Here is what I came up with, I’d be interested in what everyone thinks., so I can add or take out stuff before I submit. Feel free to use anything in yours.
**************************
I worked directly, hands-on with the Colorado Roadless Rule for over six years, through Democrat and Republican State and Federal Administrations, and so the following comments are the voice of experience:
It makes sense to have a public process to change the Rule rather than remove it. What happened in Alaska? The next Administration just put it back. For the good of the public, the employees, and the taxpayers, it makes sense to come to a stable solution. That would require a public and transparent process. We can assume it would be litigated but that’s OK. Colorado and Idaho were litigated. Also I would argue for sticking to a timeframe, and not letting it get away from you in pursuit of agreements that might never happen.
Any other alternatives should be based on specific needs for change.
The first step should be to fix all the maps in a common-sense way. For example, in Colorado we found areas could be mapped to the nearest road or ridgetop, making any management easier.
The second step is removing roaded areas from the roadless inventory. The 2001 Rule handled this by calling them “substantially altered” and having different requirements within the Rule. Just take them out. In Colorado we found “real unroaded” acres we could add back in. This also works and could be part of negotiation.
The third step would be a forest- by- forest identification of the need for change, including a public process for comments. The WO could develop a template to collect the information such that all the forest would have to do is prepare a forest specific presentation and provide the link to post comments. It would be cool if the comments could be linked to a map, such that people could also look at the map and see what comments are associated with it.
The fourth step would be for OGC and DOJ attorneys to do a “need for change” highlighting parts of the 2001, Colorado and Idaho that have led to legal difficulties, and provide recommendations for clarifications.
The fifth step would be to round up the national groups – I have mixed feelings about a FACA committee to give advice about general fixes for things like mechanical fuel treatments and other topics that make sense to be approached nationally. Perhaps it would be better for an NGO to convene a series of meetings with a workgroup of diverse interests, with tentative recommendations and opportunity for public comment on their recommendations at each stage. The problem with FACA committees is that by size, they can’t include the diversity of perspectives of stakeholder groups. For example, if there’s one FACA position for outfitters, it seems likely that holders of jeep or OHV permits might think differently than whitewater permittees. I’ll also add that some members of the RACNAC, (the previous Roadless Area FACA committee) did not live up to our expectations for contributing to the discussion.
************
For TSW Readers: Folks were chosen for the RACNAC for political reasons, like maybe they represented important groups, I guess. At the Salt Lake RACNAC meeting, the Colorado folks were sitting behind one member of the RACNAC who was looking at photos of his dog on his laptop and clearly not paying attention to the presentation. But on the positive side, at another meeting in DC, an NGO person spoke who knew not very much, and had apparently been briefed on the plane as to what to say. FS people had to be polite, but other RACNAC people could and did make the point “we don’t need to be lectured, thank you!” The leadership of RACNAC was outstanding- Ray Vaughan and Dale Harris- but good policy shouldn’t depend on a few key people with relational superpowers, IMHO.
If you’re not familiar with that part of history, this is from a RACNAC meeting on Idaho, note the temp road recommendation, also how small the RACNAC was.
Glenn brought up another talking point from the Roadless discussion- the four Chiefs’ letter didn’t address it, but I have seen it in other letters and stories and the FS will probably see it in form letters.
Again, it seems to me that we need to be clear whether we are talking about removing the Rule or updating it. Because if we are updating, we could clarify the kinds of roads and whether they would be open to the public. It seems to me after listening to folks for all these years that most people just want continued access to the roads and trails they already have.. note the lawsuit on the PSICC. The cry is always “don’t shut off our access” not “we need more.” It’s more “maintain the roads you already have” than “let’s get more roads.”
So.. if you had specific carve-outs for specific kinds of roads… like temp roads for fuel treatments within 1/2 mile of communities or in areas within a CWPP (believe me I have probably spent 1000 hours talking with people about this alone.. different maps of WUI and so on) or a road to access a power line for maintenance that would be closed to the public and funded by the power company..what evidence do we have that these kinds of carve-outs lead to more ignitions? Do we have any specific cases where the changes in the Colorado Rule led to ignitions?
If recreationists don’t want more permanent roads, and timber companies don’t, and the Forest Service certainly doesn’t, who would want them?
Now there could indeed be illegal use of temp roads for fuel treatment projects, but if they are ripped afterwards? Would that be a question of illegal use, or improper gating, or ???
My point is that this is another “talking point that sounds plausible” but, as in so many cases, if you bring the question down to specifics, it opens up an entirely different set of questions for discussion.
1. Are we talking update or removal of 2001? If update, describe worries and add text to reduce them
2. Even if the 2001 Rule were removed, what kinds of roads do people really want (that aren’t the same as Colorado or Idaho)?
3. If a middle path is chosen, with temp roads and more or less private administrative (gated) roads are we worried about illegal use of any roads?
4. All projects require site-specific NEPA. As I recall, I was selecting trees on Chiloquin District and unbeknownst to me, someone was blocking roads at the same time. In that country, I was able to drive around the blockage, due to the lay of the land and the vegetation. That isn’t always the case.. would the site-specific NEPA be the place to ensure that the roads would be effectively closed?
Again, it seems that some talking points are about “bad things that might happen.” It seems to me that we have info, with the State Rules, on what actually did happen with exceptions. Certainly both kinds of information should be noted and considered. Which is not an argument to rescind the Rule, but that’s why I think it’s important to start with… “I want to keep, update, or get rid of.”
