The Secretary announced that she is rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. However, what I forgot to mention before is that Admins can’t willy-nilly get rid of regulations. If that were the case, the USG would be even more of a cluster than it is. Fortunately, George Washington University has a Regulatory Studies Center, which explains all the processes that can be used.. and previously I had skipped ahead to the pain of doing a new rule, without explaining that they need to do one.
To modify or overturn a regulation that does not fit any of the above circumstances, an agency would have to go through all the procedures required to issue a new regulation. These steps are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and include developing a legal record justifying the proposed change (including technical and economic analysis), and seeking public comment on that record and the proposed regulatory (deregulatory) action. The agency would have to respond to public comment, which may lead to modifications to the draft regulation, before it issues a final rule. These steps generally take at least a year, but the story won’t likely end there.
When the final rule is issued, two records will exist, one developed to support the original regulation and a second that supports its elimination or modification. The revised rule will almost certainly be litigated, with parties that supported the original rule pointing to the earlier record to defend their objections. This legal process may take years to resolve.
I can see why the media uses the expression “rescinds Rule”, at least in the headlines, because the Admin did.. but we can imagine a new Rule. It’s somewhat predictable. It will be a massive donation generating device for ENGOs, 97% of public comments will be against it no matter what’s in it. In fact, the ENGOs can probably reuse press releases from previous State rulemakings. By the time it’s done, it will either go to court and be overturned, or there will be a new Admin who will redecide and select the no-action (keep the 2001) alternative. As I recall, that’s what happened in Alaska.
My idea since so much of this is repetitive and would benefit from knowledge gained from previous efforts, that this Admin call back retirees and find the folks who worked on Alaska, so hopefully no one else will have to spend their time learning about this fairly arcane topic.
Now the argument could be made that the 2001 Rule didn’t take climate change into account and therefore the increased risk of catastrophic wildfire- climate-induced megafires..requires attention to different issues in the analysis.. and it would indeed be interesting to see this Admin make that argument.
*********
For those of you who don’t remember, the Bush era State Roadless effort was for States with Roadless Problem Children to step up to the plate and do a state-specific rule. Only Colorado, Idaho and Alaska (longer story) ever stepped up. I infer from that that no one else (even the much- maligned Utah) really cared. Of course, as I can attest from experience, doing a Rule is a great deal of work and I suppose getting someone else to do it (like the Feds) doesn’t carry the same burden. Nevertheless..
*******************
The media coverage has been interesting.. once again the LA Times continues its deference to Chad Hanson as a mouthpiece for “many of the scientists”. Their virtual rolodex of California fire scientists must be sparse. What’s up with that?
Experts say decades of suppressing fires in California has enabled a buildup of vegetation that is fueling larger and more frequent conflagrations. However, many of those same experts have warned that clearing brush is not the same as large-scale logging or clear cutting — which can eliminate fire-suppressing shade and moisture and lead to new growth of more combustible non-native plants and grasses.
So I guess the reporter assumes that the FS will embark upon “large-scale logging and clearcutting” as part of fuel treatment projects.. regardless of forest plans, and other restrictions. Looking on the bright side, perhaps they’ve moved from “fuel treatments don’t work” to “they might work, but the FS won’t do them properly.”
I agree with Chris Wood here:
Chris Wood, who helped develop the 2001 Roadless Rule when he worked at the Forest Service and now serves as chief executive of the conservation group Trout Unlimited, said the policy is “one of the most significant and popular conservation achievements in the history of the United States.”
“Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the Forest Service, once described conservation as ‘the application of common sense to common problems for the common good,’” Wood said. “Let’s hope common sense prevails and the administration reconsiders its proposal.”
At the same time, I recall that Chris has also been quoted as saying “the 2001 Rule was not written on stone tablets.” Both things are true, it is popular and a general good thing.. and it, like anything else, could probably be improved by better mapping, consideration of PODs, and climate change.
And so it goes. I just hope the Admin minimizes the impact of this rulemaking on the current workforce.
Some of us have spent most of our lives trying to “care for the land and serve people.” One of our great Forest Service Chief’s would always tell me, “Be patient, we are in this for the long haul.” Yes, sound forest (and forests are more than just trees) maintenance takes time. I was a watershed forester during the Roadless Area Review and Evalution process. I am not sure we got it perfect, but I think the results came out quite well. Now, to simply toss this out is not wise, to say the least. At what strikes me odd, is that people that I know have no idea of the process and impacts extoll the virtues of eliminating the designations. Another equally great Forest Service Chief would say, “if you don’t know what you are talking about, just go to the house.”
