Endangered Species
Roadless areas are disproportionately important habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered plants and animals.
Overview
Roadless areas in the National Forest System are home to a disproportionate share of America's most imperiled wildlife. A study of 537 wildlife species of conservation concern in the contiguous United States found that 308 of them — 57 percent — have suitable habitat in one or more Inventoried Roadless Areas. The typical roadless area provides habitat for ten such species; some provide habitat for as many as 62. These are the species closest to extinction: federally listed threatened and endangered species, candidate species under review for listing, and species ranked as critically imperiled by state and federal biologists (Dietz et al. 2021).
The legal framework that protects these species is the Endangered Species Act. When a federal agency takes an action that may affect a listed species, the ESA requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to make sure the action does not push the species toward extinction. In practice, this consultation almost never stops projects. A study of 88,290 ESA consultations over a seven-year period found that only two — 0.0023 percent — resulted in a finding that a project would jeopardize a species' survival. Researchers describe this as a system where minor impacts accumulate, compounding into what amounts to "death by a thousand cuts" (Malcom & Li 2015; Evansen et al. 2020).
The implication for roadless areas is straightforward. Once roads are built and projects begin, the legal system rarely intervenes to stop them — even where listed species are present. The protection that the Roadless Rule provides is preventive: by limiting the road construction that triggers federal undertakings in the first place, it has kept a large share of America's most imperiled species in habitat that has remained intact. Imperiled species also lose habitat at less than half the rate on federal lands as on private lands, underscoring the role of federal land protections in slowing decline (Eichenwald et al. 2020). Removing the Roadless Rule would not change ESA requirements. It would change how often those requirements get tested, on lands where the evidence shows post-hoc consultation rarely changes outcomes.
What the research shows
Roadless areas hold habitat for over half of America's wildlife species of conservation concern. A study of 537 imperiled wildlife species in the contiguous U.S. found that 308 — 57 percent — have suitable habitat in one or more Inventoried Roadless Areas. The median roadless area provides habitat for 10 such species, with a maximum of 62 (Dietz et al. 2021).
Roadless areas fill gaps in the existing protected-area network. Adding all Inventoried Roadless Areas to the U.S. protected-area system would reduce the number of imperiled wildlife species considered "poorly represented" in protected areas by 38 species. Roadless areas particularly increase representation of underprotected ecosystem types, including temperate grasslands (+57%) and cool temperate forests (+52%) (Talty et al. 2020; Dietz et al. 2021).
ESA consultation rarely stops projects. Of 88,290 ESA consultations conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a seven-year period, only two — 0.0023 percent — resulted in a "jeopardy" finding that would prevent a project. Researchers note that minor impacts often go uncounted, compounding over time (Malcom & Li 2015; Evansen et al. 2020).
Federal land protections slow habitat loss for imperiled species. Imperiled species lost the least habitat (3.6 percent) on federal lands, compared to more than twice that rate (8.1 percent) on private lands without conservation easements. The Endangered Species Act's protective effect is strongest on federal lands (Eichenwald et al. 2020).
Most listed species are declining, not recovering. A review of all ESA-listed species found that 52 percent had declining status trends, compared with 8 percent improving. The authors concluded that threats are persistent and pervasive, funding has been insufficient, and at least ten times more species probably qualify for listing than have been listed (Evans et al. 2016).
Sources
Show all 9 sources
Peer-reviewed research
- Dietz, M. S., Barnett, K., Belote, R. T., & Aplet, G. H. (2021). The importance of U.S. national forest roadless areas for vulnerable wildlife species. Global Ecology and Conservation, 32, e01943.
- Evansen, M., Li, Y.-W., & Malcom, J. (2020). Same law, diverging practice: Comparative analysis of Endangered Species Act consultations by two federal agencies. PLoS ONE, 15(3), e0230477.
- Eichenwald, A. J., Evans, M. J., & Malcom, J. W. (2020). US imperiled species are most vulnerable to habitat loss on private lands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(8).
- Talty, M. J., Mott Lacroix, K., Aplet, G. H., & Belote, R. T. (2020). Conservation value of national forest roadless areas. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(11), e288.
- Evans, D. M., Che-Castaldo, J. P., Crouse, D., et al. (2016). Species Recovery in the United States: Increasing the Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Issues in Ecology, 20.
- Malcom, J. W., & Li, Y.-W. (2015). Data contradict common perceptions about a controversial provision of the US Endangered Species Act. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(52).
Government and technical reports
- USDA Forest Service. (2001). Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (Final Rule), 66 Fed. Reg. 3244.
- USDA Forest Service. (2000). Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Summary.
- NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016). Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Jeopardy and Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat Biological Opinion for Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Oregon.