Trump administration moves ahead to end roadless rule on national forests

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The Trump administration announced Tuesday it is moving ahead with plans to rescind a quarter-century-old rule that blocked logging, road building and other development on national forest lands, drawing the ire of environmentalists nationwide.

The U.S. Forest Service is filing a proposal that would scrap the so called roadless rule adopted in the last days of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 2001. The agency described the rule as a one-size-fits-all restriction that has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to reducing wildfire risks in the nation’s forests.

“Our forests can’t afford another decade of inaction. Across the country, we’ve watched preventable conditions — overgrown stands, insect outbreaks and disease — turn healthy landscapes into tinderboxes,” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement.

Scientists say that worsening wildfires are driven by a combination of climate change that warms and dries out forests, less logging and decades of fire suppression that has allowed fuels to build up.

Clinton had signed the rule to safeguard undeveloped national forest land from commercial logging and mineral leasing, with a goal of keeping ecosystems pristine and protecting water supplies.

Calling the roadless rule a failure, Rollins said the proposal calls for restoring authority to local forest managers and removing barriers that have kept them from improving forest health across millions of acres.

The roadless rule has affected 30% of national forest lands nationwide, or about 59 million acres (24 million hectares), according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency over the Forest Service.

The Forest Service will gather public comment on the proposal and on a draft of the environmental impact statement that was filed Tuesday in the Federal Register. While the rescission removes national designation of roadless areas, officials say it doesn’t mandate timber cutting or road construction.

The filing of the proposal comes as no surprise as the Trump administration first announced its intention to get rid of the rule during a meeting last summer of Western governors in New Mexico.

Environmentalists have been sounding the alarm since then and reiterated Tuesday that lifting protections would have detrimental effects for old growth forests, wildlife and water supplies.

“Americans across the political spectrum have made it crystal clear that they don’t want political appointees removing protections from public lands,” said Chris Krupp, an attorney with the group WildEarth Guardians. “It would be a gross misreading of public sentiment to take the roadless rule away from Americans and our wildlife, and politicians do so at their jeopardy.”

The Alaska Wilderness League and other groups raised concerns about what a rescission could mean for places such as Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the nation’s largest national forest and a lightning rod for litigation. State political leaders there have supported an exemption to the roadless rule that they argue impedes economic opportunities.

During the latter part of Trump’s first term, the federal government lifted restrictions on logging and road-building in the Tongass, something the Biden administration later reversed.

Emma Powell, the Alaska Wilderness League’s government affairs manager, described the Tongass as a global treasure that serves as a home for salmon runs and abundant wildlife. She added that cultures and livelihoods are connected to the forest.

“From fisheries to tourism and outdoor recreation, these landscapes also support thousands of jobs and generate billions in economic activity each year,” Powell said.

Alex Craven, the Sierra Club’s forest campaign manager, disputed officials’ claims that getting rid of the rule would allow for more work to be done to reduce wildfire threats. Craven suggested more roads would lead to more fires and that it never prevented the Forest Service from doing targeted work to reduce wildfire fuels.

He vowed that the Sierra Club and other groups would fight the proposal at each step.

The deadline for comments is Sept. 21.