Repealing the Roadless Rule would set back public land management | Opinion

As retired Forest Service leaders who had the privilege of managing millions of acres of national forests across the West, we understand the importance of stewarding these lands for the benefit of local communities and the nation.

Full repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) would undermine trust in agency managers, hinder collaborative agreements, adversely affect resources the public cares about and ultimately restrict efficient land management.

Repealing the rule is favored by many of those who opposed it from the beginning or those who perceive that it undermines effective forest management. Debates over management of roadless areas consumed tremendous energy throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s.

When the Roadless Rule was put in place across the national forest system in 2001, it was the result of decades of public dialogue, at local and national scales, in depth environmental review and compromise. The rule recognized the costs of road building, both fiscally and environmentally, and helped focus the Forest Service on the protection of these areas for their inherent values. These values include headwater streams that deliver clean water to communities, unfragmented landscapes for wildlife that thrive in undisturbed areas, mitigation of climate-driven range shifts and quality backcountry recreation experiences.

For over two decades, roadless area protection has provided common ground for land managers, local officials, environmentalists, hunters and anglers, and industry to come together to build trust and focus on zones of agreement in support of good stewardship. These collaborative efforts, both at the project level and Forest Plan level, help the agency achieve a balance of preservation and use.

The current administration’s proposed full repeal of the roadless rule brings back to the forefront debates that have been mostly settled. This approach risks undoing trust and compromise that has been forged through hard work and local collaborative efforts. People who have invested personal energy in supporting active forest management balanced with wildland conservation and recreational access are becoming disillusioned as their efforts are swept aside by top-down actions.

Public lands management is complex and litigious by its nature. Pulling back roadless area protections after a quarter century of certainty will bring on greater litigation for little apparent gain.

To be clear, after over two decades of implementation and learning, forest managers and partners know there could be thoughtful improvements to the Roadless Rule. Though the current rule has provisions for appropriate wildfire response and exemptions for priority fuels treatments, the exemption process has been cumbersome and should be streamlined to encourage use where appropriate. In addition, the ability to modify boundaries, where in some cases “roadless areas” have pre-existing roads or infrastructure missed in earlier mapping efforts, would go a long way to fix some of the unintended challenges in implementation of the rule.

Where the Forest Service is truly concerned that the current rule prevents or restricts critical fuels treatments, the agency should specifically identify the subset of roadless areas adjacent to communities, critical infrastructure and other values at risk that require a more flexible approach.

We spent our careers working with the public to steward the forests under our care. Today, it remains as important as ever to listen to communities and honor commitments.

Rather than seeking to repeal the rule, the Forest Service should meaningfully engage stakeholders to update the rule and improve implementation based on what has been learned over the past 25 years. This will allow future land managers to better work with those who cherish their national forests in ways that benefit local communities and the nation.

All four co-authors are retired forest supervisors, Mary Erickson of the Custer Gallatin National Forest, Scott Fitzwilliams of the White River National Forest, Tricia O’Connor of the Bridger Teton National Forest and David Whittekiend of the Wasatch Cache Uinta National Forests.