Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents debate logging, wilderness and safety tradeoffs in Elkhorn multiple‑use pitch
Summary
The proposal prompted discussion about logging, mining, closures and wilderness designation alternatives; attendees worried about wildfire risk, logging corridor effects, and whether multiple‑use designation would lock in future industrial operations near riding areas.
Residents and longtime forestry workers at the meeting raised questions about how the multiple‑use designation would interact with logging and mining activity and whether it could prevent new wilderness designations. A county official at the meeting described three alternatives in the draft forest plan—do nothing, a plan with no new wilderness (preferred by the county), and a plan with new wilderness areas. One commenter, Carl McGill, who said he worked with the forestry service for 30 years, urged caution because agency leadership and philosophy can change over time.
Attendees also discussed fire risk and wildlife corridors; one speaker said proposed wildlife corridors could act as "ignition strips" that burn hot and fast. Organizers insisted the goal was to preserve current access and not to add industrial uses, but several residents asked for clearer mapping and for assurances about where logging or mining might be allowed within the proposed boundary.
No technical environmental assessments were presented at the meeting; all environmental tradeoffs were discussed at a high level and flagged for further inquiry with county natural‑resource staff and the Forest Service.
