Repealing the Roadless Rule Could Pose a Threat to Wildlife
In late August, the US Department of Agriculture began making moves to undo the Roadless Rule, a decision that could put 59 million acres of protected land (around 30 percent of the National Forest System) at risk. Implemented in 2001, the Roadless Rule protects this forest land from timber harvesting and the construction of new roads.
While the rule enjoys widespread popularity, it has come under attack numerous times over the past 25 years by those who believe the forest land should be opened to logging and want to see more roads built through them.
However, removing the Roadless Rule could reduce the habitat of numerous animals such as moose, trout, deer, and endangered species such as the wood turtle and American marten. In the West, roadless areas provide habitat for animals such as the grizzly bear, the Canada lynx, and the Alexander Archipelago wolf. In addition, road construction threatens food sources for animals.
Increased Likelihood of Wildfire Ignition Near Roads
On August 27, Tom Schultz, chief of the US Forest Service (which operates under the US Department of Agriculture) announced that the Forest Service would begin the process of rescinding the Roadless Rule on August 29. He stated that for over 20 years, the Roadless Rule has posed challenges for land managers and served as a “barrier to action” by restricting road building, which in turn has hindered wildfire control efforts and active forest management.
However, scientific, conservation, and fire professionals argue that this statement misconstrues the facts about wildfire management, as the chance of wildfires greatly increases with the construction of roads. A core principle in understanding fire, particularly from a geographic perspective, is understanding that roads are one of the primary locations where ignitions start, according to Alexandra Syphard, director of science for the Global Wildfire Collective and senior research scientist at the Conservation Biology Institute.
This is due to the fact that more people are likely to access forest land when roads are present (and people are one of the most common causes of wildfires), as well as the fact that cutting and plowing into forests to build roads changes the type of undergrowth that rests beneath forest canopies, with non-native plants twice as likely to grow within 500 feet of roads. These plants tend to dry out faster and ignite more easily.
In 2020, the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station stated there is no evidence to support the idea that removing road restrictions benefits forest health based on nearly two decades of monitoring.
Sacrificing Conservation
Indeed, the threat to wildlife and the increased likelihood of wildfire ignition near roads in forests were two of the many reasons why the Roadless Rule was implemented in 2001. Others include unregulated development and easy access by large groups of people who may not have the ecosystem’s best interests at heart.
Critics of the move by the US Department of Agriculture/US Forest Service to rescind the law argue that it makes very little sense in terms of fire mitigation and that the move is instead intended to open up national forest land to logging and timber protection.
However, they claim that even if sacrificing conservation for the growth of the logging industry were a popular and appropriate goal, repealing the Roadless Rule would not be an effective way to do so, since only 8 percent of the trees in the forest land protected by the rule are deemed to be productive timber base. That fact was actually part of the argument for protecting the forest land to begin with. As Mike Dombeck, chief of the US Forest Service from 1997 to 2001 (when the rule was initially implemented) stated, “The assumption that there’s a lot of wood [with economic value in] roadless areas is just simply not true.”
Open to Public Comment
When the Roadless Rule was initially passed, the US Forest Service opened the issue up to public comment for one month, which is customary with decisions such as this. The Forest Service received 1.6 million public comments, and ultimately passed the rule, which received widespread support from conservationists and the public at large. The Bush Administration attempted to rescind the Roadless Rule in 2005, but opened the issue up to public comment for two months before doing so—and then extended the period by another two months before ultimately deciding not to do away with the rule.
However, the current administration has only allowed three weeks for public comment on the proposal to do away with the Roadless Rule (from August 29 through September 19)—a fact that conservationists assert is an intentional attempt to railroad the change through without providing for proper public discourse, including public comments and hearings. This process was a hallmark of the original rule, which received widespread public comment and was discussed in more than 600 hearings before it was instituted in 2001. Critics argue that it is logistically impossible to have a comprehensive public conversation about the issue in only three weeks—but that this is exactly what the administration wants.
During President Trump’s first term in office, his administration revoked roadless protections for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska (the world’s largest temperate rain forest), but the rule was reinstated by President Biden. Early in President Trump’s second term, he used an executive order to facilitate a 25 percent increase in timber production in the United States, indicating that this issue continues to be a high priority for his administration.
However, those fighting the move, such as Andy Olsen of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, argue that the rollback undermines all other uses of national forests beyond timber production. He believes that it will lead to reduced wildlife habitat, fewer recreational opportunities for the public, and increased sediment pollution in surface waters.