BACKGROUND

In 1985 during the Reagan Administration, the US Forest Service issued the draft of its first forest plan for the St. Joe, Coeur d’Alene, and Kaniksu National Forests (collectively the “Idaho Panhandle” NFs or “IPNF”).   Months before the draft plan was released for public comment, agency personnel had contacted me, informing me that the Idaho Congressional delegation was working with political appointees in the Administration to increase levels of logging on the IPNF. 

After the public comment period closed, timber-industry advocate Senator Jim McClure (R-ID) placed a hold on this forest plan (as well as the Clearwater and Nez Perce plans) to allow completion of a special timber supply analysis.  In 1987 Sen. McClure directed the Forest Service to include in the “Record of Decision” automatic increases in the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) at the end of the 10-15 planning cycle.   Thus, the Forest Service selected a politically driven ASQ for the IPNF of 280 million board feet (mmbf), with an automatic increase to 350 mmbf.  (A loaded logging truck hauls about 10,000 board feet).

In September, 1987, conservationists appealed the forest plan for the Idaho Panhandle, as well as the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests.  For the IPNF we requested that the Forest Service stop logging roadless areas and areas along streams called riparian areas.  In March of 1988 the Forest Service denied our request to stop logging streamsides,and granted our request for roadless areas.  Next came the timber industry’s highly publicized rallies and a logging truck convoy down Montana’s Bitterroot Valley to supply a mill in Darby. 

In June 1987 the Forest Service severed the roadless part of our appeal from the other 25 issues we raised.  In August, then Chief of the Forest Service Dale Robertson, keynoted a logger’s rally at Farragut State Park (wearing a logging cap).  The federal agency announced that it was denying our appeal to stop logging the roadless areas.  In December, we sued the Forest Service in Federal Court to try and save save the Idaho Panhandle’s roadless areas.  We were represented by attorney Corrie Yackulic and Andy Stahl of Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (now EarthJustice). 

The other 25 issues we raised are best summarized in our “Reply to the Responsive Statement”.  The Forest Service rejected our entire appeal in 1995, noting that the forest plan was, afterall, just a programmatic environmental impact statement -- a plan to do more planning.  The agency said we should, instead, participate in planning for individual projects.   Of course, those individual projects are sanctioned by the overall forest plan, thus creating a shell game wherein the public is forever seeking the “pea”.   In this shell game, the large on-forest and off-forest cumulative issues such as the Coeur d’Alene’s toxic floods are never dealt with, and government accountability suffers - as does public and environmental health.  In 2006 the Bush Administration further lowered the quality of decision-making for the IPNF by applying new planning regulations.  

Many people helped with public review and appeal of the first forest plan for the Idaho Panhandle including attorney Tom May, Barry Rosenberg (who would later lead the Forest Watch), Al Isaacson (former supervisory hydrologist for the IPNF), Ed Javorka (former chief planner for the IPNF), Suzanne Hempleman (Audubon Society), economist Randall O’Toole, Jim Bellatty, attorney Mike Anderson (Wilderness Society), Robert Ligeza of IWF, as well as agency personnel. 

For more on forest planning in its larger context, see Forest History.