proposed 

in the Williams bill. There currently are about 50,000 roadies~ acres in Nevada 

Mountain, most of which deserve wilderness designation. 

The people of Montana, throu:h the actions of the Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, have invested heavily in the recreational and wildlife resources of the east flanks of Nevada Mountain by leasing conservation rights on the extensive Grady ranch, primarily to preserve important elk winter ranae. That kind of local investment must be supported by corresponding federal 

preservation, i.e. wilderness desianation, of Nevada Mountain, the summer range 

for those elk herds. 

Nevada Mountain is extremely popular with hunters in the fall, skiers in 

the winter and hikers in spring and summer. In addition to its importance to elk 

and associated hunting opportunities, Nevada Mountain has been identified by 

wildlife biologists as a natural and important extension of grizzly bear habitat 

from the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex. 

The Williams bill would sbriDk Nevada Mountain on all sides, leaving a 

small, high-elevation wilderness core that cannot withstand the development that 

is sure to encroach upon the area in future years. If the protection of low 

-elevation roadless areas for biological and ecological reasons is, in fact, an 

important objective of your committee in federal land management and 

wilderness legislation, the boundaries of Nevada Mountain should be significantly 

expanded. 

• Black Mountain Wilderness/Mount Helena National Education and 

Recreation Area 

We think that Rep. Williams' proposal for a wilderness/educational 

corridor l.inking the Continental Divide to the city of Helena is a truly visionary 

idea and deserves high praise for a number of teaSOnS: 

by designating Black Mountain as wilderness, a small but important 

JUL 28 '93 20,39 Hl3 
Rep. Bruce Vento 

July 30, 1993 

Page Four 

298 

roadless area with outstandiug wildlife attributes will be protected; 

- by extending protection west of the Rimini Road in the Ten Mile Creek. 

drainage, an important watershed for the City of Helena's municiPal supply will 

remain undisturbed 

(note: to fully protect the watershed, this addition should be enlaraed by about 

4,000 acres to protect roadless laJid along the Continental Divide); 

- through the "Education and Recreation" designation, one of the Helena 

co1I111l111lity's most accessible and popular forest trails (the "Ridseline Trail") will 

retain its character. 

In su:gesting tbe above amendments to H.R. 2473, we do not take lightly 

the economic debate that swirls around the Montana wilderness issue. In fact, one of the reasons our constituents bave elected us to office is to promote intelligent 

economic growth in the county, and to fulfill that mandate we work closely with 

federallalld agencies to encourage milling, timber harvest and other 

developments on public land where those developments may occur with minimal 

and acceptable environmental consequences. 

At the same time, we recognize that wilderness bas a significant and 

growing economic worth, not only in the direct jobs it provides to local 

outfitters, guides and the tourism industry, but in the high quality of life it offers to business people who strive to locate their employees and their families near large natural areas. Although this indirect economic benefit of wilderness is 

difficult to measure, evidence as to its importance is occasionally published, and, 

of perhaps greater significance, our day-to-day contact with county teSidents 

provides continual verification of its existence. 

But the wilderness designation of deserving roadless areas extends beyond 

the question of economics. We know that residents of Uwis and Clarlc County 

feel a deep attachment to wild areas that cannot be measw:ed in dollars or statistics or acrea~~;e figures; that attachment takes many forms, from the joy of 

the elk. hunt to the pleasures of family campins to the contentment of living near . 

areas of undisturbed beauty and health. 

We urge you and your committee to study our recommendations and do all 

you can to build upon the &ood start that Rep. Wil.Uama bas made on this issue. If 

passed. H.R. 2473 will affect Montana and its character for a km& long time. 

Please do all you can to see that the bill is one that Montana and the nation can be 

proud of. 

JUL 29 '93 20:40 P~GE.004 
Rep. Bruce Vento 

Page Five 

July 30, 1993 

299 

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this important legislation and we 

thank you for your consideration of our request. 

Sincerely, 

Lewis & Clark County Commission 
300 

Honorable Bruce Vento 

Chairman, House Interior Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, & Forests. 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

July 30, 1993 

I am writing in respon$e to testimony given before your subcommittee on H.R. 2473. I did not have the opportunity to 

respond properly to questions put to me by Congreseman Pat 

Williams. Because of hostility displayed towards me by 

congressman William$ I felt that my rebuttal would be lost 

in the heat of his fiery barrage. 

I would like to respond to several of Mr. Williams remarks 

and also to correet figures quoted by him from a survey 

done in Montana by the Forest Service. 

First of all. motorized recre~tionists in the Flathead 

Forest have always te.ken the position that the areas that 

01.tr trail systems access were of equal importance, the 

trails were established to gain access to those areas. Without these prized areas no trail systems would exist. ~e 

off road eXPerience of snowmobiling motivates many people to 

seek the escape of high alpine basins because of the 

Ch'lllenqe and the personal gratification derived from the use of those areas. 

