The U. S. Department of Agriculture has proposed repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule, which established prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and most timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas across roughly 58 – 59 million acres when adopted and, due to subsequent state-specific rules in Idaho and Colorado, applies today to nearly 45 million acres of National Forest System lands (U.S. Forest Service, 2025, Congressional Research Service, Aug. 28, 2020).
The proposal provides a three-week public comment period, a shorter window than the extensive outreach for the original rulemaking, which included hundreds of public meetings and more than 1.6 million public comments (Houston Chronicle, Aug. 27, 2025, Federal Register, Jan. 12, 2001).
The stated justification centers on increasing access for timber. Forest Service planning documents indicate that within inventoried roadless areas, about 9 million acres are considered suitable for timber production (a subset of the ~58.5 million acres designated), and that economically feasible harvest is generally limited to areas near existing roads. Under alternatives that restrict new road construction, projected timber offer volumes within roadless areas were estimated to decline by 73 – 85% relative to No-Action baselines (USDA Forest Service Specialist Report, Nov. 2000).
In parallel, a Department-wide reorganization would phase out the Forest Service’s nine Regional Offices, consolidate research stations, and relocate staff with the stated aims of reducing bureaucracy and centralizing support functions. Observers have raised concerns that such changes could concentrate expertise and affect regional capacity for wildfire management, pest response, and environmental review (Montana Free Press, July 28, 2025, The Guardian, July 24, 2025).
Summary: These initiatives represent a shift in the balance of federal forest governance. Proponents view them as opportunities to streamline management and expand resource access, while critics highlight risks to conservation continuity and the Forest Service’s long-term technical capacity. The trade-offs underscore the central policy question: how to reconcile short-term efficiency and resource development with the enduring mandate to protect public lands.
The public comment period closes Sep 19, 2025 at 11:59 PM EDT.
Submit a Comment on this Docket
Submit a submit comment page for this docket at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-0001 or go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number FS-2025-0001 in the search box. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Consistent with Backpacking Light’s commitment to public lands advocacy, we propose opposing a rushed effort, including environmental reviews and assessments and shortened public comment periods, to dismantle the Roadless Rule at this time. Feel free to adapt the following comment template for your own use:
Subject: Oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule – Docket FS-2025-0001
As a passionate (backcountry recreationist, outdoor recreation economy industry professional, outdoor industry small business owner, etc.) that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks.
The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation.
Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative.
Thank you for considering these comments.
[Name]
[Title / Role / Organization]
[A List of Backcountry Recreation Activities You Participate In]
Discussion
Become a member to post in the forums.
Companion forum thread to: How to submit a public comment to USDA’s proposal to rescind roadless rule
Oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule: why a rushed process threatens U.S. forest protections and weakens wildfire and conservation capacity.
But they’re not listening. Those who do have no power. Words are not enough. If they cared about us, Bobby Kennedy would not be in charge of healthcare. We are just in their way
I made a comment.  I’d suggest we all do. Thanks Ryan for the short write up and the links to comment.
When RFK Jr and others were being put forth to lead major national government agencies, I took to the key board and wrote letters.  Good old fashioned letters, stamped and mailed to my two Senators. Our House Representative was changing and I couldn’t find how to mail them a letter.  I received ONE reply on ONE of the letters. 6 mailed, 1 reply.
But we must try.
RFK Jr has close to zero health, medical, science background. And, he’s never managed a large organization.  Those were the points I made about him.
I am strongly against the proposed changes. However, this topic is so political-adjacent as to be basically indistiguishable from politics, imo. One can attempt to distinguish between politics and policy, but it’s not really plausible in these cases, and the direction of the conversation is foreseeable. and honestly, this is an explicit call for political activism, not a policy discussion. Id hate to see the membership further fractured.
PS sorry about the poor typing, I broke my wrist in a fall trying to traverse some steep slippery deadfall.
When discussing policy, we can focus on the outcomes / results / impacts of those policies, especially as it relates to outdoor recreation (in this context, and in this community).
