In another public land controversy, the Trump administration recently moved to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. The regulation restricts road development on 44 million acres of national forest land, intended to protect resources like wildlife habitat and clean water. But the rule also discourages forest management to mitigate wildfires, as even some proponents acknowledge. On wildfire grounds, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox welcomed Trump’s repeal, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced it on environmental grounds.
Unfortunately for both states, neither maintaining the nationwide rule nor repeal is likely to be durable. Between 2001 and 2011, presidents and judges variously upheld and struck the original Roadless Rule, and the recent repeal will likely spark more seesawing. But from Utah to California, states have an opportunity to develop their own durable roadless rules tailored to their landscapes.
Because Idaho and Colorado made their own federal rules, the repeal will not affect their national forests. Implemented over 14 years ago, their regulations afford both greater protections and flexibility to certain areas than the national rule. The Trump administration explicitly stated it would consider new state-led roadless rule petitions, citing the same law Colorado and Idaho used. Other states should take the opportunity.
For both Idaho and Colorado, the processes were arduous but they produced the most durable forms of roadless policy yet. In 2006, Idaho proposed a tiered system of protection following consultation with local governments, tribes, industry and others. The state’s proposal was unanimously approved by a federal advisory council that included hard-line proponents and opponents of the national rule. President George W. Bush finalized the Idaho rule in 2008, and it has survived subsequent court challenges and administrations.
The development of the Colorado Rule was more complicated, but the result was similarly tailored and ultimately durable. After a bipartisan task force received public input, the Republican governor submitted a roadless rule petition in 2006. When a Democrat succeeded him, the state twice requested modifications to the regulation, which was finalized under President Obama in 2012. The Colorado Rule incorporated carveouts for certain ski and coal exploration areas, and it created two tiers of roadless protections. Courts struck down the coal exception on procedural grounds, but otherwise it has remained intact.
What emerged from the Idaho and Colorado petitions were compromise rules that both allow for road building where needed and strongly protect prized backcountry. They won at least the tacit support of environmental groups, tribes, industry, sportsmen, Democrats and Republicans, and they have remained policy across administrations. No proponents of the nationwide rule, nationwide reform or nationwide repeal can claim that record.
The administration’s openness to petitions and preservation of the Idaho and Colorado rules should encourage red and blue states to pursue tailored rulemaking. But to be successful, they should learn from Idaho and Colorado. Compromise and local responsiveness were critical for each. The rules implemented flexibilities and protections that both exceeded the national rule, and they included locally tailored provisions: the Colorado rule excluded ski areas, and the final Idaho rule included particular designations for places significant to tribes.
Alaska’s 2018 petition is a counterexample. Under the first Trump administration, the state requested and received a standalone exemption for the Tongass National Forest, a move polarizing tribes, timber companies and environmental organizations. The exemption was repealed under the Biden administration. Had Alaska proposed a statewide rule with both protections and exemptions, the result might have been different.
But if states and the federal government are willing to compromise and undergo the difficulty of governing, more state-specific roadless rules could emerge. Tailored rules will avoid the wildfires and unwanted development that might come with judicial and administrative flip-flopping.
Those are challenges that Idaho and Colorado and their forests will not face because of their leaders’ willingness to govern. On both sides, activists have avoided and will continue to avoid the difficulties of making policy by battling in press releases, the courts and online.
Leaders should instead build the frameworks to meet our moment of megafires, invasive species and emerging technologies, rather than accepting the false binary of leaning on sclerotic rules or destroying them. The future of our nation’s forests, from their productivity to enchanting character, relies on that resolve. States can lead the way.