Congr9ssman Williams accused the Montana Snowmobile 

Association ot having a different agenda by approving the 

Senate version of last years Montana wilderness bill , that 

statement is incorrect. The MSA has had a standing 

resolution since 1988 that it will not support any further 

wilderness addi tioru;; in Montana. The MSA however supported 

the WETA AD-HOC wilderness proposal last year in the effort 

to resolve the debate. 

Congressman Williams quoted a figure of 901& of Flathead 

residents who felt that no more areas should be open to 

motorized recreation. That survey conducted by A&I Research 

Qf Kalispell, MT. actually :t'ead on page 16 and I quote 

"Areas of thl!t FNF should be available to motorized 

recreation, such aa snoWIIIobiling, motorcycling, and other 

off-road vehicles." 68% di-greed with that statement. On 

the other hand on P&9e 21 of the same survey the question "~e FNF should develop more recreational areas, such as cupgrounds. pi.;nic areas, and groomed snowmobile tra11'11." 

49\ of the respondents agreed with this statement. 
801 

Obviously the two statement111 anPers are in conflict with 

each other and the conclu111ion of the survey that the public 

wants no more areas open to motorized recreation is false. I 

believe that the respondents did not know how much area is 

actually open tor motorized recreation and probably assumed 

all areas outside wilderness designation is open. This might 

lead tho111e respondents to think that motorized recreation 

would look. to wilderness areas for expansion and therefor 

the reasoning for their answer. 

It i111 important to remember that wilderness is not the only area closed to motorized recreation in the FNF. Special 

management areas including those with many miles of logging 

roads and wildlife winter ranges shrink our available land 

base. 

Congressman Williams remarks about working with other groupe 

and chambers of commerce for compromise in other portions or the state did not apply to the J!'lathead. Last year the 

county commissioners testified that although they felt that 

we had enough wilderness here, they endorsed the WETA Ad-HOC 

proposal if it would resolve the wilderness debate. The 

Columbia l!'alls Chamber of Commerce testitied on behalf of 

the same proposal. 

rla"l:i\\<a Jtffeyt~o Ulfilt ~?,'fe \?.o~~·dwlJ•/Iqu~:Ulf~g t:lfetrPf 

can be heard. It is important that a more balanced public input be involved before any such major decision be made in 

regard to additional wilderness designation. 

Sincerely yours, () 

..LL,. •. .bL C'-0. ~"-' H.~:1o. Reikofski Jr. 

Chairman, Public Lands 

J!'lathead Snowmobile Assn. 

15 Grace Rd. 

Columbia Falls, MT. 59912 
302 

Cong-essman Bruce Vento, Chair 

Subcommitee on National Parks & Public Lands 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Eastern Montana Wildands, relating to H.R. 2473 

Dear Cong-essman Vento; 

20 July, 1993 

This bill is an excellent start especially in regard to the protection given to 

Line Creek Plateau and the Crazy Mountains. However, I feel that Federal 

Reserve water rights should be strengthened and the release provisions 

deleted. Also, I strongly support the addition of certain lands as 

recommended by the Eastern Wildlands Chapter of the Montana 

Wilderness Association. Maps of these areas are listed below and are 

enclosed, herewith. Please include the maps and this letter as part 

of the Official Hearing Record. 

Reasons based on fact for including all of these eastern Montana wildlands 

are as follows: 

1. Less than 1% of eastern Montana has wilderness protection. 

2. The For est Service strvey made public in the Gazette Dec. 27, 1992 

showed: 

A. Overwhelming support for wilderness protection for qualifying 

lands. 

B. Current users of Custer National Forest are almost all wilderness 

compatable- only 5% snowmobilers and 4% ORV. 

3. Only 72,000 acres of wilderness are included in the bill: another 500,000 

will be released for development. 

4. Jobs versus wilderness is not a problem. 

This should be enough to give cause to include all qualifying lands. But 

there is a much more significant consideration. appropriate for recognition 

during these deliberations. We are informed daily by the media of the 

ongoing wholesale destruction of natural places. There is a g-owing 

awareness of this tragedy among sensitive intelligent people throughout 

the world, who recognize the need to show some respect for this small 

space ship we call Earth. We must start treating this generous, life-giving 

planet with some TLC! 
308 

Eastern Montana Wildlands, relating to H. R. 2473 ..................... page 2 

There will never be a more appropriate time than now to commence here, 

in our own front yard, with a Wilderness Bill crafted by responsible, 

visionary, public servants who recognize the overriding importance of this 

moral/ethical issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important piece of 

legislation. 