Finally, it seems that many people were interested in the State Rules to the point of litigating them. But once they were in place, the drama completely decreased. No one was particularly interested in the projects (other than a certain set of coal mines and some ENGOs).
this is a photo of a house next to a roadless area from the Colorado Roadless effort.
Comments on Roadless are due Friday. As a person who worked for six years on Colorado Roadless and read many, many public comments, including all of them during one iteration, I encourage you to be clear upfront whether you want to keep it as is, change it, or remove it. Most of the people I know want to change it. Those of us with experience in Colorado, Idaho and Alaska, employees, former employees, and the public, probably have some ideas about how to tune up the 2001, and how not to. If you have particular issues with it, or things you think are important to keep, be clear about those also.
As a goal for a tune-up, I can’t say it any better than Chris Wood said on an old TSW post on the Idaho Rule.
“The Idaho rule is a demonstration of what can happen when common sense is applied to a common problem for the common good,” Wood said.
Certainly this kind of “once every 25 year tune-up: could be initiated with the same goal.
I ran across this letterfrom four former Forest Service Chiefs on Roadless, so I thought it would be interesting to take a look.
The four Chiefs seem to be in the “fix it’ camp, but they might be in the “don’t do anything but if you feel you need to fix it, here are our ideas for the process.”
We urge you to consider additional alternatives that would require a collaborative, transparent process to identify potential changes that would protect roadless values and allow additional flexibility for addressing wildfire risks to communities.
I disagree with two of their arguments, which I don’t think would matter so much, except I’ve seen the same arguments in other letters as well.
From the letter:
There is the assertion that the Rule restricts fire prevention and wildfire suppression efforts and that more flexibility is needed to reduce fire risk near the urban-wildland interface. The 2001 Rule specifically permits activities aimed at preventing and mitigating wildfire risks. In fact, nearly 2 million acres of roadless areas have been treated to reduce fire risk in recent years. Significantly more resources need to be directed toward the critical work of reducing fire risk in and around human habitation-the wildland urban interface.
We don’t know how much of the 2 mill acres they cite was managed fire, prescribed fire or mechanical treatment. It would be interesting to know, and where exactly those projects were.
But the fact is that D and R state and federal administrations all agreed that the 2001 language needed to be clarified, and exceptions made for fuel treatment in those plain words.
I. Colorado Did Not Agree That Thing are Fine with the 2001 Language With Regard to Fuel Treatments
In Colorado, we found the language of the 2001 Rule to have two problems in terms of fuel treatment. One is legal and is due to the language of the tree-cutting provisions, and the other deals with on-the-ground conditions and the need for temporary roads.
Legal
Here’s the language in the 2001 Rule.
1) The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber is needed for one of the following purposes and will maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in § 294.11.
(i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; or
(ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period;
So suppose you had a stand of dead lodgepole next to a community as in the photo above. Is it generally small diameter? Yes, compared to bigger trees elsewhere. But all the trees are more or less the same size, so I suppose folks could go to court and argue that if they are all 8 inches, you can’t take any trees out because they are not “smaller” diameter compared to others in the stand.
The panel held that the Forest Service’s conclusion that the Tecuya Ridge Project was consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule was arbitrary and capricious. The panel held that the Forest Service’s determination that 21-inch dbh trees were “generally small timber” was arbitrary and capricious.
Since timber production is not a big value on the LP, a person might think that fuels practitioners made this decision. This language meant that the requirements of the Roadless Rule. clearer language in the Rule might have saved everyone time and effort.
You could also argue that a stand of lodgepole burning up is a “characteristic disturbance regime” of the current climatic period. Throughout history, lodgepoles have started after fires, grown old, got attacked by bark beetles, died and burned up. Sounds pretty characteristic.
But the climate is changing.. so. Climate change is not specifically addressed in the 2001 Rule, because it wasn’t as much a part of the general discussion then. T
Instead, in the Colorado Rule (which I would argue is also way more wordy and complex than necessary) hazardous fuel reduction near communities is called out specifically. There are other requirements, but I didn’t post them all here. Also note that the Colorado Rule was finalized under a D Federal and D State Administration.
Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section, trees may be cut, sold, or removed in Colorado Roadless Areas outside upper tier acres if the responsible official, unless otherwise noted, determines the activity is consistent with the applicable land management plan, one or more of the roadless area characteristics will be maintained or improved over the long-term with the exception of paragraph (5) and (6) of this section, and one of the following circumstances exists:
(1) The Regional Forester determines tree cutting, sale, or removal is needed to reduce hazardous fuels to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system that is:
(i) Within the first one-half mile of the community protection zone, or
(ii) Within the next one-mile of the community protection zone, and is within an area identified in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
On-the-ground conditions
I’m not familiar with the Idaho Rule but if we believe Google AI
Permitted fuel treatment activities
Fuel treatments are permitted in certain Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs), particularly those designated as “Backcountry/Restoration”. The permissible activities include:
Within a community protection zone: Reducing hazardous fuels is allowed if the project retains large trees appropriate for the forest type.
Outside a community protection zone: Treatments are permitted if there is a significant risk that a wildfire would adversely affect an at-risk community or municipal water supply.
In Colorado, we found that the “no temp roads” was a handicap in reducing fuels, even near communities. In some places we visited, you can’t run prescribed fire through unless you remove some fuel. In some places, stands are too thick to thin, drop the trees and pile or broadcast burn. Temp roads are needed to remove material, even just to prepare the area for a prescribed burn. That’s why the Colorado Rule specifically allows this, with RF approval and distance limits:
The Regional Forester determines a temporary road is needed to facilitate tree cutting, sale, or removal (§ 294.42(c)(1)) within the first one-half mile of the community protection zone to reduce the wildfire hazard to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system;
II. Other Colorado Rule Exceptions. The Chiefs ask in their letter:
Are there changes in the past 25 years that require additional allowances or exceptions? If so, we encourage an open conversation with the community of interests to address potential changes to the Rule.