One day, thousands of agency employees are fired. Then we eliminate a department who has a wonderful history of helping students with learning disabilities become very productive citizens. And other departments and organizations that save millions of lives from diseases are pushed off the ledge. Then we zero out a natural resources science program that has helped so many, especially with the proper care of 138 million acres of forests in and around cities.]; our magnificent urban forests. I don’t know what to say. When you spend so much of your life trying to conserve landscapes to improve the lives of people, wildlife, water, air, soils, to ensure sustainable landscapes, now and ahead, it is just so very wrong to even suggest what our “leaders” are doing and want to do.
If some of this foolishness comes to pass, the generation that I teach in 6th thru 8th grade levels, will never enjoy the forestlands that I assumed would be with us forever. It just seems so wrong that those who do not care and/or do not know are able and willing to destroy a legacy of wonderment. I can only hope that some common sense will soon prevail.
Very respectfully,
Sharon, you forgot to add to your prediction that if/whenever the Ds get another trifecta in government, this will help them make the case for a new roadless law. https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cantwell-leads-legislation-to-permanently-preserve-pristine-national-forest-lands
Jon, it hasn’t happened so far so I think the Ds will have bigger fish to fry when that happens.
Until now, the threat was hypothetical. (But yes, there would be a major fish fry.)
You could have said the same thing about the State Petitions Rule. (that is was a threat that wasn’t hypothetical).
I’ve been contemplating a response to this, but what I’m about to say will put me at odds with most of readers on this forum. Realize, it’s not really about politics; I was a registered Democrat for about 46 years, then became awakened and changed my voter ID to “unaffiliated”. My actual FS career was really short; only 22 full years, but I was born into it, worked for the FS, contracted with the FS for some rec work, worked at building timber purchaser roads during the hey day of Purchaser Credit, and always bled-green! My dad had a forty year career with the outfit but sometimes life gets in the way of plans.
However, maybe because of, or in spite of my southern roots, I tend to view things differently. I was working during RARE II, but was producing lots of timber sales at the time and didn’t really pay attention to it. But looking back, I never really understood how to differentiate between Wilderness and Roadless. Most of it is due to definitions that seem to change over time. I’ll try to keep this short, but during my Forest Sup stint on the A-S we had the last remaining “Primitive Area”, which is actually kin to both Roadless and Wilderness, but more like a stepchild.
Soooo, to me, Roadless provided another stick for environmentalists to poke the FS in the eye! Roadless was so broad, it lessened the characteristics of the Wilderness concept. It resembles the TMR, in that it was a Rule-making exercise that smells like the early overreach of Chevron Deference! Not really a fan because our definitions have certainly changed over the years, and too much independent farming and ranching mentality tends to jade a persons perspective on “we’re from the government and here to help”.
I can flip the switch and deliver the FS rationale on whatever subject we are trying to deliver, but now being an old poot, I tell it like I feel it is! I’m reminded of a philosophy expressed by an independent social scientist who said “ there are only two classes of people who tell you what they really think; the very young because they are uninhibited, and the very old because they don’t care”…..🤣
I think this was a side-trip on the Roadless Rule journey, but one of the things that came out of the RARE inventories of areas without roads was that they had qualities that areas with roads did not have. That led to projects having to evaluate effects on “roadlessness” (maybe it was “unroadedness” for awhile?). The other thing that the inventories gave us was objective criteria for identifying areas as “roadless” so that they could be designated and managed in a way to protect those values in a forest plan – which the Roadless Rule ultimately did nationally – whereas Wilderness designation selects from areas with roadless/wilderness values for political reasons. My rusty recollection.
Under close scrutiny, the climate-fire issue you posit, would support the roadless rule, or even a stricter version of it. The can do rx fire and low impact restoration under the existing rule. More aggressive logging to control fire would emit more carbon than fire. The math is quite clear on that.
Perhaps but there are also places where PF cannot be initiated without removal of some trees, and the area is too dense for broadcast or pile burning so log removal is the only way to go. It seems to me that the question is not “how many of those places “need” “restoration” but how many fire folks think would be very very helpful as PODs. We simply don’t know at this point in time.