Sincere!~ 

~~~ 801 Rimrock Rd. 

Billings, MT 591 02 

LIST OF COLORED MAPS 

Location map 11 x 17 

1 . Pryor Mountains 8 x 11 

2. Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Additions- East 8 1/2 x 11 

3. Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Additions - Central 8 1/2 x 11 

4. Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Additions- Southwest 8 112 x 11 

5. Absaroka-Beartooth Wlderness Additions- Northwest 8 112 x 11 

6. Crazy Mountains 11 x 17 

7. Big Snowy Mountains 11 x 17 

8. Tongue River Breaks 81/2 x 11 
1993 Montana Wilderness Legislation 

Prepared by the Eastern Wildlands Chapter 

of the Montana Wilderness Association 

KEY 

- Wtlllanls H.A. 2473 Wilderness 
305 

PRYOR MOUNTAINS 

Williams H.R. 2473 Wilderness 
306 
307 

309 
310 
311 
312 
313 

Dear Representative Vento; 

3116 8th Ave. N. 

Billings, MT 59101 

July 24, 1993 

1 am writing in support of amendments to H.R.2473 and would 

like my letter to become part of the official hearing record. 

I grew up in Great Fa! Is and spent my high school years living 

in Glacier National Park. lived in Kalispell for 12 years after 

marriage and we currently are residing in Billings. This has given 

me an opportunity to see a variety of lands in Montana and has 

really made me appreciate the beauty of all our wildlands. 

The bill, as introduced by Williams, is a good start. I think 

the addition of the Snowcrests for wildlife is applaudable, and the 

protection of lands adjacent to the Absaroka-Beartooth was long 

overdue. But the bi II falls short in many areas. 

One is the Pryors. I have hiked and camped in the desert in 

Big Co.ulee, southern portions of the Wild Horse Range, and in 

canyons a l ong the western edge of the range--but never in the tiny 

corner that i mentioned in the bill. All the roadless areas need 

protection for the wildlife, scenic variety (from mountain to 

desert>, history and prehistory, and opportunities for seclusion. 

To eliminate portions of public [and--Forest Service, Park Service, 

and ELM--because of jeep trails only encourages the development of 

these tra ls into roads. Set an example of combining pubti lands, 

under different jurisdictions 1 into a large protected area. 

ALL LANDS THAT ARE STILL ROADLESS IN MONTANA SHOULD BE 

PERMANENTLY PROTECTED NOW!! The process has dragged on for so long 

that the remaining wild areas of this state have diminished in size 

and numbe~. I supported protection of Mount Henry and Big Creek back 

in the days of S393, but instead saw them lost. During the past 

twenty years new th:reats; such as ORV' s and snowmobiles, have 

appeared. Wild Montana is part of my heritage, it is why r remain 

in Montana, and I don't want to keep seeing more of my state 

destroyed by speci I interests who want to make a fast buck or 

flaunt their money. Remember, Wilderness is a Multiple Use--more so 

than the destructive methods used currently in logging and mining. 

Push for amendments to protect ALL that's left and let Montanans 

keep what remains of their heritage. 

Thank you for considering my thoughts, and adding this letter 

to the hearing record. 

pc:Representat!ve Pat Wil Iiams 

Senator Max Baucus 

Senator Conrad Burns 

Sincerely yours, 

~~ 

Linda z?'Hurlook 
314 

Representative Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee 

House Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

l{ashington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Con~ressman Vento; 

801 Rimrock Road 

Billings, MT 59102 

July 25, 1993 

llecause less than 1% of eastern Hontana has wilderness protection 

anu so mucl1 additional land is available, it is sad that H.R. 21,73 

shorts this part of the state so bacily. uf particular importance 

is the fact tnat we have the most unique wilderness-qualifying land 

of any place in the state, typified by the Line Creek Plateau, 

Ton6ue River Ereaks, and the Pryor llountains. This country is 

not the usual 'rocks and ice' type wilderness country. Further, 

tne tireaks and Pryors are accessible for use the entire year, unli~e the rocks and ice of the A.ll. \.Jilderness. 

Of course the Pryors are tile most important i.Jecause of their 

location/ to liillinLs, but also they are rich in diversification of 

aniwal ami plant life. Ti1e additions to li.R. 2473 as defined by 

the £astern h'ildlands Chapter of the Hontana Wilderness Association 

map, herewith enclosed, includinr; Connnissary Ridge, the llLH country 

with its wild horse herd, and the Park Service Land along the Big 

;(orn heservoir, is a HU::>T for inclusion in a real Pryor Mountain 

•Jilderness. 