I agree that some kind of public process is necessary, and I have ideas of what and what not to do. But we already know that folks in Idaho and Colorado identified some that are not limited to those states.
In Colorado, those included water conveyance structures, fuel treatment, linear construction zones (tightening up on following the Bull Mountain Lawsuit), a ski area, and methane drainage wells. Idaho had others. That’s the beginning of a possible list.
III. Permanent Roads that Require Funding Were Never the Issue (at least in Colorado)
One argument of the four Chiefs and others that sounds plausible is this one:
This begs the question; how many roads do we really need within the national forest system and how much do they cost to maintain? The maintenance backlog on roads and other Forest Service facilities has gotten worse and will continue to degrade as more personnel are fired or leave the agency and budgets are cut. Why invest in new roads when the Forest Service cannot maintain its existing infrastructure investments?
Until you look under the hood. Temp roads for removal of fuels wouldn’t be maintained.. because they’re.. temporary and the contractor or purchaser builds and removes them. The only possible permanent roads we ran across are those that would be maintained by the people building them.. for dam maintenance, access for power line maintenance, or whatever. As far as I can remember no one ever asked for permanent roads in roadless areas. Maybe that’s something the Admin wants to do? But we don’t know that.
Maybe some people in Idaho wanted new permanent roads? Hopefully someone will engage here who worked on the Idaho or Alaska Rules and we can get a better idea of the different approaches to fuel treatments and temporary roads.
I’ve been working on some climate stuff and will post that later (and also have some energy posts to catch up on), but while I was focused elsewhere several interesting pieces surfaced.
1.Roadless. I’ve been keeping track of who is holding the “keep but tweak Roadless” position. Robert Bonnie, whom you might remember as a member of the Biden and Obama Admins at USDA, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. Did that bring back the memories.. we had many discussions and differing maps about what was WUI. Interesting, TWS had its own WUI maps, as I recall, as did other groups including the FS. Then there’s the “how far, from what size of community, is WUI?” question. But we didn’t include infrastructure nor watershed protection.
One way to allow forest thinning and prescribed burns to reduce the wildfire threat is to amend the roadless rule. Currently the rule allows new road construction only for forest management activities in cases of “an imminent threat of flood, fire or other catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property.” This standard is far too narrow and invites litigation over what qualifies as an imminent threat. The Forest Service is thus often reluctant to propose actions in roadless areas, given the high likelihood of delay and adverse court decisions that waste the agency’s time and resources.
But the Trump administration could update the rule to permit temporary roads in roadless areas that are near neighborhoods along the wildland-urban interface to allow for forest thinning or other ecological restoration.
Could such an exception be abused by timber industry allies in the administration? Not likely, since under current law, forest management projects are subject to public input and are required to be consistent with land management plans that use the best available science.
There’s also a legal precedent. After the rule was issued, governors from Idaho and Colorado initiated their own roadless rules for national forests in their states. Both rules supersede the 2001 rule and allow for limited forest management and road construction to address the threat of catastrophic wildfires in more populated areas while still protecting millions of acres for wildlife, water resources and recreation.
When I oversaw the Forest Service during the Obama administration, we defended the rule established under Jim Risch, Idaho’s Republican governor (and now senator), when it was challenged in court, and worked with John Hickenlooper, Colorado’s Democratic governor (and now senator), to design and defend his state’s rule. Bipartisanship and even consensus are possible on roadless policy.
The Trump administration isn’t much interested in either, but it has chosen to leave the Colorado and Idaho rules alone. Why not simply adopt the same approach in all states?
A bit of history that Robert left out is that the Colorado Rule originated as part of the State Petitions Rule, which was initiated by the Bush Administration. And for Colorado, the process survived both R and D State and Federal Admins. I agree that temp roads for WUI thinning is a good thing to work on, but there might also be specific instances of incidental difficulties (dam maintenance for those not in “imminent threat” of collapse; roads for power line maintenance; small boundary adjustments) that might be worth looking at. Personally, I’d like to see more “adaptive management” occur in regulations and policies.
Note to current employees. I haven’t mentioned this before, but many of the folks on the Planning Staff who worked on Colorado Roadless were not fans of the project. In fact, among them it was known as CRAP- the Colorado Roadless Area Project. I suppose they were not fans of the Bush Admin and didn’t want to engage, or didn’t see it going anywhere. So perhaps if you are working on something you consider dumb and pointless, it’s possible that some day in the future someone with D credentials will point to it and say “that was a good thing, we should do more of that.” Who knows?
I, on the other hand, thought it was fun (I think “as much fun as a person can have legally at work”), especially working with the State, public meetings, advisory committee meetings and so on, regardless of what was ultimately going to happen. Sometimes it’s hard to think about “it’s the journey, not the destination,” but when I look back it’s the journey I remember, and the destination will always be out of my and possibly your hands. Whew! That was philosophical.
2. Trump Admin Gives up on Confirming Boren?
An alert TSW reader found this from Interior. It sounds like authority is being redelegated to some individuals.. Michael Boren is among them. A possible switch from Undersecretary at USDA-hood due to difficulties being confirmed? Or two different people with the same name? I’d try to confirm Schultz as Undersec and select a career Chief.. but I don’t know if Schultz would be confirmable either, depending on political topography and horse–trading potential.
