A proposed federal rule change could open millions of acres across some of Nevada's most pristine landscapes to road building and commercial logging, while another change could substantially expand off-road vehicle access into closed areas.
More than 3 million acres in Nevada are currently shielded by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, closing them to road building and logging. The rule doesn't prevent livestock grazing or mineral development — as long as new roads aren't built to facilitate those activities.
But claiming that the rule is preventing wildfire risk reduction work across the nation's forests, the Forest Service is looking to repeal it. The rescission would remove protections from roughly 44 million acres nationally.
In Nevada, a state with little commercial logging, opponents worry that the rule could open up existing roadless areas to development.
"More roads does not equal less fires, but this administration seems to think it's a great idea to have more roads," said Shaaron Netherton, executive director of Friends of Nevada Wilderness, a group staunchly opposed to the rule's repeal.
Its proposed rescission is the latest in a string of reversals for public land management policies that have been in place for decades.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration rescinded two off-road vehicle executive orders that dated back to the 1970s, labeling them "outdated and burdensome" obstacles to logging and energy production. Increasing logging and "energy dominance" are key objectives of the current administration.
The administration is also poised to decide on revisions to the 2005 Travel Management Rule that would shift to a presumption that Forest Service land is open to vehicle travel unless earmarked as closed — a 180-degree pivot from existing policy established under former Republican President George W. Bush's administration.
Matthew Giltner, executive director of the Nevada Offroad Association, said the changes would be "almost inconsequential" in Nevada, a state that already has thousands of miles of off-road trails, including the nation's first Congressionally designated off-highway vehicle route.
"We can equate forest management with feral horse management. There's an emotional component," he said. "It makes us warm and fuzzy, but that's not the best science behind management."
But environmental groups don't see the changes through that filter.
"It's just a systematic dismantling of everything," Netherton said.
Road woes
Nationwide, roughly 193 million acres, or 6 percent of the country's land, is managed by the Forest Service. Inventoried roadless areas extend through nearly one third of that land.
Enacted under Democratic President Bill Clinton's administration, the Roadless Rule designated the first inventoried roadless areas — lands that generally contain resources such as public drinking water sources, cultural properties or habitat for endangered or threatened species.
Most of the areas are concentrated in the Western United States. There are more than 5.8 million acres of Forest Service land in Nevada. More than half of those, nearly 3.2 million acres, are inventoried roadless areas, including thousands of acres within the Lake Tahoe Basin.
"The intended purpose was to protect the nation's collective roadless area resources from the negative impacts of roads and timber harvesting," according to a 2020 congressional report.
But there were other motivations spurring the rulemaking, according to Michael Childers, a public lands expert and associate professor at Colorado State University, including shutting down roads in portions of the national forests that are costly to maintain.
At the time of the rule's issuance, the Forest Service estimated it had 380,000 miles of roads, mostly built in the late 20th century for timber harvest and log removal. Driving for pleasure, the service noted, was the "single-largest recreational use of Forest Service managed lands, with more than 1.7 million vehicles using those roads each day to visit national forests."
The Forest Service has seen its ability to maintain its roads shrink as costs have ballooned, estimating earlier this year that it has $6.12 billion in deferred road maintenance.
The Roadless Rule's enactment also extended protections to sections of forestlands without actually designating them as wilderness, appeasing environmentalists, Childers said. Wilderness areas have stricter protections than inventoried roadless areas.
The rule immediately opened a flood of lawsuits, and it was revised in 2005 under Bush's administration.
"Conservative politicians, particularly in the American West, have viewed this as another hindrance of the economic possibilities of public lands," Childers said.
'You have a choice'
At the same time the Roadless Rule was being enacted, the Bush administration was also tightening down on off-road vehicle use on public lands. Instead of all Forest Service roads being open to motorized vehicles unless posted as closed, they would now be closed unless posted as open. The Bureau of Land Management later issued similar directives.
In Nevada, roughly 87 percent of the state's land is managed by the federal government. Restricting off-road vehicle usage would affect one of the state's most popular recreational activities, and many in the state, including the Nevada Association of Counties, were against it.
At the time the rule shifting off-road vehicle travel was issued, Nevada's Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest contained more than 6,000 miles of Forest Service roads and at least that many miles of unofficial roads and motorized trails created by off-road use, according to the Forest Service.
The current proposal is to shift to a policy that Forest Service roads are open to off-road travel unless designated as closed.
Giltner said if there aren't trails designated for motorized off-road use, users are going to create their own.
"So, you have a choice," he said. "You can have a managed forest and managed roads and managed trails, or our community's going to make them anyway.
"If you provide quality trails to drive on, they stay on them."
According to the BlueRibbon Coalition, a nonprofit group focused on preserving access for off-road, snowmobile, e-bike and other mechanized vehicle users, "The same roads that provide motorized recreation access are also the infrastructure land managers need for active forest health work, so a rule aimed at one goal ends up undermining both."
'Politics are what they are'
The federal government has staked the rescission of the Roadless Rule on the argument that its repeal will help with wildfire mitigation. The administration has labeled the Roadless Rule as "a one-size-fits-all restriction that has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to wildfire risk reduction work."
But, according to the Center for Western Priorities, the Forest Service's own analysis shows that repealing the rule would increase the risk of wildfire ignitions for only "modest" gains in fuel reduction.
Nationally, 95 percent of all wildfires are started by people, and nearly two-thirds of those fires are started along roadsides.
"Vehicles dragging chains, people throwing cigarettes, or vehicles parking in tall grass are all common causes of roadside [wildfire] starts," according to the Forest Service. "The Forest Service as well as municipal fire departments have known this for years."
According to research from scientists at the Wilderness Society, areas with the most wildfire ignitions over the last three-plus decades are those within 50 meters of roads. The rate of ignition near a road is roughly four times greater than in wilderness and roadless areas.
Johanna Nosal, a former Forest Service forester who spent nearly two decades with the agency, said that from a forest management standpoint, repealing the Roadless Rule could help the agency better perform fuel mitigation work, but agreed it won't do much to cut down on wildfire prevalence.
Nosal, who worked in multiple Western states, said many of the roadless areas in forests she managed had already experienced logging or had roads criss-crossing them. However, the 2001 rule generally encumbered mitigation work in those areas. She said from a forestry standpoint, she supports repealing the rule because it could allow increased fuel reduction and forest resiliency work.
The Forest Service estimates that more than 40 percent of inventoried roadless areas have high or very high wildfire potential, and that just 5 percent of those areas have seen fuel reduction work since 2014.
"Acting now … is the best way to restore the balance, reduce wildfire risk, and secure the long-term health of our forests," Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said in a press release.
But, Nosal cautioned, repealing the roadless rule isn't going to prevent wildfires.
"Those are going to happen, whether we like it or not, since most Western forests are adapted to fire," she said, noting that performing fuel reduction work in areas currently protected under the Roadless Rule will have just "a very small chance of making meaningful impact on wildfire."
Public comment on the off-road plan closed in late September; public comment on the Roadless Rule closes Oct. 6.
Giltner, the off-road advocate, pointed out that even though the rules were open for public comment, their enactment is all but a done deal.
"Politics are what they are," he said. "They don't put it out there to not do it. Then, the next administration will turn it back on."
