Still getting it right in Idaho. . .

I came in from a cold day to find a lot of email about Idaho. My post yesterday was not correct about Governor Risch's rule, but I'm keeping it up since there were comments to it. I finally puzzled through the petition to see that my critics are right, and Cove/Mallard is not in the "general forest" category, though the forested portion of Cuddy Mountain is. Also, forested lands on the Boise, Targhee and Salmon national forests are in that category. I spent a lot of time at www.maps.google.com on the "satellite" feature looking at other roadless areas and haven't yet sorted out what the Governor is really thinking.

News articles make it all the more confusing. A timber industry spokesperson had this to say:

 Timber-industry lobbyists such as the
Coeur d'Alene-based Intermountain Forest Association
support Risch's plan. They say confusion may have
arisen because many people assumed the 2001 rule
forbade building any new roads.

In fact, it allows exceptions for road building
to protect health and safety "in cases of an imminent
threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event
that, without intervention, would cause the loss
of life or property."

"I don't think people actually read the Clinton rule,"
said association spokeswoman Serena Howarth. "There's
still an awful lot of forested acres in Idaho that
need some measure of restoration treatment and fuels
reduction. We think it (the plan) is a good thing
for forest health."

Spokane Spokesman Review article is here.

But Idaho conservationists seem to be supporting the plan. A Trout Unlimited spokesperson said the plan was "not too shabby" and others interviewed voiced cautious approval. Idaho Mountain Express article is here.

It is hard to see what Governor Risch is thinking. Obviously the timber industry believes that it can comfortably log in roadless areas under the original roadless rule, which as the article above notes permits roadbuilding in cases of "imminent threat of . . . fire." I think the authors of the rule probably thought that meant that flames were coming over the ridge, but the eternally optimistic industry obviously reads that to mean they can log anywhere they want, since fire will inevitably arrive everywhere if only we wait long enough.

It sure does seem like a legal fight over the meaning of the word "imminent" is where this is all heading, doesn't it?

Also, a poster to a list-serve pointed out that many of the "general forest" designations are in unforested areas where mining is likely to be the chief interest. Roads for new mines are not permitted even for "imminent" fire reasons, so it makes sense that Risch would want potential mining areas to be exempted from the Clinton roadless rule.