3. Wildfire Consolidation Plan Due Next Week. This is an interesting story from the Daily Montanan.. you don’t see too many stories about “things that haven’t happened yet.” But it’s a nice reminder that the due date is coming up..
Partners in Wildfire Prevention, a coalition which includes clean energy interest groups, economic organizations, the Western Fire Chiefs Association and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said there’s not enough attention on the issue of wildfires at the national level. They view the order as some acknowledgement of that and are hopeful it improves fire response.
I was curious about why clean energy groups specifically would be involved in wildfire, and also about the nature of “economic organizations.”
The coalition is much broader than usual, including traditional groups like RVCC, as well as newcomer Megafire Action, as well as many groups much less traditionally involved with wildfire (e.g. Caregiver Action Network). Here is the list, you need to scroll down. Perhaps we need to make a table of all the coalitions currently involved in wildfire and wildfire resilience so we can keep track.
4. Long-Term Contracts/Projects Update
From the AFRC newsletter.. it would be handy to understand how the contracts and the NEPA interact exactly. There are probably documents out there somewhere but maybe someone can answer these questions in a paragraph.
How do the forest plan, project NEPA and priority setting with FS and partners interact with each large landscape project? When the purchaser completes the NEPA process, who decides what kind of NEPA? EA, EIS for the planning areas with or without condition-based NEPA, CE’s?
The Colville National Forest is preparing its third A-to-Z style contract, which the purchaser completes the NEPA process and oversees implementation. The first two projects, Mill Creek and Chewelah, each treated more than 50,000 acres. The new Powers Lake Area project is expected to be of similar scale, continuing to bolster the Colville timber program, which now sells roughly 130 million board feet annually.
In Montana, the State and the Forest Service recently signed a Shared Stewardship Agreement to formalize a framework for addressing high-risk forests. The 200,000-acre landscape spans portions of the Flathead and Kootenai National Forests. Under this agreement, Montana DNRC will take on implementation of authorized restoration goals with a 20-year mutual commitment to planning and execution using the Good Neighbor Authority.
Meanwhile, the Bitterroot National Forest is pursuing a 10-year Integrated Resource Stewardship Contract for projects within the Bitterroot Front Landscape Planning Area and possibly other areas across the forest. Approximately 13,000 acres are planned for treatment over the next decade, with potential expansion to adjacent areas. Four project areas may be offered at contract award for immediate implementation, with additional areas to be added annually as funding allows. The effort includes at least 90,000 CCF, approximately 45 million board feet, of commercial timber.
On the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, a Request for Information has been issued for the End of the World Planning Area, with objectives focused on reducing insect and disease risk, mitigating wildfire hazards, and improving vegetation and water quality. A long-term 10-year G-to-Z Integrated Resource Stewardship Contract is being considered, covering about 17,000 gross acres, with net treated acres expected to be lower following unit layout. Over the life of the contract, more than 50 million board feet of commercial timber could be offered. A public meeting to discuss the project is scheduled for September 10 in Grangeville, Idaho, followed by a site visit.
Note what now-Senator Hickenlooper has to say about the Colorado Rule…
So there’s an NOI for a proposed rescission of the rule.. As a person who was heavily involved in Colorado Roadless and is still around to write about it, I plan to follow it throughout the process. Please tell your friends to be wary of news stories like this..(perhaps written by AI?)/.
The Trump administration on Monday overturned the “roadless rule” that protected 30% of National Forest land from development for nearly 25 years. This decision dismantles a key aspect of open space protections in Colorado and nationwide.
As we all know there will be many comment periods before a final rule, and likely much litigation afterward.
I think it’s likely that folks can just trot out the same comments they had for the State Petitions Rule, and the Colorado, Idaho and Alaska Roadless Rules.. I can almost repeat them from memory but here’s an example. There will be many, many form letters along the lines of “don’t destroy national treasures” that were submitted via a click. One of the grandest things I think the Admin could do is to have a better search capability on the comments on Regulations.gov so that readers can avoid form letters. Remember, even Chris Wood, one of the key individuals involved in the 2001 Rule, said “the 2001 Rule wasn’t written on stone tablets.”
And that long-ago view is echoed today by others at TU, according to this Cowboy State Daily article.
Arguing For Reform, Not Removal
O’Dea and Corey Fisher, public land policy director for Trout Unlimited, said that just erasing the roadless rule would be going too far.
Instead, they said their groups and other outdoors organizations would favor talks between stakeholders at the local level aimed at possibly reforming the Roadless Rule.
“We’re not coming at it from the perspective that the Roadless Rule is perfect and everything on the forests are the same as in 2001,” Fisher told Cowboy State Daily.
“We want a collaborative, stakeholder-driven process. So that we can look at reforming the rule, rather than just rescinding it,” O’Dea said.
(O’Dea is with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers ). OTOH there might be tension between that position and what appears to be the national position.
The USDA Forest Service is publishing a notice seeking public comment on its intention to develop an environmental impact statement for the proposed rescission of the rule. The notice details the reasons for rescinding the rule, the potential effects on people and resources, and how national forests and grasslands are managed. The USDA Forest Service will publish the notice in the Federal Register on Friday, August 29, 2025.
The USDA Forest Service is publishing a notice seeking public comment on its intention to develop an environmental impact statement for the proposed rescission of the rule. The notice details the reasons for rescinding the rule, the potential effects on people and resources, and how national forests and grasslands are managed. The USDA Forest Service will publish the notice in the Federal Register on Friday, August 29, 2025.
