Opposition takes shape to rescinding roadless rules

The Department of Agriculture made an announcement on Aug. 18 that they plan to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule, which prohibits road construction as well as timber harvesting on many federal forest lands. The proposal would eliminate this protection on nearly 45 million acres in 37 states, and includes nearly a third of the national forests across 10 Western states. This policy change was taken in order to open more areas of federal lands to industries such as logging and mining. However, the proposal has seen broad pushback from coalitions of hikers, hunters, campers, anglers, and others that use these protected areas for recreation. Washington Wild (wawild.org) is an organization that opposes this action. It lists stakeholders such as anglers and hunters, as well as hikers and others that use these areas for recreation of one kind or another. “Washington Wild has been a conservation leader on this issue in the state ever since the rule was initiated from 1999 through 2001, and that was at the time the largest rulemaking in the history of the federal government,” said Tom Uniack, the executive director for Washington Wild. “There were over 400 public meetings around the country, and at one point over 6 million comments offered, 95 percent of whom were in support of the rule.” He pointed out that the rule as initiated was a fiscally conservative action. “The Forest Service still has 370,000 miles of roads on the national forest system alone,” Uniack said. “That’s many times the interstate highway system. Most of those roads were built for logging.” All those roads come with a need for maintenance, but that is not happening. “There’s never really been a plan to make sure those roads are maintained,” Uniack explained. “There is an $8-to-10-billion-dollar maintenance backlog on that road system.” Uniack wonders why any plan would lead to more road building, when the roads already in the forest are not properly maintained. “We can’t pay for the roads we already have, why on earth would we build new ones in the areas where we don’t have them?” he said. Michael Decramer, the policy and planning manager for the Washington Trails Association (www.wta.org), said his association is also alarmed by the policy changes, and the consequences of scrubbing the roadless policy. “The roadless area conservation rule is essential protection for vast amounts of our national forests,” he said, “including 43,000 miles of trails nationally, and 4,000 miles in Washington.” He noted that these areas are some of the most beautiful and enjoyable areas on our national forest systems. “The rule protects some of the states most beloved destinations, including the North Cascades, and places like Silver Star in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest,” Decramer said. “This policy change jeopardizes spectacular places people like to hike and recreate. And, we already have a road network on National Forest lands that we struggle to maintain. So, adding roads into remote highly intact landscapes does not make policy sense. It will harm places that people love to recreate in.” Beyond recreation, Decramer notes that building roads through intact landscapes fractures wildlife habitat, reducing connectivity between habitats. “It’s very reasonable to think when a protection that keeps about a third of our national forests from having new roads constructed is gone, that could have profound impacts on many species, and certainly on wildlife connectivity.” Uniack noted that beyond the effects to wildlife, there are other negatives to consider. “These roadless areas are where most of our old growth forests are,” he said. “A lot of times in wilderness areas and higher elevations you get above the tree line. It turns to alpine pretty quick. So, these roadless areas are really the lower elevation upper watersheds, where most of our old growth forests remain.” These habitats are necessary for a lot of needs in Washington. “We are talking about salmon spawning streams; we are talking about recreational opportunities for families,” Uniack said. “We’re talking about clean drinking water supplies for hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians. “I just think this is one of those issues where there are so many values here, and the arguments being made to eliminate these protections don’t hold water.” He pointed to statements from the current administration that these roads were needed to fight fires, but Uniack points to the fact that 90 percent of wildfires start within half a mile of a road. Also, most wildfires are started by humans. So, adding new roads could actually lead to more wildfires. As far as the need for roads to increase logging, Uniack point out that the road building in the past was mostly done to get access to trees for logging. These roads stopped where the terrain made it difficult to log. “There was a reason the road building stopped where it did,” he added. “The roadless rules are a pretty balanced policy; it already has exemptions for wildfire suppression,” Uniack said. “In fact, in the Forest Service, 34 percent of all fuel treatments between 2001 and 2019 actually occurred in roadless areas. These exemptions are already in place.” Many people who hike or use the forest for other reasons do not even realize they are recreating in roadless areas. These are administrative policies, and there are no maps to these areas. Decramer points out that the activities within these areas are a serious economic driver. “The outdoor recreational economy is a vital and massive part of our states economic interests,” Decramer said. “It creates 237,000 jobs here in Washington. I think we can have access to natural resources, and also have protected iconic and outstanding wild areas to recreate in.” Uniack agrees that there are many unquantifiable benefits to keeping the roadless rules in place. “We have found, and it’s been clear, that over the last 25 years the roadless rule has protected all kinds of values, not just making sure that we don’t throw good money after bad, with a road system that we can’t afford,” he said. Anyone can comment on this proposal by going to the federal regulatory website, and posting comments there. But this needs to happen soon. The last day to submit comments is Sept. 21. Submit comments online at https://www.regulations.gov/

Related Stories