New Policy Promoted by the Bush Administration Opens Millions of Acres to Logging, Mining and Road Construction in Idaho
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York 
on 10.19.08
Photo of Idaho's Scotchman Peaks by D Taylor
A new state policy that recently went into effect has removed nearly all protection to over 400,000 acres of national forest, and has opened millions of acres of roadless forests to construction, logging and mining across Idaho. The policy has been denounced by the Wilderness Society, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and other regional and national conservation groups. The policy leaves a vital national forest vulnerable to a host of environmentally damaging activities.
The new policy was enabled by the Bush administration, which pushed for a new Idaho-specific rule that now replaces the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule—an act that protected over 58 million acres in 44 states.
According to the Wilderness Society, the new Idaho specific rule enables the following:
• Removes virtually all protection from 400,000 acres of roadless forests in the state allocated to general forest management• Allows new road construction in an additional 400,000 acres of roadless land located near communities
• Allows environmentally destructive phosphate mining with its associated selenium poisoning of streams to occur in roadless lands near Yellowstone National Park
• Creates additional exceptions for road building and logging to occur within the 5 million acres to be classified as "backcountry"
• Would result in 15,000 acres of logging and 50 miles of road construction in Idaho roadless areas during the next 15 years in order to haul out 75 million board feet of logs -- or 15,000 truck loads, according to Forest Service estimates
• Creates a different management framework for Idaho roadless areas different than any other national forests, leading to administrative confusion, uncertainty and paperwork.
Additionally, there are concerns that the lands losing protection are part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, though they’re not technically in the bounds of that national forest. But an adverse impact on the greater area may lead to an ecological imbalance in Yellowstone itself. This disconcerting policy is yet another disturbing reminder of the Bush administration’s attitude towards national parks—as if opening 3 million acres to logging in Alaska and seeking to approve a 700 percent increase in logging in Oregon old growth forests wasn’t enough.
More on Bush Administration and National Parks:
US Environmental Destruction Agency: Making National Parks Coal-Friendly
Is George Bush a Closet Green?
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- For Green Travel Visit Madagascar, Home to 5 Percent of the Planet's Species
- What to Do If Your Tree is Struck By Lightning
- Don't Let Palm Oil Destroy the Rainforest
- Are Your Floors Covered in Pesticides?
- Focus on Focus Earth: Everglades Nevermore
- Just Use Less! A Bathroom Conservation Checklist
This type gross consumerism makes me think that tree spiking and equipment sabotage aren't too bad of ideas after all.
One step forward, two steps back.
And all I want to do is scream.
Instead of roads, why not Rail, which - while imperfect - has a smaller footprint and much more positive ecological repercussions than roads and the cars that travel them?
We keep cutting off the fingers of the hand that feeds us.
This is why nobody questions the fact that Bush has the lowest approval rating in history! His extreme right-wing agenda is so UNAMERICAN and out of touch with what teue americans and true republicans care about. Can't we eject him sooner than January?
Wow, does Bush just really hate the environment in general? I wouldn't be surprised. He's one of the reasons why the Republican party is getting so unpopular today.
spiking trees can kill loggers. kc8nlr should fall a spiked tree himself and see what kind of harm it can do. trees are a renewable resource, 15,000 acres ant that that bad. the mining sounds like it will make a negative impact but environmental extremism not the answer.
These are National Forests, not National Parks. Mining and logging take place in National Forests all over the country. The only thing protecting the areas in this article was that there were no roads. The action taken by the "Bush Administration" was that the Department of Agriculture decided to let states petition for the right to build roads in these areas. This article (at least judging by the comments) makes it seem that the President himself demanded that all the trees in National Forests be cut down. Personally, I would prefer these roads not be built but, honestly, 50 miles of road is not that much. All roads and logging projects still have to be approved by the Forest Service, which currently generally opposes new construction because it doesn't really have the money to maintain existing roads. However, considering that 1.9 million acres in Idaho burned last year in forest fires, more than in any other state, a little logging and some access roads might not be a bad idea.
For a more balanced idea of President Bush's environmental legacy consider that in 2006 he created one of the largest marine reserves in the world, and has proposed to create another that would be the world's largest.
Just when we think W can't do any more damage... he does... hard to see McCain would be any better.
@quickboy:
c'mon quickboy, din't you hear?? wasn't Bush the man behind the drive to create one of the largest lakes in the world - Lake Afghanistan ?? and then tried to cool down the near desert climate of Iraq by trying to reduce it's height below sea level and flood it??
(the statement's in bad taste and just sick, but I had to say it, Bush pisses me off)
I hereby call for a vote, those in favor of chaining Bush to a tree about to get cut, and swear Obama/ McCain in to rescind the Idaho forest policy, say aye..
Why go after the administration? We need to go after the folks who influenced the administration. It will be easy to see who goes into the forest for the actual felling of the trees and the logging. One needs to boycott their shares, boycott their products, and start large awareness propaganda against them. Make them realize that the common people are alive and well and know what's good for them, and that if the common folks choose not to buy their products, they're going one way - down. !
kc8nlr,
I can only hope your IP has been passed on by the Discovery Channel owners of this site to the proper authorities.
The main incentive of such environmental destruction is $$$. Government needs to regulate industry, not tell it where to expand its business.