In August 2026, the U.S. Forest Service proposed to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule for all 44.7 million acres of inventoried roadless areas covered by the rule, while maintaining state-specific rules in Idaho and Colorado. The Forest Service states that overturning the roadless rule would “relieve regulatory burden” and “increase local management flexibility.”[1] The proposal to overturn this longstanding rule is in response to President Trump’s deregulatory executive orders focused on expanding domestic timber and fossil energy production.[2] If finalized, the Forest Service’s rescission and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be subject to legal challenge.

Clinton Administration Rule Protects Inventoried Roadless Areas

The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibits roadbuilding and commercial timber harvesting on inventoried roadless areas — about 30 percent of national forest land — to preserve wildlife habitat, protect water quality, and provide recreational opportunities, among other ecological and societal benefits.[3] The rule prohibits roads and timber harvest because they have “the greatest likelihood of altering and fragmenting landscapes, resulting in immediate, long-term loss of roadless area values and characteristics.”[4]

Relying on its legal authority under the National Forest Management Act and other governing statutes,[5] the Forest Service explained that it promulgated a blanket rule for all roadless areas for several reasons. Most importantly, the rule establishes consistent protection and coordinated forest management to avoid incremental loss of the “ecological characteristics and social values” of roadless areas.[6]  It also responds to the practical reality of the backlog of deferred maintenance on existing roads and the need to centralize litigation.[7] The rule has been subject to litigation since its finalization but upheld by appeals courts over time.[8]

Trump Administration Proposes to Strip Protections

Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would shift management decisions from the Forest Service’s nationwide, systematic approach to local planning processes for decisions regarding roads and commercial logging in inventoried roadless areas. In its proposal, the Forest Service argues that the 2001 rule “unnecessarily and adversely limits exercise of management discretion.”[9]

When a federal agency changes position, the Administrative Procedure Act requires it to offer “reasoned analysis for the change.”[10] During the first Trump administration, it attempted to roll back the Roadless Rule to exempt the Tongass National Forest; however,  the Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service had not “sufficiently explained this dramatically changed finding” under the Administrative Procedure Act.[11]

In this most recent proposed rule, the Forest Service does little to explain why the 2001 roadless position should now be considered wrong. The proposal does not address its prior analyses and conclusions but offers several factors including:

• “changing conditions” on public lands,
• the Forest Service’s ability to provide more “adaptive, science-based, efficient, and effective” forest management, and
• changed policy priorities focused on “active forest management and deregulation.”[12]

Consistent with the administration’s goal of increasing logging, mining, and fossil energy development on public lands, the Forest Service states that “rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule could increase management flexibility for access (roads), vegetation management, targeted fuels treatments, and access for minerals or energy uses.”[13]

Additionally, the proposal states that “increasing drought, extreme temperatures, wildfire frequency and severity, and insect and disease outbreaks” necessitate a shift from a blanket rule to local forest planning.[14] The Forest Service emphasizes the need to build roads to manage forests for fire. However, the government’s own data from the 2001 rule[15] and the 2026 EIS[16], as well as independent studies show that roads result in more fires and more land burned in national forests.[17]  

The Forest Service asserts that it needs “increased management flexibility” to respond to these changed conditions,[18] stating that “[w]hile national-level considerations are important, land management planning efforts by local decisionmakers […] are best positioned to make decisions that take into consideration the unique ecological, economic, and social needs of their communities.”[19]

This shift to local forest-level planning at a time when the Forest Service has lost thousands of employees[20] and the repair backlog on existing roads is almost $7 billion[21], raises the question of how the agency would implement this new policy and be responsive to the “changed conditions” it argues need to be addressed, especially when it expects little increased revenue from timber sales.[22]

The Forest Service notes that it has “refocused policies, programs, and resources” and this rescission is an “exercise of discretion” within its statutory mandate.[23] However, other than indicating a change in federal policy preference — a desire for increased timber harvest and fossil energy production on public lands — the Forest Service does not explain how these orders affect the agency’s change in position or legal authority to promulgate the rescission.

Comments are due by Oct. 6, 2026. Once the rule is final, litigation is expected. Follow developments on our Roadless Rule Regulatory Tracker.

[1] 91 FR 53827.

[2] The proposed rule refers to Executive Order 14192, Executive Order 14225, Executive Order 14154, Executive Order 14153, Executive Order 14153. See 91 FR 53828.

[3] 66 FR 3244 – 3245.

[4] Id.

[5] In the 2001 rule, USDA explained that “Congress entrusted the Secretary of Agriculture with broad powers to protect and administer the National Forest System by passing laws, such as the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (the Organic Act), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).” 66 FR 3253.

[6] 66 FR 3246.

[7] Id.

[8] Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.); California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir.); Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir.). For a summary of the rule’s complex litigation history, see Organized Vill. of Kake v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 795 F.3d 956, 961–62 (9th Cir. 2015).

[9] 91 FR 53828.

[10] Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983).

[11] Organized Vill. of Kake v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 795 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir. 2015).

[12] 91 FR 53828.

[13] 91 FR 53829.

[14] 91 FR 53828.

[15] The 2001 rule stated that “the agency rarely builds new roads to suppress fires. Building roads into inventoried roadless areas would likely increase the chance of human-caused fires due to the increased presence of people.” 66 FR 3254.

[16] The Draft Environmental Impact Statement shows fewer fires and less area burned in roadless areas compared to other national forest areas. See 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Aug. 2026) at 87 Table 18; See also USDA, The fire that never starts: Reducing roadside ignitions (March 2026).

[17] See, e.g., Gregory Aplet et al., Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads, Fire Ecology Vol. 22 (Jan. 2026).

[18] 91 FR 53827-53828.

[19] Id.

[20] In 2025 alone, the USDA Inspector General reported that USDA lost 6,000 employees. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, US Dept. of Agriculture Staffing Levels, OAI Report 25-064-01 (Dec. 2025).

[21] 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Aug. 2026) at 43.

[22] 91 FR 53829.

[23] Id.