Additional information
Your article on the Roadless Rule Task Force report left out many details that seem to need clarification. To correct that, may I submit some further information.
First, your article states, "The Flathead County Board of Commissioners has forwarded the majority recommendations to Gov. Schweitzer who will comment to the National Roadless Advisory Board for future management requirements of inventoried roadless areas in Flathead County." In fact, the majority and minority reports were sent as a single document to the Governor, without any modification by either side, and presented as the recommendation of the committee and the Flathead County Commissioners.
Secondly, your article stresses that the 2000 Environment Impact Statement of the Clinton Administration's Roadless Rule proposal took into consideration the "34 meetings across Montana collecting 17,429 comments from Montanans, of which 11, 654-favored stronger roadless area protection…"
What the EIS and your article failed to address were the advisory ballots conducted during the 2000 primaries in four counties directly affected by the Rule: Flathead, Saunders, Lincoln, and Sweetgrass. The results of those ballots were, out of 20,520 votes cast; only 4,194 were in favor of additional roadless areas, 16,326 voters opposed it. Many people try to argue that the people did not know what they were voting for, but I believe the voters in Montana are intelligent enough to read and vote their opinion.
Next, the article describes, "The primary directive set forth by Gov. Schweitzer charged the taskforce with determining whether construction of new roads was necessary in existing Flathead National Forest roadless areas. The task force must explain how and by whom new roads would be funded."
I was confused by these instructions, considering the limited time frame we had, so I contacted the Governor's office and asked for further clarification. On January 17, Hal Harper, the Governor's Chief Policy Advisor, sent me the following information, which I forwarded to the Committee members. "Fire danger, thinning, hazard reduction, changes in uses, changes in local citizen needs and forest uses are among the reasons we are asking for flexibility in the rule." Our review of the Preferred Option of the Forest Service Plan revealed that once an area receives Proposed Wilderness status, the area is treated as wilderness. There are no activities allowed on that area except, maybe, fire suppression. There is no flexibility. To keep in line with the additional instructions we received from the Governor's office, the majority voted for removal of roadless designation for several areas in the North Fork.
Mr. Harper went on to say, "I don't think we are asking for a full-blown EIS on any proposed road, just the obvious benefits and impacts that would result and who would be affected. We are obviously trying to lean on the Forest Service to come up with more $ for upkeep of these existing roads." When I pressed further, Mr. Harper finally admitted that the Governor's Office was aware of who pays for logging roads. "A partial answer to your previous question about who pays for logging roads is this according to my sources: Usually the logging contractor builds the road and the cost is deducted from his bid."
Finally, the area of my major concern is not only multiple use, but also public health. In the course of our meetings, I learned that the wildfires, our valley residents endured during the summer of 2003, produced air pollution so bad, that even staying indoors and limiting activity was not enough to insure the public health. The County Health Department gathered data, which shows PM-10 levels far above acceptable levels. Further, the smoke and particles entering Flathead Lake increased the algae levels of the Lake causing additional concerns for the health of the water.
According to Keith Soderstrom, as he is quoted in your article, the Forest Service is only managing the forest for "wildfire suppression, wildlife, recreation, and trail maintenance." Nowhere are our forests being managed to mitigate threats to public health from air and water pollution as a result of forest fires. It is time they were.
Richard Funk
Kalispell