Forest agency restudies North Idaho logging plan

BOISE – A proposal to harvest timber across more than 500 acres of federal forest in North Idaho has been shelved for now in the wake of an appeal by environmentalists that the project would infringe on habitat critical to the recovery of grizzly bears.

The Idaho Panhandle National Forest has withdrawn its East Fork of Meadow Creek proposal, which called for commercial thinning on 504 acres and logging on another 49 acres of old growth forest. The project, which identifies about 1.5 million board feet of timber, would have also called for 13 miles of roadwork, including four new miles of backcountry road construction.

The project was appealed administratively earlier this month by Montana-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies on grounds it targeted a section of the forest that provides an important grizzly migration corridor between the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bear recovery zones. The zones, stretching from North Idaho into northwest Montana, are home to an estimated 70 grizzlies, the nation’s smallest population of the bears.

“It’s been scientifically established that movement of grizzly bears between recovery zones leads to genetic diversity within populations that is essential to their long-term survival,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. “This proposal only makes recovery that much more unlikely.”

But forest officials say the proposal was pulled for different reasons.

Forest Spokesman David O’Brien said the agency is confident in its assessment on grizzly habitat, the impact on other species like the threatened lynx and goshawk and compliance with federal water quality laws.

Instead, O’Brien said Monday the agency needs more time to study the impact on tribal cultural resources and historic mining and timber camps found inside the project boundaries. O’Brien said the agency intends to reissue the harvest proposal before the end of the year.

“This isn’t about the aquatics or wildlife impacts,” O’Brien said. “But if we find historic occupations, we’re obliged under federal law to evaluate the impacts.”