Idaho roadless plan means healthy forests

Idaho’s roadless landscapes – and the health of the forests within them – are issues of paramount importance to everyone in Idaho and the surrounding regions. We can all agree that healthy forests are some of the most beautiful and ecologically important areas in the state.

Roadless forested landscapes provide clean air and soils, unparalleled recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat and watershed protection. Additionally, given temporary access through temporary roads, they can also be properly managed to provide both community protection from catastrophic wildfire and economic revenue through forest products.

Idaho’s proposed roadless rule, which is currently up for public comment, is a home-grown, Idaho-based solution to an incredibly complex issue – the management (or lack thereof) of Idaho’s roadless landscapes. This is a unique opportunity. This proposed rule is the first of its kind in the nation which would give a state some say in how the national forest lands within its borders are managed.

Some background information: Idaho has submitted a plan, originally drafted by then-Gov. Jim Risch, to the federal government for the management of its 9.3 million acres of roadless national forest. This plan would allow some access through temporary roads for forest health treatments on 5.3 million acres, prohibit roads on 3.1 million acres and allow commercial timber harvest on 609,000 acres.

This plan allows greater stewardship access into Idaho’s national forests by qualified foresters who can treat these overstocked acreages for forest health, reduction of insect infestation and disease, and fuels reduction which will mitigate the impacts of wildfire on Idaho’s many rural communities.

Most environmental groups opposed the Idaho roadless plan from the start. However, some – notably the Idaho Conservation League and Trout Unlimited – initially supported the plan, as the prohibition on roads on 3.1 million Idaho acres is actually more stringent than the previous federal roadless forest management plan submitted by the Clinton administration in 2001.

Inexplicably, these groups reversed their positions and are now uniformly fighting Idaho’s proposed roadless rule, with the goal of reinstating the 2001 Clinton rule.

Folks, the 2001 rule was a broad-brush approach forced on Idaho by the federal government. It offered no flexibility to land managers and allowed virtually no exceptions for reducing fire danger through forest management activities on the landscape. From my standpoint, this approach is disrespectful to the rural landowners of Idaho and should be completely unacceptable for anyone who values Idaho’s roadless lands.

Idaho’s plan would mark the first time a state has ever been allowed to determine the management and uses of national forest within its borders. States should be allowed to make these determinations – not federal bureaucrats.

Under the proposal, 3.1 million acres would be designated as protected areas where road-building is explicitly prohibited. Another 5.3 million acres would be accessible by temporary roads to allow for public access and thinning projects for forest health, community protection and wildland fuels reduction.

Commercial timber harvests would be allowed on only 609,000 acres – a very small percentage of the overall acreage.

Any timber which is taken from these federal lands, whether from forest stewardship thinning projects or commercial harvests, benefits local communities. These harvests and fuels-reduction projects create well-paying jobs in our rural communities, strengthen the health of our federal forestlands by reducing insect-ridden and disease-infested stands of timber, strengthen wildlife habitat and watersheds, and protect our communities from the devastating effects of catastrophic wildfire.

Hopefully, this roadless rule will end the management-by-litigation that has become all too common on some of Idaho’s roadless lands. The endless debate over management of these lands has been not only politically draining, but also has led to massive issues with the health of Idaho forests. Mismanagement of these lands is at least partially responsible for a rash of uncontrollable, catastrophic wildfires that plagued Idaho last summer.

Gov. Butch Otter has praised this process, saying that “this brings us another small step closer to … a meaningful role for local folks in determining the long-term management of these public lands. I hope every Idahoan who can do so takes the opportunity to weigh in on this plan.”

Intermountain Forest Association also supports the proposed roadless rule, because it allows Idaho to manage its forest resources rather than allowing them to burn. It is simply irresponsible to leave overstocked and bug-ridden national forests continually unmanaged.

Any roadless rule that will dictate the management of Idaho’s forested landscapes should allow necessary forest health treatments in backcountry areas that have ongoing forest health problems.

This plan is a good thing – for Idaho’s national forests, for Idaho’s working rural communities and for the reduction of the impacts of catastrophic wildfire.