“For nearly 25 years, the Roadless Rule has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to action – prohibiting road construction, which has limited wildfire suppression and active forest management,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz. “The forests we know today are not the same as the forests of 2001. They are dangerously overstocked and increasingly threatened by drought, mortality, insect-borne disease, and wildfire. It’s time to return land management decisions where they belong – with local Forest Service experts who best understand their forests and communities. We encourage participation in the upcoming public process. Your input will help to build a stronger, safer future for our forests and the communities that depend on these forests for jobs, recreation, and clean water.”
While the rescission would apply to roadless areas in Alaska, state-specific rules for Colorado and Idaho, which were part of the Administrative Procedure Act petitions, would not be affected by the proposal. In total, the 2025 rescission would apply to nearly 45 million acres of the nearly 60 million acres of inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System.
If you’ll recall, Wyoming has a unique and interesting history with the 2001 Rule, including Judge Brimmer’s injunction (this led to various projects going forward that later became “gap leases.”). You can get an idea of the “on and off-ness” during this period with the excellent Earthjustice timeline here. It is exhausting to read, let alone live through, but I don’t think you can really get a grasp of the whole without understanding some of the history. If you go back, we had a pre-TSW field trip to the federal appeals court. This was while I was still working, which in retrospect was not in the interest of my continuing employment with the FS. Then there was the campground road project to reduce damage to the stream in the Bighorns that one part of the Obama Admin approved for ARRA funding and another part wanted to hold up because it was in an IRA.
A little less than two weeks before Rollins’ pronouncement, Bighorn National Forest Supervisor Andrew Johnson told attendees at a forest steering committee meeting that he planned to seek a technical correction to the forest’s roadless boundaries from Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz.
Johnson said that roughly 50% of the forest’s suitable timber base is located in areas designated as roadless.
“If you look at the footprint of fuels treatments and timber sales and forest health work that we did, for example, in the Buffalo Municipal Watershed, we left a lot of what I would call residual risk on the table,” Johnson said at the June 15 meeting. “There were stands that were roaded stands or accessible stands, but were within inventoried roadless that didn’t fit in one of the existing exceptions to the rule, so we were unable to treat them.”
It’s unclear as of press time how the roadless rule rescission could impact Johnson’s petition. Bighorn National Forest officials did not respond to questions by press time Tuesday.
The corrections would reflect recommendations of the Bighorn Forest Roadless Collaborative, which formed in 2016 to determine how much of the forest would be included in the roadless inventory.
The 2001 rule was not formally enacted after the change in presidential administrations, and it wasn’t accounted for when the local Forest Service office revised its management plan in 2005.
It’s time for a Faulkner quote, you can imagine which one..
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past. All of us labor in webs spun long before we were born, webs of heredity and environment, of desire and consequence, of history and eternity.”
The 2001 Rule wasn’t even the beginning.. there was RARE II and so on. I only came into it in the 1995 RPA Program. As I recall, we presented the idea of “staying out of roadless areas” to the Chief and Staff group, and one person said “what about Alaska?” and the discussion was ended.
“Even when it’s good it must really be bad” department… This was an interesting piece by the Colorado Sun.. sure we’re exempt here in Colorado and that would be a good thing, but we don’t trust the Trump Admin to mean it.
“Even if that’s what the Trump administration is saying, that doesn’t mean that’s what they’ll do. They’re not necessarily known for being straight, transparent or sticking to their word,” said Joshua Hicks, director of conservation campaigns for The Wilderness Society and based out of Lakewood.
It’s almost as if there is a partisan element here.. who is the President of TWS again? And TWS wasn’t a fan of Colorado Roadless at the time.. as their rep on the State Task Force said at the time “I’ll work with you to get the best we can, but the national organization will never support it.” I wonder whether some cracks between local and national viewpoints will be a feature of this new Roadless effort as well.
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 havewarned 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.
Sigh. Here we go again. We could have a contest for most over-the-top statement on an email.. and I think the Western Environmental Law Center would win hands down. I didn’t even know that WELC was all that metaphysical.
Trump to unleash Hell on crown jewels of undisturbed public lands by rescinding Roadless Rule
Sorry, as a certified Roadless Geek and veteran of Colorado Roadless, I think this effort follows the Generational Law of Bureaucracy.. which is:
Wait until everyone’s retired who knows about how to do something (preferably over five years)… and then start the same process all over again.
This seems like a mostly symbolic waste of government time to me.. kind of like the Trump Admin equivalent of the MOG work.
Here’s the announcement, it’s pretty straightforward.
Here is there argument for why it is needed.. to help with wildfire.
Here’s what I’d do instead.. 1. stop doing plan revisions. 2. Get plan amendments done with prescribed fire, managed fire, PODs and evacuation routes. If it turns out that a critical area is in a Roadless Area, the problem is not cutting trees (we went through this in Colorado, the argument was that you could do fuel reduction treatments because.. (this was the ENGO argument for not needing tweaks to the 2001 Rule)
Fuel treatments other than PF (not restricted in RR) would be infrequent, remove “generally” small diameter material and might fit the “uncharacteristic.. range of variability” verbiage. Here’s the exact wording:
(b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section, timber may be cut, sold, or removed in inventoried roadless areas if the Responsible Official determines that one of the following circumstances exists. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber in these areas is expected to be infrequent.
(1) The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber is needed for one of the following purposes and will maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in § 294.11.
