In 30 plus years of working and residing in South Lake Tahoe, I never take for granted the Forest Service roads and trails that I use to access the natural wonder that surrounds us, some of which lie right out of my front door.

Recent actions taken by the current administration to dramatically change the regulatory structure used by the US Forest Service to manage its road and trail network are alarming. In late August, the US Department of Agriculture announced its proposals to rescind the Roadless Rule (Est. 2001) and dramatically revise the Travel Management Rule (Est. 2005). Together, these regulations govern how public lands are accessed.

In a nutshell, the administration’s reasons for proposing these changes are to give direction and authority to local leaders to create more roads and open more existing roads to public motorized use. Even though the current regulatory framework allows consideration of such actions, the argument is that this can’t be done easily enough in enough places.

But that is why the regulations exist in the first place. Building more roads and opening more roads to public access should not be easy, and location is everything.

Roads are absolutely necessary for providing recreation and management access to the National Forest.
But the question is not whether to build more roads to increase capacity to manage the forest and provide public access, or to open more roads and trails to motorized use (and e-bikes).

The question is, should we dramatically eliminate or change the existing regulatory framework for considering such actions?

Of course, each Forest must routinely plan work to address local climate change impacts and evolving recreation demand. The existing regulations provide a consistent national framework for protecting water, fish and wildlife, and the quality of the recreation experience for a wide variety of users. They also address the reality that Forest Service roads are the single greatest contributor to sediment pollution from Forest Service lands, and the agency is currently facing a $7 billion backlog in road maintenance.

So, I believe the answer is no. The current proposals should be rejected.

I also believe that reasonable modifications of the Roadless Rule and Travel Management Rule should be considered to address changes in both resource conditions, like wildfire risk, and public demand. However, those modifications should be developed through a transparent and rigorous process of working with public lands stakeholders, including USFS-hosted public meetings. The current process is not that.

The public comment period ends for these actions on October 6th (Roadless Rule) and September 23rd (Travel Management). Several environmental organizations provide easy-to-use links to submit your comments and lend your voice regarding the current proposals. The following are the three I recommend for on-point messaging. It takes 2 minutes, and you will have done something important to protect the forest, roads, and trails on public lands, including those in your backyard.

https://www.outdooralliance.org/ Outdoor Alliance
https://www.tu.org/ Trout Unlimited
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/ Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://camtb.org/category/current-policy-legislation/ California Mountain Biking Coalition

Susan Norman is the Sierra Nevada Alliance Board Chair and a retired US Forest Service Hydrologist.