Thank you for the chance to speak out for protection of a most 

valuable and unique ecosystem so important to the future of Billings 

and eastern Nontana residents. 

Please enclose this letter and map in the official hearing record. 

Representative Pat IJ'illiams 

::>enator :lax llaucus 

Senator Conrad Burns 
315 

PRYOR MOUNTAINS 

Williams H.R. 2473 Wilderness 
316 

July 21, 1993 

Representative Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee 

House Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Vento: 

Please make this letter part of the official hearing record on 

H.R. 2473. 

Much concern remains with the structure of this bill. We, in 

Eastern Montana, feel that the bill does not go far enough by 

not protecting wilderness lands along the Tongue River Breaks 

and the Pryor Mountains as well as the Big Snowies. Lands in 

Eastern Montana require protection. 

Recent developments startle me and I strongly ask that the 

committee supports all the wilderness preservation possible. 

Having sought return of sacred lands to the Native Americans, 

resisted oi~ drilling and mining in the Bear Tooth Mountains, I 

feel it is urgent that we make every effort to include as much 

land in this bill as possible. We seem to have an element in 

this country which does not understand that our natural 

resources are limited and we must start now to preserve them 

for the seventh generation, a concept most of corporate America 

does not fathom. 

Please make an effort to restrict the development of roadless 

areas during the study of ecosystems and sustainable resource 

management in the Northern Rockies. I have recently seen major 

destruction of trees, land and water source in an area not 

included in this bill and I would like to speak loudly and 

clearly that we must change our ways. We must. 

Thank you. 

Sincer;;~ 

(I~~ ~ L_ _ _ -..:_ 

d!id Smith 

2034 Custer Avenue 

Billings, MT 59102 

cc: Rep. Pat Williams 

Sen. Max Baucus 

Sen. Conrad Burns 
Chairman Bruce Vento 

Suboommittee On National Parks 

u.s. House of Representatives 

Washtnqton, D.c. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento 

817 

July 23, 1993 

We are writinq reqardinq the WUderness Bill. We request that 

the letter be inclucied as a part of the offlcii!ll hearing record on H . R • 

.au... 

My wife and I now live in Bo2eman, and we love it. We have 

always appreciated and enjoyed the mountains, and it is nice to be near 

the mountains. Thus, we are qlad to learn that this Bill has been 

submitted to the Hourse which, when passed will protect Montana 

wUderness areas. We believe very strongly that such protection is 

needed so that some of these "last frontier" lands will remain protected 

for our enjoyment and for the en)::>yment and appreciation of future 

Qenerations. 

We are deliqhted to see that this Bill has a lot of excell.ant 

qualities directed towards Western Montana. We are, however, quite 

concerned that little attention is qiven to the eastern part of our qreat 

state. We urqe you to encouraqe the submission of amendments to H. R. 

2473 which will provide adequate protection for more of the wonderful 

wild country of Eastern Montana! 

Our family lived in Miles City for 20 years before we moved to 

B028man in 1990. During that time we had the opportunity to travel by 

foot and by Jeep throuqh a lot of Eastern Montana territory. Much 

of that country, while different, will rival the beauty, the ruqc;~edness, 

the pristine quality of the Western Montana lands. 

We are disappointed that very little Eastern Montana lands are included in the Bill which you are now considerlnQ. 

We urc;~e you to work towards qettinq amendments included in 

H. R. 2473 which will recoqni:ze the roadless lands in the Pryor 

Mountains, the Crazy Mountains, the Tonque River Breaks, the Line 

Creek Plateau and the Beartooth Face as wUderness. 

Thank you for your consideration. We need your help to save 

the ruQqed and beautiful wilderness lands~Eastern Mo~na! w, 81 . 

DON NAN ILTO 

1l3W.Cuniu 

Bozemlm, MontaRa B715 
318 

Congressman Bruce Vento 

Subcommittee on National Parks & Public Lands 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento, 

18 July, 1993 

I understand you are holding hearings on Pat Williams' Montana wilderness bill (H.R. 

2473). This bill desperately needs some improvements. Below are some comments on the 

Pryor mountains - the area which I know best. The enclosed map should help you 

understand my comments. 

PLEASE INCLUDE THESE COMMENTS IN THE OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD FOR 

H.R.2473 

I want to emphasize that the proposed Lost Water Canyon Wilderness as it has been 

