The United States Department of Agriculture on Tuesday formally began the process of rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, opening the nation’s protected forests to new development, road construction, and intensive logging.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins attributed the move to wildfire risk reduction, saying the rule has acted as a barrier to it. Public comment on the rule’s end is now open through Sept. 21. People can click here to submit their comments once the proposed rule is posted on Wednesday, officials said.
“For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities,” Rollins said in a press release. “Today, we filed a proposal to restore authority to local forest managers who know the land best, removing the barriers that have kept them from doing the work the land demands. It’s time to turn the page on the failed roadless rule and return our forests to health and productivity.”
A recent scientific study into roads’ effects on wildfires in forests offers a different view. Members of the Wilderness Society published research in Nature’s Fire Ecology Journal in January that found the highest wildfire-ignition density was in lands within 164 feet of roads at just under 8 fires per 2,471 acres. Wildfire-ignition density was at its lowest in designated wilderness areas without roads, at 1.75 fires per 2,471 acres.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: End to landmark roadless rule will make wildfires more likely, study finds
President Donald Trump has targeted the 2001 rule since his first term, according to Deputy Secretary Stephen A. Vaden. The Forest Service originally announcing a draft proposal to rescind it in June 2025.
“It is a credit to President Trump that we can begin to put into place a rule that will allow us to properly manage our national forests, because the first step to managing forests is to have access to them,” Vaden said.
Numerous environment-focused organizations previously condemned the plan to end the rule, including Environment America, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the Defenders of Wildlife. The major proponents of the Roadless Rule’s repeal are timber associations, which said the rule is based on false and unscientific premises.
6 Comments
The Idaho roadless rule that was approved under the Clinton Admin should have provided a national template. That didn’t happen, so now we get this.
Of course Trump’s toadies and funders are claiming that. The man has revived The Big Lie single handed. If a road is truly needed due to lack of access, it should be totally barred and locked except for emergency vehicles, but the sensible thing would be to maintain concrete helicopter pads in very hard to reach areas. Because once ANY road exists, people will keep changing the rules more and more. Or use the newest method, just ignore the law, like ICE, the AI data centers, etc are doing.
We’re 1.5 hrs from Lost Trail, 2 hrs to the summit. Everytime we drive up from the ID side we look at all the timber and are just wondering when a lightning strike will send that all aflame. The fuels Mgr at North Fork, ID a few years ago sent out bids for fuel reduction in Lemhi county, and got zero responses. He told us he believed it was because the log diameter and length don’t make logging financially feasible here. He also said that some locals suggest aerial logging, and that is dangerous here, as well as not cost effective.
The USFS does controlled burns (omg – ppl complain about the smoke!) as well as fuel reduction where they can. There are areas around the country, not just the west, where logging is financially feasible. Though, if a road is opening into a once inaccessible forested area for a variety of reasons, that road then becomes accessible not just to logging and wildland firefighting, but anyone that wants to go there. And, that may very well increase the likelihood of more wildfires with the now 90% of wildfire human-caused fires, intentionally started or unintentionally.
DOGE reduced the DOI personnel national to critically low thresholds. Her in the Salmon-Challis National Forest we have one LEO for the Dept of Agriculture/USFS that has 9K sq miles to monitor, that’s highly unsustainable and unconscionable.
This action will have the opposite effect on the landscape- more roads equals more human caused fires not less.
After the roads are created, they will deteriorate because there will be no money to maintain them, as there is not enough money to maintain the highways as it is. Wildlife will be pushed out of prime habitat and their numbers reduced. If the Roadless Rule gets rescinded, there will be negative impacts to the valuable water supply of the western US, which is already reeling from severe hydrological issues. Creating more roads won’t change the dynamic we are facing when it comes to climate change and wildfires, maintaining robust wildland fire and fuels management organizations with adequate initial attack capabilities will.
You give general statements without evidence. More roads equals more human fires is a general statement without evidence. I think of a sidewalk on the playground causing more skinned knees, so the sidewalk needs to be removed. There is no teaching of good behavior, like running on the grass and not on the sidewalks, in this kind of action. Back to the subject, more, and more devastating fires, should be reason enough to rescind what isn’t working. Clinton’s roadless edict was not according to science, (unless you’re talking about Fauci “science”) but according to who gave him and his party the most $s. Is it okay to spend billions on fire suppression, as you suggest on your last sentence, but nothing on fire management? Your last statement is hard to determine its meaning. “Fuels management organizations with adequate initial attach capabilities? Who are you talking about? If you managed your garden as our forests are managed, you’d starve. Carrots in the garden and trees in the forest need to be thinned for maximum growth and production of excellent wood. Walkways are needed in the garden to maintain them. Taking away the walkways doesn’t help the health of the garden plants. Today, lumber is horrible compared to what it used to be because of lack of management. Before President Carter Forest management was decent, at least. Since it’s become non-existent. Throw away all the wood in your house and what do you have left; mining for metal, for oil, for…? Wildlife pushed out??? Have you not walked in an unmanaged forest with thick un-thinned stands of Lodgepole, or the more mature version of a dying forest with dead timber laying on the forest floor like “pick-up sticks”? There is where you see wildlife pushed out. Both food and shelter and useable cover are missing. Management of the forest is needed. The wise USE of our natural resources is necessary for any civilization. As far as hydrological issues, the Roadless Rule doesn’t produce more water, other than more water. Again, wise use is not to stop local management of roads with some federal edict and no way for the local forest management to respond to the local needs. The local managers need the authority to close or unlock local roads as needed. You might as well tell everyone gardener that pulling undesirable plants in the garden is against the Federal Law. They must be let to grow “naturally!” The Roadless Rule needs to go away!
I agree with Mark K. As a forester having worked in the forest since 1988, I can say that the roadless rule was a political action under an EO to create more de facto wilderness-like managed areas out of multiple use areas on public lands. It was not always applied to untouched lands. The NF had previously logged areas with roads declared roadless leaving the USFS hamstrung to manage their second growth forests. It’s been approximately 30 yrs since the roadless rule was applied and interestingly, since then, our wildfire events have increased in magnitude and severity. Perhaps there’s a correlation there. Lack of forest management, and yes-reduction in logging for wood products that we all need and use is a likely contributor to many of the large wildfires we see today. The Roadless Rule was politically motivated and continues to be as our population becomes more disconnected with where our natural resources come from.