Does roadless rule? Social-ecological consequences of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Max Lambert , J. Nicholas Hendershot, Michael Case, James Robertson, Ailene K Ettinger, Michele S Buonanduci, Ryan D Haugo, Kerry L Metlen, Marcos D Robles, Joseph Fargione

The Roadless Rule, established 25 years ago to maintain 58.5 million federal forest acres in roadless condition, is one of the U.S.’s most expansive and debated natural resource experiments. We synthesize research on the effects of the Roadless Rule on biodiversity, wildfire, forest and watershed health, and economics to guide current and future decision making. Research shows the Roadless Rule provides substantial biodiversity protections. Wildfire outcomes of the Roadless Rule are mixed. Compared to roaded federal forests, Roadless Areas have fewer human-caused ignitions, similar wildfire severity, and tend towards larger wildfires. Although management occurs in Roadless Areas, it remains unclear if wildfire interventions and outcomes sufficiently match management goals. The Roadless Rule protects large watershed areas and river lengths and provides drinking water to millions of Americans. Even so, the Rule effects on water quality or supply are largely unmeasured. The Roadless Rule often benefits rural economies – largely through recreation and amenity values – with possible tradeoffs. Retaining the Rule would maintain conservation and existing economic benefits. Rescinding the Rule would impair these benefits. Increasing protections for Roadless Areas could constrain necessary management without clear benefits. Adjustments to the Roadless Rule may increase management flexibility and would benefit from effectiveness research.