defined in H.R. 2473 is extremely inadequate. The very minimalist prooosed pocket 

wilderness is just tokenism both for eastern Montana and for the Pryor Mountains. 

The proposed Lost Water Canyon Wilderness (area "A" on the map) is Jess than 10,000 

acres of the approximately 50,000 acres of wilderness quality public land (Forest Service, 

BLM, and Park Service) in the Pryor Mountains east of Crooked Creek. Another 

approximately 40,000 acres of wilderness quality National forest land exists west of Crooked 

Creek on and around Big Pryor Mountain. Thus the pmoosed wilderness is only about IO'l'o 

of what should be wilderness in the Pryors. 

The first correction to H.R. 2473 which is needed is to add the Cave Creek, Island Ridge, 

Commissary Ridge area west to the Crooked Creek Road west of Crooked Creek Canyon. 

This is west of the Lost Water Canyon area. See area #2 on the map. This would add 

about 6000 acres. 

Second, areas ("B" and "C" on the map) in the Pryor Mountains proposed as wilderness by 

the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service (B1g Horn Canyon 

National Recreation Area) need to be added to the wilderness bill. Not to include these at 

this time is to take a piecemeal approach to this very important area. The future of the 

Prvor Mountains should not be sacrificed because we have divided its management between 

three different federal a&encies. If the BLM wilderness is not included with the National 

Forest there is a near certainty that the wilderness qualities will continue to deteriorate. 

Some high officials in the BLM have plans for the Pryors which are incompatible with 

wilderness values. Unfortunately jeep tracks have been gradually "improved" under the 

guise of "maintenance". The BUd is encouraging the Billings Chamber of Commerce to 

lobby them to "open up" the Pryors. I think they envision another Pompey's Pillar type 

attraction. 

Addition of the National Park land to the wilderness should not be controversial, and the 

Park Service has already propnsed it as wilderness. Failure to include BLM arid NPS land 

will leave the wilderness mcomplete. Furthermore if not included the following "chain 

reaction" is likely. 

a. The Sykes Ridge Road (Mystery Cave Road) will not be closed. 

'fh1, "r,,J" If tl ~~~'7 t'tl-t;!lt / 't!f? -1-r<t,l.. 
319 

b. The narrow strip of BLM land east of the road and west of the NPS land will not be 

included in the wilderness because it is too small to include by itself if the road is not closed 

and NPS land is not included. This will remove the most spectacular ridge line in the Pryors 

from the wilderness. c. Pressures will build both inside and out of the BLM to greatly improve the Sykes 

Ridge Road to improve acce" to the wilderne". 

d. This "imProved" road will totally destroy the character of the ridge (it is practically on the edge much of the way) and seriously impact the entire wilderness which it overlooks. 

The boundaries of the BLM proposed wilderness need to be improved eliminating the odd 

holes and strange boundaries as shown on the map (#4, #5, #6, #7, #8). This can be done 

very simply. Include all BLM land east of the Crooked Creek Road, west of the Big Horn 

<::anyon National recreation Area, and north of the Montana line. This will include the 

Demijohn Flat - Peuney Peak area ( #9 on the map) which is an excellent piece of desert 

badlands. Of course the approximately 1000 acres of private land (the Tillett Ranch) would 

be excluded. The Tillett R1dge Road and the Sykes Ridge Roads should be closed. 

Finally the Forest land west of Crooked Creek ( #3) also needs to be protected. This should 

be established as the Big Pryor Mountain Wilderness Area. 

We have a chance in the Pryors to protect a very wide range of important ecosystems 

ranging from subalpine to desert badlands. This area is an ecolog~cal treasure with numerous rare plants and plant conununities, and a variety of important animals ranging 

from rare bats to reptiles. It has not yet been adequately studied scientifically. The area is 

extremely important archaeologicaly, and is also very important to the modern Crow 

Indians. It is a truly ma~c and wonderful place where many people, without motors, can 

enjoy an unmatched solitude. A few more motors will totally destroy the solitude for 

everyone and irreparably damage the land. The tiny Lost Water Canyon wilderness 

proposal simply does not begin to protect these wide ranging values. This area is unlike any other wilderness area I am aware of. It is very arid and extremely fragile, and is being 