In the context of the current issue, the policy that’s probably most in question is the rush to dismantle what has been a pretty stabilizing policy for public lands management and resource conservation over the past 25 years.
Denying there is a timber supply crunch and assuming nefariousness on behalf of USDA is tempting, but there are some headwinds here that we’re battling in an effort to preserve the Roadless Rule on the grounds that “we have plenty of timber” (which is probably true in terms of the raw supply stock of harvestable timber):
Will dismantling the Roadless Rule increase the raw stock of harvestable timber in the US? Probably, albeit somewhat minor (on the order of < 5M acres).
Will this release of timber stock meet short-term demands? No – the supply chain is too complex and slow.
And this zeros in on why the current docket issued by USDA is problematic – it reflects a rushed process. That undermines public trust in an administration that has already eroded trust with consistent patterns of lack of transparency and repeated dissonance between proposed policy positions (“we propose reducing the size of government”) and how those policies are actually implemented (“let’s try making huge changes without careful review or assessment of potentially damaging consequences”).
Limiting government is nothing but a ruse to take away our rights and protections. If lumber is becoming a dwindling resource, perhaps we need to look at the tracks of McMansions being built with 20 bedrooms and 30 baths. Only a slight exaggeration. It’s not the regulations that hinder us, rather it’s lack of regulations. We need government. Not one of us is strong enough on our own to fight the power of a few selfish individuals.
I believe that people on the other side of this will absolutely see some of your comments as political, Ryan (eg generalizations about the administration, etc). but its your site and your choice how to use it. fwiw, I totally agree with your perspective .
IIRC, the western states pushed back, some more than others, on the proposal to sell off tracts of public lands.  Hopefully the states will push back again. Our current US Congress seems unwilling to push back very much.
Well, I’ve made my comment. Anyone who loves our forests and mountains should do the same. Thanks for bringing this up, Ryan.
I’m conflicted on this one. As a BPL member and backpacker I also do a lot of dirt biking. I can visit a lot of country that I wouldn’t otherwise ever get to due to time/resource constraints. I can see points from both sides and some of those viewpoints seem diametrically opposed. How to find balance?
Can anyone comment on some of the points from the Blue Ribbon Coalition? Are any valid? What do you think don’t hold up?
https://blueribboncoalition.org/the-roadless-rule-rescission/
I’ve had a Husky or two . I didn’t ride everywhere. Didn’t feel that I had the right. There are places where it’s allowed. We all have our constraints. We need to deal with them without destroying nature. We are the guests.
They are not talking motorbike or even off road bicycle trails/roads. They are talking logging roads. They were talking roads so builders could develop the land for housing.
When I take my young children we mostly ride what once, at one time, were logging roads. Once their skill level improves we then switch to single track. I have 8 kids that ride with ages 6-18.
Politics related to backpacking are ok. Meanness is not. I think we’re all smart enough to manage discussion without being jerks, no?
Everyone take one look at Europe and see if that’s what you want the western U.S. to look like – development everywhere. That is the ultimate goal of developers and that’s what rescinding the roadless rule and other regulations will eventually do. We’ll have tiny patches of trees left and everything firmly controlled. Sure, it might start just with forest roads, with the excuse of needing lumber, but that’s not the end goal. Alaska once had a governor who wanted a “spaghetti” of roads throughout the state; thankfully he didn’t succeed (mostly because the state built terrible roads) and we’re still hanging onto some priceless nature but only with sustained conservation battles. Here in Alaska more roads will mean more open pit mines.
Also remember that Linnwood, Washington was once a forest and now it’s Walmarts and cheap mattress outlets everywhere. My god it’s ugly and soul-breaking, endless outlets of cheap badly made goods no one needs, poverty and homelessness. Many people do want development and people everywhere, and I would assume that regardless of their beliefs on other political issues, backpackers don’t want that. If you do think that’s what you want, where will you go backpacking? People think the west is huge but it can be so easily and quickly overdeveloped and that will last forever. The beauty and peace of nature that we have now – so much less than was had 100 years ago already – could disappear. Give em an inch and they’ll take it all.
Become a member to post in the forums.