Of course, many Roadless Areas just didn’t have anything profitable to build roads to, for extraction. I’m sure there are many parcels where nothing will be done, despite lifted protections. Those parcels will not see any new ‘management’, of any form, regardless of perceived fire danger.
That’s what I’ve noticed..except for Alaska and Rich J. said parts of Region 1. If timber industry is having problems, it doesn’t make sense that they would want to pursue more expensive options requiring road-building when there is plenty of material in areas already roaded. But there may be exceptions. Maybe we should ask industry and get someone to map those?
Sharon, I can only speak to Forests where I worked, having active timber sales programs. First of all, the so called “Roadless” were covered in roads; roads that had been gated, beamed, blocked or mechanically obliterated. It was too big a pain, both Planning wise and controversial (from many FS employees) to take extra time to develop a planning area that would consume too much time!
All the Roadless I saw had been passed logged; most of the Wilderness had been logged unless it was too steep or could not be reached. Regions 2 and 3 Roadless (and Wilderness) carry the stains of early logging and mining, roads and all.
That was my main issue with developing a “Roadless Area” that was heavily roaded!
Sharon, you may remember this but in the early 80’s, we had the Bridge Creek Roadless area on the Ochoco. I was assigned the task of writing an EA to treat large patches of standing, dying lodgepole. There was a major road into the heart of the Planning Area but it was bermed, off a FS system road. Long story short, the enviros Appealed, it all the way to the Washington Office for Chief resolution (if I remember correctly).
It was actually a ploy to try and get Senator (maybe Hatfield?) to take action on the Proposed Wilderness. I didn’t realize that at the time, but had done lots of layout for eventual timber sale. The problem was, the proposed area was taking up a portion of our 10-year Action Plan on a large (15 million bd ft) sale. The Chiefs office found in our favor, allowing the sale to go forward. Lo and behold, the Wilderness was then enacted; all that work went for naught, and I had “adiosed” the FS for 18 years! Then of course, it was incinerated in 2008…..
I rode for the brand so all the fuss didn’t really concern me, one way or another, we were going to get the cut out. As a GS 09 forester, that’s what we were charged with. So the Roadless area had an existing road system, the eventual Wilderness had that same road system and Nature proved who was really in charge….🤣🤣
“…Nature proved who was really in charge…” – Jim Z
I am older than 90 percent of the timber (~9235′ elevation) in a 2001 “roadless” area adjacent to an 1896 land grant property (pre-reservation “inholding”) and was involved with RARE I, RARE II, and the WY and UT 1984 Wilderness Act(s). Given FS rumors of impending DOI inspired “road moratorium” and how USFS was utilizing their 404F nationwide permit 1996-1999, to prove “roadless” and untouched by man, I also was proponent for a RARE III – 1999, given the shakiness of mapping.
Since 2013 through 2021, I have kept track of the deaths of 5 trees (all with quarter girdle marks ~3’x6′, facing due north) on the land grant that survived an early 20th Century fire (1911??) that had swept through that particular area (Upper North Platte drainage). No one could tell us why the bark was blazed as such in such close proximity one to the other. This small area could be considered “primitive” in the sense few axes, saws, or chainsaw had touched it until 2006, through advent of fed-state WUI funding.
Two years past I felled what I think, by measurement, is the youngest at 342 years. The rings, beginning at the blaze, denoted that the quarter girdle occurred around 1897, back from year 2013.
Domestic sheep grazing ended in the area 80-years later and elk were overpopulating resulting in that special permit hunt area being coveted by hunters nationwide up until around the early 20teens. That is still the case over the past decade, including a vast drop in wildlife numbers that have migrated to general permit hunt areas outside “roadless” that have been mechanically managed over the past 12 years or so. Animals do have natural instinct of survival.
There remains much unsaid or historically documented about philosophical technocratic management or non-management protocols for “crops” like timber (for younger subscribers _ hence USDA-FS, not DOI from debates of yore).
Sans metropolitan nuisance inspectors: Stop mowing and watering half of an urban yard, completely stop trimming the bushes or doctoring trees, don’t run urban deer out of the backyard and let nature take its course?
Relatively speaking, since after the inception of NEPA, our Courts continue to have the final say in why, where, when and how America does or does not manage intermingled private and federal lands of all sorts. But eventually, and as a general rule, Nature has the last say.