seriously threatened by increasing and inappropriate activity. We truly do not have much 

time left to protect it. Let's do it right - now! 

Sincerely, 

ft44 

Dick Walton 

2928 W. MacDonald Dr. 

Billings MT 59102 
320 
JoelG.Vignere 

931 Willow Ridge Rd. 

Hudson, WI. 54016 

July 14, 1993 

C~ngressman Bruce Vento 

Chainnan, Public Lands Subcommittee 

House Natural Resources Committee 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC. 20511'5 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

321 

I would like the following letter to be made part of the official hearing record on H.R.2473, the 

Montana Wilderness Bill. 

My interest in the bill is that it involves lands that belong to all the citi7£ns of the United States 

and I believe I have a duty to comment Some would claim that this is a loeal issue and the rest 

of us should mind our own business. While I do not believe it is necessary to justify my interest to 

those people, I will offer the information that I am a Montana property owner and taxpayer. 

While the battle for Montana Wilderness bas been long and arduous, I do not believe we should 

settle for a bill that is less than adequate. In fact, I have come to conclude that what is really 

needed can only be obtained by something like the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act 

Anything less is only a piecemeal approach to solving the problem. Anything less, leaves us with 

islands of habitat, with no real travel corridors so necessary for the survival of biodiversity in so 

many species of plants and animals. 

H.R. 2473 is a good bill but by no means complete. In eastern Montana, it is very inadequate. 

Critical areas omitted by the bill are the Big Snovv-ies and the Little Belt mountains. The 

boundaries in the Prior Mountains are too restrictive. 

In western Montana, the omissions on both sides of the div-ide are numerous. The additions to the 

Cabinet Wilderness delete several deserving augmentations. The Ten Lakes area has been 

recommended for Wilderness since 1925. It too has been omitted. Essential areas in the West 

Pioneers and Tobacco Roots have been left out. In almost all cases, boundaries have been drawn 

too high and critical habitat at lower altitudes is missed. 

Last but certainly not least is the Badger-Two Medicine. Thank God, Secretary Babbitt has 

prevented, for now, the desecration of this magnificent place. The Badger-Two Medicine is THE 

essential addition to this Wilderness bill. Thank you. 
July 15, 1993 

322 

WILLIAM B. BORN 

2813 QUINCY 

Btrrl'E, MONTANA 59701 

(406) 494-4598 

Representative Bruce Vento, Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re• HR 2473 Montana Wilderness Bill Hearing 

Dear Chairman Vento, 

I would like this communication to be considered and entered 

into your hearing records of July 20, 1993. 

I strongly support the above bill presented by Representative 

Pat Williams, and recommend that it be approved as presented. 

The areas in our i11)111ediate vicinl. ty specifically those entitled 

the West Big Hole, the North Big Hole, East Pioneers, Italian 

Peaks and Snowcrest Mountains are all prime and necessary candidates to our wilderness system. 

Other areas, which may not be in my immediate area, but of which 

I have considerable knowledge and appreciation for, also have 

ample support for wilderness designation. These areas should 

not be lost by future amendment to the bill. They are: 

Stony Mountain - Selway Bitteroot additions Blackfoot 

Meadows, Bob Marshall Additions, Cowboys Heaven, Great 

Burn, Quigg Peak, Nevada Mountain, Elkhorn, North Absorkee 

Additions, Flints and Crazy Mountains. 

I have hiked in these areas and they all represent areas of 

extreme beauty and tranquil! ty. Many of them represent great 

diversity and are truly areas that must be protected for enjoyment of future generations of Montanans and Americans. 

Montana is blessed with many areas which have , so far, escaped 

the chain saw and pick. Most of these ar~ns have limited extractive resources, but provide ideal wilderness qualities. Strong 

economic arguments also can be made for their future potential 

for attracting tourism; an attraction which could be lost by 

failure to classify them as wilderness. Many other areas are not included in the bill. I have hopes that areas such as Allen 

Mountain, Sapphires, Big Snowies and other prime wilderness 

areas will be added by amendment prior to final passage. 

Ve~r~l/o~ 

WILL~RN WBH/dcr 
828 

-z:t..~ ~~ ~/ 

~..:lt (bov.)c,·~ Rr-t '=?.0'1.<(70 

HA/.:Jt;f.( Vr 

I 

DS667 

7/11('13 

:::Z:: c-vrd -;f -1.. ~ _,., P'/Y!a)$ &,A'tW<" / ,.i.J A::s ~ 