(i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; or
(ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period;
So if you follow that (and I don’t know if there’s case law in which a fuels treatment project didn’t meet the criteria), the only problem is temp roads. And sometimes that can be a problem, because there are (some, few?) places that material may need to be removed for fuels reasons and can’t be burned onsite because of the forest conditions. We also ran into problems with powerlines and dams in roadless areas. Powerlines obviously need maintenance, and equipment was allowed to get to dams based on “imminent” threat.. how immanent is “immanent.”
The point of what we did in Colorado was to locate the specific 2001 Problem Children and deal with them. As part of deal-making, acres that had roadless characteristics but had not been included in the original mapping (low-tech compared to now) were added. If I were in the Admin, I’d ask the Governors (except for Alaska, Idaho and Colorado) to identify any Problem Children and work changes to the reg from those. This has the added advantage of dealing with real world issues so that it doesn’t end up being just another sucker of employee time with the result ending up in a courtroom, being decided by someone who decided if the right words are on paper. This is not to diss my legal friends, but I think there is a better way.
In my meanderings, I wondered:
Why is Colorado Roadless Rule litigation not on the FS webpage?
Nor apparently the actual rule itself, but you can find it here.
Finally, just a note to folks unfamiliar with the 2001 Rule.. there are roads in roadless areas (original mapping issues) and there are pre-existing rights, and there is grazing and recreation (in fact part of a ski area was in a Roadless Area), so it’s not accurate to equate Roadless with “pristine” or “undisturbed.” There are powerlines and pipelines and OHV trails…
Here’s a little more (added to this) on the Nez Perce-Clearwater revised forest plan. Mostly I wanted to share this graphic of how they are “reaching out” to the public. They ask an important question: “What can you do?” The obvious meaning seems to be what can you do about the forest plan, and the answer for most people is “nothing.” They say that the plan is in the objection period, but don’t tell us that the only people who can participate are those who have already done so. They invite us to “learn more,” about this nearly-done deal, which they misleading label as a “draft Forest Management Plan.” (At the draft EIS stage, the Planning Rule refers to it as the “proposed plan,” and at the objection stage it is just the “plan.) While they have must have included similar outreach at earlier stages in the process, for those encountering this for the first time, it’s almost disingenuous.
But while I’m at it , there was also another article recently that focused on the State Line Trail, which runs through the Hoodoo Recommended Wilderness Area in the Great Burn between Idaho and Montana. (I’ve been there but haven’t been directly involved in the planning, so know only what I read.)
“It used to be a marquee backcountry ride for mountain bikers, too. That ended in 2012 when the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, which controls the Idaho side of the trail, approved a new travel management plan that barred bicycles from its portion of the trail. On the Montana side, the Lolo National Forest has long allowed bicycles on the trail.”
A new revised forest plan for the Nez Perce-Clearwater could change that, by determining that bicycles are an appropriate use in the portions of Idaho around the trail, which would mirror access on the Montana side. If the changes in the plan are finalized, possibly later this year, that would set the stage for the Nez Perce-Clearwater to revisit and alter its 2012 travel plan to formally re-allow bicycles on the trail.”
The rationale behind these changes, according to the forest supervisor, don’t seem to include consistency (more on that later): “We have these types of very primitive, amazing, out in the middle of nowhere experiences that you can get to no matter what your matter of conveyance is.” No apparent agency recognition that the conveyance is part of the experience for those who encounter it, and for some it makes it feel unpleasantly more like “somewhere.”
One of the supporters added, “It’s a small segment of the sport that this is going to appeal to,” he said. “It’s not that close to Missoula. It’s hard. The trail’s in deteriorating condition. But this opportunity is, for certain people, something they really, really want.” That small segment of certain people (who apparently want to deteriorate the trail even more) must be pretty special to get this kind of personalized attention.
“Some mountain bikers are drawn to remote, rugged, and challenging backcountry trail experiences on wild and raw landscapes,” a group of supporters commented. “These are places where it is uncommon to see other trail users, and where riding requires a high level of physical fitness and technical skill — in many cases it involves pushing a bike instead of riding at all.” That would be like hiking, wouldn’t it? So, it’s not like closing the area to this use would exclude these physically fit people from these wild and raw landscapes. I’ll admit that I don’t understand the rationale of wanting to experience a “wild and raw landscape” on a machine, which (to me) reduces the rawness and wildness of the experience.
The aura of personal opinion and politics behind these wilderness debates is why I focus my energy on other things. Here there is also talk about snowmobiles and mountain goats, and why mountain goats are treated differently in adjacent national forests.
As for the effects of snowmobiles on mountain goats, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game blamed them for disappearance from one part of this area, but the founder of the Backcountry Sled Patriots says otherwise (citing other research). The Lolo National Forest cited the negative effect of motorized over-snow machines as reason for designating them a species of conservation concern. The Nez Perce-Clearwater is not concerned about mountain goats. The Forest Service minimizes the importance of the areas at issue to mountain goats (though they apparently used to be some places they are not found now).
About the Lolo, Marten, the regional forester, who determines which species are SCC, wrote:
“Compared to other ungulates, the species appears particularly sensitive to human disturbance. Motorized and non-motorized recreation, as well as aerial vehicles, are well documented to affect the species, particularly during winter and kid-rearing season, with impacts ranging from permanent or seasonal (displacement), to changes in behavior and productivity.”
