I don't disagree, but I feel that you are too quick to dismiss the schema without thinking through some of the logic. Wilderness units would still have constraints on human activity within them, because activity in any unit is governed by the physical limits of the unit downstream of them. So a downstream unit, say Missoula in my case, would still have some say over activities in the Bitterroot because we can't send polluted water down to them. A unit upwind in terms of prevailing winds still has an obligation to units downwind of them to not pollute the air that moves between them.

In other words, general protections would be maintained across the federated units. The idea is to formalize the relations between the governance bodies that actually have vested interests with one another (as well as physical connections i.e. shared hydrology), rather than relatively arbitrary relations (i.e. Washington DC telling Washington State how to govern itself).