~ ,Jva/.J~/ rlv tft: t>/"~/ ,'?t'l)r/ .,,/ -/(.e_ ,;;f173 -- ""- 6,;/ 

tV rh /IA!ecl 4' A'~ ~r /vldir.w <W ~/MA kJ,• ~4 

::z: tfr"k~ w,/f tt h'n_., cr'~r ~ m a/J'eu-f 

/ A? •. t/ ;{lfllr ..r,A;e~ «,;Nt A4 i"Nr ;Ff k"'tlf,P.J ,;.,~, / cJr /I!Pn/,.,.,11 ,..., I 

c:W ~~"' w;/1.4;4 ;:S.tV~>.r ! Je el(}i//rc-JMe;;,f/ c>wl'~ arC 

;f,l (>tiUNrT,Y ,!,; ror .. / 

;o/c.vi7W<! w:/1/M/. /-.JtJ/;J f'!~ 0 /.4: /llosr'"(!()ir'c"lf ,...,_,... 

!Uosy1,_,.S ~""""'"'j ,J.J # Awa ¥'8. ~ /,# ~11 u.h'/f ;%,.;~ 

/!Mit/ .. 1"'11~ ;{.,;/. s/c.~tfl k ,4, - sw( mtro~ ~.. $ 

;/fc..mw• w-tf- /i'.srcwi:,;..J ft, o;/.,/ lo/~ 1'<>~4 4-.~4 d/.7 a,..-

0/ tw/t~~' .i':/1. -r;{e /lt$s0;1,( &.rea? A'//Jw"" £ h/# 

,&,AI!.! ~I'" /¥At /}!fJil'. 

::r ;:4{;;,;/ I '4' A. £ j{; 4-v fl!,lfk / /IJ(/c S~vo..vl.r I 

a{.,fr:J tvr'Jk At A'~~~ 

~; ()/ ;4: A'fif<UtCA..J ~vt/1~:: 

N,:/d.h{ <'.i-.J<-4' $ hrw r{ ,4:: 
324 

~t:l'llt'. /v ~ u¥// a'Uirlfl d/ Af /v/4 o<l'r''t 

~ 'tv-1/~. 4-'/1 ,~~/; 

~ kcv.s. 77,¥~/ o·Y/J"'•, I"?':V(j / .-t~M,.,;,;,I ""£~A 

;.l/,4._.. J"vr J,,/ /ltcxl ~ .4f~ ,<J #.:wCJ wv """"~:;/ ,,c 

4 ~1>/ /k. Ji.lt M>t a c,f;wo, AJo.J ;(- .A"'~ .v4. 

/t ;f" ,/ w // ~, / 7$ /[r;{ tc>/#/ ~;"ttj,/>twl 4 ~4 

r~.<J. ftJ/&-r e£. c>M )"'v £I Ytilli NvMnaJs o/ ~II_ /""'i 

/f!NN/14/IJ~T$, ight.l <1/eR(', fi(OUAJ/1\<<J /~w.s, cf'tUf ~f.S 1 ~.t ~N.t', ,OINt 

,AtMk, £lea I' f<!Dfvrr,;q..r r·;rr -4• ,;,.; df /o~ 'If /? z 

/M 1,;6/ ~:r-w.s;nf ,;v A.wnw,. / ./1111r ~ ~o.sr- or" 4 ,s~/e..~trf./ 

I'/I'J;,:..M d~ <fl~ ;::;iUw to.A""'', <> ~ • ..,.,./ ~~.sovi t. .. ol' w. /if/,.{' 

t~1J-Jr ~ /~/ .4,; ~~ "'~ ~ /' ·. =1""'-i<tt ''" c/AV'r'd 

~ 0 / /~J ~M<ll<i, ::z;;/.s ,(t'f ..£.. /Aw M?ituw /"1/<Jio 4-

M ~ ~j /~ WJ;« ~st ANtM...,( 

::::Z: Uf]< yov ~ Jr...;/ /1/A)iflf!JM t<J•~ ;<>r·~D.J A ;;K: /bt/. 

/e•s lf.lilrt: jwt, ol io/~. ~ .!:;.. rvltfc 4..J.4 ?5 f>n~"" ~ 

~. A /,-1/ /Jtlrt '"A.v ~ ~ AGI/i:.,..; £~ ...... E""~ 

1'~;.; /kr tiVtX)I( ~ A'•.-r ,p;;,a tfoJ A;,/l~.r I L '#. 

s;.., (',.., ... / ~ ........ 

R.:.. s......,,. s...:.J ....... 5'.... fkrlcl:. L~ 

~ .r."' ~g;;.."" 

1\·.t~y, 

~~ 
325 

Rep. Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee 

House Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Reps. 

Washington, D.C. 205 1 0 

Kerrie Byrne 

5 Fir Ave. 

Whitefish, MT 59937 

July 1 4, 1 993 

Please include this letter as part of the officia I hearing record on 

H.R2473 

Dear Rep Vento, 

Once Again a wilderness b111 for Montana is in the works, and 1 

commend the effort you have put into this process. In general, I would like 

to see more lo-elevation forest land protected, and greater emphasis on 

saving more of what's left In the eastern part of the state. My main 

concern is wildlife habitat. 

I am pleased to see Tuchuck-Hefty and Thompson Seton included as 

wilderness, but am at a loss as to why the Winton Weydemeyer-Ten Lakes 

area is not. Also, the boundaries in the Swan range should include more 

lower elevation land. 

There's no question in my mind that ALL remaining roadless land 

should remain so, regardless of how It's labeled and legislated. we need to 

preserve what is wlld, and learn to live in balance with what we have 

already impacted. There is still t ime, and you are in the uniQue posi tion to 

have power over the future. Please use your hard-earned power to defend 

the voiceless land. 

cc:Rep. Pat Wi II lams 

Sen. Max Bauucs 

Sen. Conrad Burns 

For all that's wild, 
326 

Rep. Bruce Vento 

109 Record Street 

Frederick, Md. 21701 

17 July 1')q3 

Chhirman, Public lands Sub-Committee 

House Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

lashington D. C. 20515 

Dear Sir: 

I am writing in reference to Rep. Pat :lilliams Bill (H(t 

2473) and Montana's last and best wild places which are left out 

of the bill. I strongly urge you and the committee to include 

the areas I list below for protection in addition to those cover- ed in HR 2473. ''ear 3pringdale, JV!ontana where I lived many years 

and enjoyed solitary treks and fishing in the Crazy Mountains, 

the entire Crazy Mountains plus tmenderfoot Creek, Pilgrim 

Creek and ~liddle Fork Judith in the little Belts should all redeive 

protection as Wilderness. 

2. illn addition to Roderick '''t. in the Cabir-et - Yaak River 

;Jildlands I urge that Grizzly ~ea": And Mt. Henry nlus lower elevation habitat irl the Cabi'lets from Libby south to Thomfto.:;on Falls 

be included. 

3. Also, linton - .ledemeyer - Ten Lakes Hlderness lower 

habitat in the 3wan Range~nd Spotted Bear River addition. · 4. And, in the Pryor Mts. area particulalrly the Tongue River 

Breaks and extend Pryor to follow Crooked Oreek and Dry Head 