The regional director for ecosystem planning said that she didn’t see the different listing decisions as being in conflict with each other. Rather, she said, they reflect that mountains goats are doing better overall on one forest than the other. This may be technically/legally possible since SCC are based on persistence in an individual forest plan area. However, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to manage one national forest to increase the risk to, and to contribute to SCC designation on, another forest. Moreover, the Planning Handbook states that “species of conservation concern in adjoining National Forest System plan areas” should be considered by the regional forester in making this designation. This all has kind of an arbitrary ring to it.
As for consistent management across national forest boundaries, The Nez Perce-Clearwater plans to change the shape of the Hoodoo RWA to remove the key snowmobile areas from it, so that boundary between the national forests becomes a boundary for the RWA. The Forest Service points out that the plan revision process in the hands of forest supervisors, not the regional office. The forest supervisors disclaim any obligation for consistency, and even suggest that travel planning may produce a different result, and “forest plans and travel management plans are continually updated and amended” so they could change again. That doesn’t square well with history. The every-third-of-a-century Forest plan revision should be the time to get it right. Even if the regional forester doesn’t want to say what the plans must do, that person could simply order them to be consistent along this boundary.
After yesterday I found this link to the public comments There were 106 K so perhaps it took a year to analyze them. I don’t know how many were form comments; usually roadless brings out quite a few of those. Which might not be helpful at discerning what the public thinks about reinstatement vs. Alternative 2. I doubt if many of the commenters, at least for the form comments, were even aware of alternative 2.
We need to protect our wild spaces more so now than ever. The importance of the Tongas National Forest and the people who call it home can not be understated. Enough of our world is “improved” upon already. We have options other than timber, and other areas to get timber. Preserve at least some of this world as it should be.
In reality, just as with Trump’s choice of removing the Roadless Rule, I think the real reason is that key groups wanted it. Which is fine, of course, but someone had to write a rationale for the rule text. I think some explanations are better than others. So let’s examine them.
(1) Adopting Alternative 1 also takes appropriate consideration of consultation with sovereign Tribal Nations, which uniformly and strongly supported Alternative 1.
That is cool that the Tribes all agreed “uniformly and strongly.”
(2) Although Alternative 2 serves many of the same values as Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would introduce potentially confusing changes both to the location of designated Alaska Roadless Areas and to the management prescriptions associated with certain management categories. Alternative 2 also lacks a history of implementation consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule and the 2016 Forest Plan, potentially complicating implementation.
Doesn’t any new regulation “introduce potentially confusing changes”.. think 2012 Planning Rule, new oil and gas or grazing regulations? or Monumentizing? Don’t they also “lack a history of implementation”? But sticking to Roadless, how come Coloradans and Idahoans could handle these complexities but the Department thinks Alaskans can’t? Thumbs down on this one.
(3) The minor environmental advantages of Alternative 2 do not outweigh Alternative 1’s other advantages and those environmental benefits could be achieved under Alternative 1 through alternative planning and program mechanisms that provide greater flexibility for achieving program goals.
The Forest Service employs various planning and project-specific efforts to maintain and restore watersheds by strategically focusing investments on watershed improvement projects and conservation practices at the landscape and watershed scales. For example, watersheds have unique characteristics and can best be addressed through Forest Planning and site-specific planning.
This is an interesting argument.. “we don’t need to put this in a reg.. because protections on the other 110 K Unroaded Roadless acres can be handled during.. Forest and site-specific planning. Whoa. I thought. This argument is that watershed protection is best achieved through Forest Planning and site-specific planning. But then why do you need a Roadless Rule at all? This sounds like an argument for “no Rule.” For me, that’s a double thumbs down.
*****************
What about renewable energy?
Now, one of the things that Colorado Roadless limited was “linear construction zones” for building pipelines, powerlines, etc. We had a fascinating time and a court case with the 2001 Rule talking about whether those are “roads” so in the CRR limited them. I think this is a nice wrap-up of what is allowed in roadless areas with regard to energy infrastructure in the response to comments.
As they say:
The 2001 Roadless Rule has and will continue to accommodate access for qualified mining, energy, and community infrastructure needs while also conserving the multiple ecologic, social, cultural, and economic values supported by roadless areas on the forest….
The Federal Power Act (FPA) grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to issue and administer licenses for hydropower projects. For projects located on NFS lands, section 4(e) of the FPA requires FERC to assure the project will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which the forest reservation was created or acquired. While section 4(e) of the FPA gives the Forest Service the authority to impose mandatory conditions in the FERC license to ensure the adequate protection and use of forest land and resources, these 4(e) conditions cannot usurp FERC’s role in deciding whether to license a hydropower facility. In short, if FERC decides that a road is necessary for facility development, the Forest Service cannot veto the project or road, but rather is limited to imposing reasonable terms and conditions necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of the forest. The 2001 Roadless Rule (at 36 CFR 294.12(b)(3) (2001)) provides that a road may be constructed or reconstructed in an IRA if ‘‘[a] road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty.’’ The FPA is one such statute. The 2001 Roadless Rule also does not prohibit the construction or maintenance of transmission lines. While new temporary or permanent roads are not permitted in IRAs, temporary linear construction zones can be authorized to facilitate the construction of transmission lines, along with other applicable exceptions set forth in the 2001 Roadless Rule. The courts have sustained that interpretation on more than one occasion. The USDA has acknowledged that the restriction on road construction, including the construction of access roads, may pose a challenge for transmission routes that cross IRAs, potentially increasing construction and maintenance costs. However, based on analysis for previous transmission projects on the Tongass, roaded alternatives are not necessarily less expensive to construct and maintain than those relying on other means of access. Construction and maintenance costs depend on terrain, distance to communities, and other factors. Helicopter access, temporary construction zones, and/or trails can also be used to provide access and may even be less expensive than the road construction and maintenance costs associated with permanent roads in remote areas. In addition, the rights-of-way granted in section 4407 of Public Law 109–59, as amended, also allows for specified roaded access in the forest for transmission lines and other utility systems.
