USDA Proposes Rescinding 2001 Roadless Rule for National Forests
On Tuesday, US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced that the US Forest Service (USFS) filed a proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety, which would remove national restrictions on road construction and certain forest management activities in inventoried roadless areas.
The 2001 Roadless Rule has restricted road construction and limited some USFS management activities for 25 years, USDA said. More than 44 million acres of the 193-million-acre National Forest System are currently covered by the rule.
The proposed rescission would remove the national designation of roadless areas but would not mandate timber cutting or road construction. Instead, decisions about roadless areas would be sent to local national forest managers.
More than 95% of inventoried roadless areas are in ten Western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The proposed rule does not apply to national forests in Colorado and Idaho because those lands are under separate state-specific roadless regulations.
USFS will seek public comment on the proposed rule and a draft environmental impact statement filed in the Federal Register.
In a statement, USFS Chief Tom Schultz said:
“Active forest management is not an option. It’s essential. More than 40% of inventoried roadless areas, primarily in the West, have high or very high wildfire hazard potential. And only 5% of those areas have received hazardous fuels reduction treatments since 2014. At the same time, more than a quarter of these lands—11.3 million acres—are already near existing roads. Acting now, thoughtfully, and decisively, is the best way to restore the balance, reduce wildfire risk, and secure the long-term health of our forests and neighboring communities.”
FEA compiles the Wood Markets News from various 3rd party sources to provide readers with the latest news impacting forest product markets. Opinions or views expressed in these articles do not necessarily represent those of FEA.