Vista Roads on the west and north including Commissary Rid~e. The 

Bill should also include '31!~ and NPS .Hlderness proposals. 

5.And The ~~hacco Roots and east and west side additions 

to A hsaro ka/'leartooth and Ia tki ns Creek - I i onhead N't. areas i r. 

the Lionhead proposal should most definitely be included. 

6. Ard, the great ell{ habitat in the upper '\ig Hole roadless areas including Rock Creek he {-adwaters from .lyman Gul cha: to Stony 

and Duncie Creeks strongly need protection. 

7. Plus , in the Bi tteroot Crest area the IUle!!l - Piquett,' BJuejoint ard Chief Joseph wildlands form a roadless area for 

wildlife migration between central Idaho wilderness and the Continental Divide which is essential to be included as wilderness. 

8. And finally, in the Great Divide ~·orth area Iittle Blackfoot 

Meadow and t>Jevada Roadless areas-ulease also l!i ve wilderness pro- tection. · - · 

Please make this letter a part of the official hearing records on House Bill 2473, Thank you for your consideration. 

c ~ /d~.~y .YJJ'/t ~~~ HMld K. "'elson 

(Soon to retire to Montana--my 

birthplace and where I .<>:raduated 

from the :Ini vend ty at Missoula. ) 
827 

July l6, 1993 

Congressman Bruce Vento, Chair 

National Parks, Forest and PUblic Lands 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

j / 

'JUL Z 11993 

As a resident of Minnesota and a land owner in Montana, I urge you to reverse the anti-conservation agenda of &on Harlenee by supporting 

wilderness in the Little Belts and Snowies of Central Montana. At a minimum, wilderness should be recognized for the roadless lan4• of 

Tenderfoot Deep Creek and Pilgrim Creek in the Little Belts together with 

the Middle Fork Judith River and Big Snowies Wilderness Study Areas 

established by Senator Lee Metcalf in 1977. I along with my inlaws in 

Montana own a summer cabin on the edge of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. 

Comments of Senator Burns and Ron Marlenee to the effect that wilderness 

is supported only by ontsiders and movie stars is a blatant attempt to 

prejudice the wilderness debate. The most steadfast and consistent 

opponents of wilderness are the large timber, mining and oil companies 

that certainly are not Montana owned. The persons working for wilderness 

at the grass roots are Montanans who recognize that Montana has a unique 

opportunity to preserve wild lands that no longer exist in any of the 

other 48 states. I consider myself an insider since our family is a land 

owner in Montana. 

I have traveled through the state and have seen entire mountains leveled 

by mining companies and vast forests claar cut for timber. All I am asking, is that a couple of small pieces of Montana be left untouched so 

that my children and my grandchildren have an opportunity to see a true 

wilderness. I believe we should be able to have -hands off• policy on selected public land throughout the Uni~ed States. There is no need to 

develop every square foot of this great country of ours. 

I stron;ly urge you to include these deserving lands of Central Montana in 

this year's legislation. I ask that my Letter be included in the hearing 

record Bil 2473. 

Avenue S. #12 

Minneapolis, HN 55408 
Rep. Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee 

House Natural Res. Committee 

u,s. House of Represe,.,tatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Deer Representative Vento, 

328 

July 26, 1993 

519 Highland Pk. Dr. 

Billings, Mt. 59102 

Plense make this letter part of the official hearing record on H.R. 247;. 

I support Rep. Pat Williams' bill protecting additional wilderness areas in 

Montana, but feel that Eastern Montana needs more wilderness than is included in 

the bill. We hav~ a growing population here that are using the wilderness near 

here to death, and other natural areas are being overused because of the lack of 

protection. 

The BLM and National Park Service both recomrrended areas in the Pryors that 

are not being included in this bill. The Tongue River Ereake and AbsarokeeBeartooth• both need more wilderness. They should be added to the bill. 

I have been enjoying Montana's wild places for over 30 years as part of my 

bird watching avocation, and am noticing more wild areas being denuded by clearcuts and eroded by 4 x 4s. Wilderness is a long term proposition, which many 

people do not comprehend. There are many jobs that wilderness protects in the 

long term. Let 1 s keep these jobs, instead of the fly by night operations. 

copies to: 

Pat Williams 

Max Baucus 

Contad Burns 

Since~~ 

Helen Curlson 

0 

ISBN 0-16-043431-9 

9 7801 

75-381 0 - 94 ( 332)