I’m sure that there is other interesting stuff in the response to comments and other sections, so if you find something please put it in the comments below.
In the possibly least surprising news ever in our world, the Alaska Roadless Rule has been reinstated. Because Roadless geekhood is part of my lived experience, and because we can’t really expect reporters to understand the ins and outs of Roadless, I’ll take a stab at explaining it in some detail, because I think some interesting points were missed in the news coverage I saw.
********
First, a question for our legal TSW folks:
If a District Ranger said specifically what she wanted to do, in say the details of a NEPA project, and announced it in advance, that would be considered “pre-decisional” and we were told that was not a good thing to do; not sure if it’s actually illegal or just bad NEPA practice, or doesn’t build trust with the public.
However, the President said very clearly that he wanted to reinstall the Alaska Roadless Rule specifically. So that seems pre-decisional also..unless Presidents don’t follow the same rules. But his (in this case) ideas are carried out via the regulatory process. So is pre-decisional only an issue for projects and not regs?
****************
Great Thing
First, they made a new decision from the old EIS, which is great for not making FS employees and others do more work when the ultimate outcome was known. So kudos to the Admin for that!
Why Did it Take So Long?
Looking at their project site, it looks like they did an ANPR on November 23, 2021. I couldn’t find the reading room for the ANPR comments, so I don’t know how many they had.
Now, you might say, this is 2023, why did it take so long? I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who knows the answer. There were a set of other decisions announced at the same time, and I heard much pressure from ENGOs recently, so maybe they were saving it for an opportune time.
Which Alternative was the Environmentally Preferred and Why?
What interested me was Alternative 2, which according to the summary in the text:
Alternative 2 provided limited additional timber harvest opportunities in comparison to Alternative 1 by removing protections from certain areas designated as roadless in 2001 while maximizing protection for unroaded areas by adding other Roadless Area designations. It removed from roadless designation approximately 142,000 acres that were substantially altered by road construction or timber harvest conducted during periods when the Tongass National Forest was exempted from the 2001 Roadless Rule. Alternative 2 also would have added 110,000 acres of unroaded lands as Alaska Roadless Areas that were not designated by the 2001 Rule, and by extension, remained undesignated in Alternative 1 (the 2020 Rule).
Now, Alternative 2 was designated the Environmentally Preferable Alternative
As described in the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule decision, Alternative 2 has been determined to be the environmentally preferred alternative, although the environmental benefits of Alternative 2 in comparison to Alternative 1 are minor. While Alternative 2 would designate and manage slightly fewer acres (approximately 32,000 acres) as Alaska Roadless Areas relative to the acres of Inventoried Roadless in Alternative 1, it would increase conservation of roadless characteristics and values because all the acres designated and managed as Alaska Roadless Areas under Alternative 2 are undeveloped at this time. Specifically, Alternative 2 would remove the roadless designation from 142,000 acres that are designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas under Alternative 1, but have already been roaded, harvested, or substantially altered, and therefore do not currently possess the roadless characteristics and values the 2001 Roadless Rule is intended to conserve. At the same time, Alternative 2 would designate as Alaska Roadless Areas approximately 110,000 acres that are undeveloped land but that were not designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas under the 2001 Rule and, by extension, are not designated as such in Alternative 1. Alternative 2 limits timber harvest opportunities, road construction, and road reconstruction, on the most acres of undeveloped land out of all the alternatives considered. All other action alternatives considered in the 2020 FEIS involve sizeable roadless area reductions. For this reason, Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferred alternative.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with this stuff, the 2001 Rule included lands that were logged and roaded, because of the problems with the maps at the time and the process that they used (including being in a hurry). Knowing that, they put an exception in the 2001 Rule for these areas (the term of art is “substantially altered” but you can substitute Roaded Roadless without any loss of meaning.)
If you look at §294.12, you’ll find that you can maintain classified roads in roadless areas, and also reconstruct them but only if there are environmental threats.
and for timber harvest §294.13 (b) 4: Roadless characteristics have been substantially altered in a portion of an inventoried roadless area due to the construction of a classified road and subsequent timber harvest. Both the road construction and subsequent timber harvest must have occurred after the area was designated an inventoried roadless area and prior to January 12, 2001. Timber may be cut, sold, or removed only in the substantially altered portion of the inventoried roadless area.
In simple language, the 2001 Rule allows continued maintenance of roads (and reconstruction for environmental problems) and timber harvest on “substantially altered acres.”
So back to Alternative 2. It sounds like the idea was to swap out “Roaded Roadless” for new “Unroaded Roadless ” acres. This is what the Colorado Rule did. Given that explanation, let’s go back to why Alternative 2 was designated environmentally preferred . It would take the 142K acres already roaded, harvested, and substantially altered out, and designate 110K new Unroaded Unharvested acres to put under new Roadless protection. So that is how the Department concluded:
Alternative 2 limits timber harvest opportunities, road construction, and road reconstruction, on the most acres of undeveloped land out of all the alternatives considered.
My next post will talk about the Department’s stated rationale for not selecting the environmentally preferable alternative in this case.
If you have any questions or corrections please put them in the comments. This is complicated stuff!
