Road to Opportunity

Roadless Rule Change Not So Black & White

By Matt Singer, 5-22-05

	Forest Road 451 winds its way through the Lolo National Forest. Scott Poniewaz/New West

When the Department of Agriculture announced in early May its rejection the Clinton-era roadless rule, one could easily have been mistaken in thinking that this would either be the West’s destruction or its salvation. On one side, environmental groups blasted the decision, noting the public comment in favor of the rule. On the other side, timber groups expressed hope that this rule would do something for logging communities and workers pinched by the decline of that industry.

But the picture that emerges upon closer study is one that indicates that neither of these views is likely to pan out. But, what the new rule does do is pass the buck to Governors and encourage new attempts at public involvement and collaboration -- meaning collectively, it should provide Westerners with an opportunity to take what was one of the most divisive issues on the Western landscape and turn it into a new chance to come together.

Jack Ward Thomas, who served as Chief of the Forest Service in the ‘90s, is skeptical that the new rule means much substantively. “In the end, it’s not apt to change much. My contingent would be that we don’t make roadless areas. We make roaded areas. Roaded areas are made when we build roads. We’d essentially made roads into everything that made sense and quite a few that didn’t make much sense.� Combine that with the maintenance backlog already facing the Forest Service and perpetual underfunding, building new roads simply will not make much sense on many of these lands.

Most experts agree, a few new roads will be built, but the change is unlikely to mean anything significant. And one of the reasons that significant change is unlikely is that the new rule seeks broad inclusion of diverse public opinion.

When the roadless rule was implemented in the very beginning of 2001 by the outgoing Clinton Administration, it essentially prohibited new road-building on the inventoried roadless areas within America’s National Forests. As Thomas made clear, these areas were never before designated to be roadless. The Forest Service had simply never had a good reason to build roads on them (most of them, actually; the inventoried roadless areas actually include some roaded areas). Still, despite unprecedented public comment in favor of the rule, it proved nearly instantly divisive, especially in the West. Idaho sued the federal government over the rule, winning a victory in district court before losing in front of the Ninth Circuit. And so the effort of the Clinton Administration, to simply declare that these lands are now off the table for further discussion, to move the land management discussion on, failed. Some critics, like Daniel Kemmis, Director of the University of Montana’s Center for the Rocky Mountain West, characterized the Clinton approach as a “run-around the Wilderness designation process.� Kemmis, a self-described progressive, shared that view with many in the forest product industries.

The new rule just adopted by the Bush Administration would outline a new system whereby Governors and others can get a say in how these lands are managed, with the aim of bringing in more local input. Under the new rule, inventoried roadless areas will be managed by interim management guildelines through January of 2006. At that point, the interim guidelines, which extend to the Forest Service Chief most important decisions especially those regarding road-building and timber-harvest, can be extended. If the interim guidelines lapse, those lands will revert to their old management plans, essentially the ones in place before the roadless rule went into effect, although some may have changed since then. Still, these are largely the same plans that never resulted in roads in these areas.

Just that summary makes this sound like a repeal of the roadless rule, but the more important part of the rule is yet to come. Within 18 months of the establishment of the rule (the time period ends November 13, 2006), Governors have the right to petition for changes in forest management on these lands. These changes could involve any of a number of recommendations, from calling for a road to be built, for a road to be moved, requesting a change of classification (regarding recreation use), or theoretically going so far as to recommend areas for wilderness. The rule does not limit what Governors are allowed to request for the land, simply the process they must use.

A Governor submitting a petition has to provide several pieces of information:

• A location and description of the land, including a map.


• The vision for the land


• The justification for the change


• The difference between the petition and existing plans


• How the change compares with state and local policy


• A description of how the public was involved in decision-making


• A commitment to participate as a cooperating agency in rule-making.

Notably, this rule does very little to mandate an outcome, so much as it recommends a process of public inclusion.

But the petitions themselves do not become policy. First, they must be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. After that, the real fun begins, as the Forest Service, in seeking to implement the petition, will proceed through the same rule-making process they typically move through, including consideration of alternatives and public comment.

Given, though, that a petition filed with significant state support is likely to earn approval from the Secretary of Agriculture, this moment actually presents a real opportunity to address locally the biggest issues facing these lands.

For more information:

• Check out New West's roundup of the state-by-state response to the changes in the roadless rule.


• The Forest Service's official roadless rule site.




Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.


By Matt Singer, 5-22-05 | comments (8) | email story | print story