Why should you care about roadless areas?

By Brad Smith
Reader Contributor

Some of my fondest childhood memories involve hiking to pristine alpine destinations like Harrison Lake, catching cutthroat trout in a secret stream and seeing a rare mountain caribou in the Selkirk Crest. These were adventures I took for granted at the time.

During my high school senior year, I saw a map on the front page of the Coeur d’Alene Press and an article about a proposed policy to protect National Forest System “roadless areas.” Looking at the map, I realized these were the places where I went hiking, fishing and wildlife viewing. My neighbors hunted and dirt biked there. Roadless areas also provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat because they remain largely undeveloped.

The article announced a public meeting at the Idaho Panhandle National Forests supervisor’s office in Coeur d’Alene. Hundreds of similar meetings were being held nationwide to gather input on the Clinton administration’s proposal to protect about 58.5 million acres of roadless areas.

I attended that meeting — my first-ever public meeting. Maps covered the walls and Forest Service officials answered questions. You could submit a written comment, but I chose to record my verbal testimony on a cassette player. The USFS received roughly 1.6 million comments on the proposal, more than 90% of which supported it.

Finalized in 2001, the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule restricted road construction and timber harvesting in roadless areas. It also restricted certain mineral activities. These protections helped preserve some of our nation’s largest remaining tracts of undeveloped land.

Fifty-eight million acres sounds like a lot, but it represents only about 30% of the National Forest System. All of the remaining acreage had been developed through road construction, logging, mining or other forms of development.

Idaho’s elected officials opposed the 2001 rule. In 2006, the state petitioned the federal government to adopt a different policy for Idaho’s roadless areas. By then, I was an intern at the Idaho Conservation League. I was assigned to draft comments about every Idaho roadless area in response to the state’s petition. ICL was concerned that Idaho was seeking to reopen the state’s remaining 9.3 million acres of roadless areas to development.

Public meetings gave Idahoans opportunities to weigh in. People in Bonners Ferry, Sandpoint, Coeur d’Alene and throughout the state supported protecting places where they hike, hunt, fish, pick huckleberries, camp and view the stars.

In 2008, an Idaho-specific policy was finalized. ICL ultimately supported the Idaho Roadless Rule, which established five management classifications. It provided stronger protections for some large, remote backcountry areas while allowing greater flexibility for activities such as reducing hazardous fuels near communities. The rule represented a compromise after years of public input and negotiations.

Recently, the Trump administration closed a public comment period on a proposal to repeal the 2001 national rule. More than 1 million submissions were received, and an analysis found that more than 99% opposed repeal.

The national and Idaho rules helped end the timber wars of the 1980s and ’90s. These policies gave people who care about undeveloped public lands some assurance that not every acre would be opened to roads and logging. Repealing the national rule could reignite those conflicts. Rather than eliminate national protections, the administration should consider state-specific proposals that maintain meaningful safeguards while addressing legitimate local concerns.

Although the administration has not proposed repealing Idaho’s rule, recent developments show why Idahoans should pay attention. On Sept. 29, Idaho County notified Gov. Brad Little that it intends to seek changes to the management classifications of the 1.7 million acres of Idaho Roadless Areas within its borders. The county wants those lands moved into the Idaho rule’s least restrictive category: General Forest. It has asked Little for assistance and plans to submit a formal request to the USFS, while encouraging other counties to join its effort.

Changing these classifications would not eliminate roadless status, but could reduce existing safeguards and allow more road construction and timber harvesting in sensitive areas. Both roadless rules already allow certain hazardous-fuel treatments, so the rationale for seeking broader changes deserves scrutiny.

If you hike, hunt, fish, camp, or ride a mountain bike or motorcycle in our national forests, you should care about roadless areas. Even if you don’t participate in these activities, you should care if you value fish and wildlife, old-growth forests, clean water or the opportunity for future generations to experience wild places.

Brad Smith is the interim executive director of the Idaho Conservation League. He lives and works in Sandpoint and prizes National Forest System roadless areas for their recreation opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat, and clean water.