University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1977 Montana Wilderness Study bill: A case history Christopher Marsh Roholt The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Roholt, Christopher Marsh, "Montana Wilderness Study bill: A case history" (1977). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8541. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8541 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MONTANA WILDERNESS STUDY BILL - A CASE HISTORY By Christopher M. Roholt B.S., University of Montana, 1968 Presented in partial fulfillm ent of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA w Approved by: D Chairman, Board of Examiners DeafTXGraduate Date UMl Number: EP39342 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction Is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Diasartation Publiahing UMl EP39342 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code uesf ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Roholt, Christopher M., August 1977 Forestry The Montana Wilderness Study B ill - A Case History (223 pp.) Director: Robert Ream Passage of the Montana Wilderness Study b ill would require that the Forest Service study the nine undeveloped areas listed therein and report to Congress as to their su itab ility for Wilderness classification. The purpose of the study is to place the b ill within the historical context of preservation and to determine how the nine areas in the b ill were chosen, A narrative approach is employed in the study. The Wilderness Act established the statutory basis for the preservation of some Federal lands. The Act established fifty- four Wildernesses from administratively preserved areas, previ­ ously dedicated by the Forest Service. I t also created the mech­ anism for future additions. The mechanism has been modified judicially, statutorily, and administratively. The Act contained a dichotomy. The Department of Interior was required to inventory a ll their reserved lands for undeveloped entities, perform Wilder­ ness studies, and formulate recommendations for Congress. In contrast, the Forest Service, in the Department of Agriculture, only was required to perform Wilderness studies and formulate recommendations for a group of lands (prim itive), which consti­ tuted only three percent of their nonwilderness lands. The reso­ lution of this dichotomy, called the dual standard, has occurred in three interrelated and overlapping generations. The fir s t dates from the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 and was char­ acterized by ad hoc Wilderness b ills . The second generation dates from 1971 and was a Forest Service inventory and selection of undeveloped areas to be studied for Wilderness su itab ility. The third generation dates from 1974 and is characterized by Wilderness study b ills . The Montana Wilderness Study b ill is the first bill of the third generation. The areas in the b ill were chosen on the basis of their via­ b ility in the political arena, the probability of the degredation of their wild attributes, their spatial distribution, and their niche in the history of Montana preservation controversies. These are different, but not necessarily lower, criteria than used by the Forest Service in the second generation. n TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 11 Chapter ONE INTRODUCTION 1 TWO PRESERVATION - THE NATIONAL SCENE 4 Introduction ............................................................... 4 Statutory and Presidential Reservations from the Public Domain .............................................. 8 Forest Service Dedications within National Forests ................................................................... 12 Statutory Preservation within Reserved Lands 19 Bureau of Land Management Organic Act . 33 Summary ................................................................... 35 THREE PRESERVATION IN MONTANA 38 Introduction ........................................................... 38 The Preadministrative Era in Montana and Reservations from the Public Domain . 39 Forest Service Administrative Era 1924-1964 43 Summary and Comments .......................................... 90 FOUR THE LEGISLATIVE-ADMINISTRATIVE ERA FIRST GENERATION 93 Introduction ...................................................... 93 Forest Service Primitive Studies .... 94 Five Citizen Initiated Wilderness Studies 104 Summary and Comment ...................................... 114 FIVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE THE SECOND GENERATION 116 Introduction ...................................................... 116 The S-NSA-RAUA Process Prior to Phase One 116 The S-NSA-RAUA Process - Phase One . 117 The S-NSA-RAUA Process - Phase Two . 125 Summary and Comment ...................................... 128 m SIX THE MONTANA WILDERNESS STUDY BILLTHE THIRD GENERATION............................................................................... 132 Introduction ....................................................................... 132 The Choice of Areas for the B i l l ............................. 133 The Montana Wilderness Study B ill in Congress . 140 Summary and Comment.......................................................... 143 SEVEN THE NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS ............................................... 144 Introduction ....................................................................... 144 The Hearing R e c o rd .......................................................... 145 The Governor's R o le........................................................... 159 Dean Wambach's R o le.......................................................... 164 Boundary Revisions ........................................................... 188 Library of Congress Backcountry Report ................... 193 Metcalf's Amendments ...................................................... 196 Representative Mel cher's R o le...................................... 197 Summary and Comment.......................................................... 204 EIGHT THE NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS (1977- ) ............................... 209 Introduction ....................................................................... 209 Senator Metcalf's Role .................................................. 209 NINE SUMMARY, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION ........................................... 213 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 218 IV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Pentagon-Sun River-South Fork Addition ................................... 64 2. Bunker Creek - Middle Fork Proposed Wilderness .................. 80 3. Inventoried Roadless Areas in Montana ................................... 118 4. New Study Areas in Montana............................................................ 126 LIST OF TABLES 1. Number and Acreage of National Forest Primitive Areas (1 9 3 3 ) ................................................................................ 14 2. Acreage of Areas to be Studied under the Wilderness A c t ................................................................................................ 22 3. Proposed New Study A rea s............................................................ 31 4. Number of Final New Study A r e a s........................................... 34 5. Montana Wilderness Recommendations National Conference on Outdoor Recreation 1928 44 6. Montana Primitive Area 1928 to 1932 48 7. Marshall's Primitive Recommendations for Montana . 49 8. Montana Primitive Areas 1932-1937 60 9. Tentative Candidate Study Areas ........................................... 121 10. Montana Roadless Areas Considered during the RADA P ro c e s s ........................................................................................ 123 11. Distribution of Acreage on Lists Developed during the Selection of New Study Areas...................................... 127 12. Roadless Areas Considered by Conservationists in Drafting the Montana Wilderness Study B ill ................. 135 13. Reduction in Annual Allowable Cut (mmbf) .......................... 179 14. Wilderness B ills and Legislation Relevant to Montana (1964-1977) 214 VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend my most grateful thanks to my major advisor, Robert Ream, for his help and encouragement. Without i t , this work would not have been possible. Jim Lowe and John Duffield, as members of my committee, offered both major and minor criticism that is much appreciated. William Cunningham, who actively participated as a committee member during earlier draft stages, and John Duffield provided guidance in determining the major approach of the work. Alan McQuillan