It’s Time to Rescind the Roadless Rule — Make Your Voice Heard

The U.S. Forest Service is once again asking the public to weigh in on the future of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and Utah Public Lands Alliance strongly supports its rescission.

The deadline to submit comments is September 21, 2026.

This is an important opportunity for everyone who supports responsible public access, active forest management, wildfire mitigation, multiple-use recreation, and locally informed decision-making to make their voice heard.

What Is the Roadless Rule?

The 2001 Roadless Rule established nationwide restrictions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System. The Forest Service originally identified approximately 58.5 million acres under the Roadless Rule. Today, because Idaho and Colorado operate under separate state-specific roadless rules, the 2001 national rule applies to approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System land. The problem is not simply the number of acres involved. It is the use of a broad national rule to restrict management decisions across vastly different forests, landscapes, communities, and environmental conditions.

A forest in southern Utah should not necessarily be managed under the same rigid prescription as a forest in Alaska, Montana, California, or the Pacific Northwest. That is one of the fundamental reasons UPLA supports rescission.

UPLA Made Our Position Clear in 2025

In September 2025, Utah Public Lands Alliance submitted a detailed 23-page comment letter supporting rescission of the Roadless Rule. Our position has not changed.

UPLA argued that public lands should be managed through responsible, site-specific decision-making that balances conservation with access, recreation, forest health, public safety, and the multiple-use responsibilities Congress assigned to the Forest Service.

Our comments focused on several major issues:

1. Local Forest Planning Is Better Than a One-Size-Fits-All National Rule

Local Forest Service managers understand the conditions of their forests in ways that a nationwide regulatory prohibition simply cannot. UPLA supports returning these decisions to forest-level planning, where managers can evaluate actual terrain, vegetation, wildlife habitat, watersheds, recreation, wildfire conditions, community needs, and other local circumstances.

Rescinding the Roadless Rule does not mean abandoning environmental protections. Forest management decisions will still be governed by forest plans, the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. Rescission simply removes an additional nationwide prohibition that can prevent local managers from considering management options in the first place.

2. Forest Health Requires Active Management

UPLA believes healthy forests frequently require active management. Mechanical thinning, vegetation treatment, prescribed fire, targeted conifer removal, and other management tools can reduce hazardous fuels and improve the resilience of forests.

But managers need practical access to perform that work. In our 2025 comments, UPLA pointed to Utah’s Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystem Restoration Project on the Fishlake National Forest as an example of locally driven management. That project uses mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and targeted conifer removal as part of a landscape-scale effort designed to restore aspen, improve watershed health, reduce hazardous fuels, enhance wildlife habitat, and maintain recreation and other uses.

That is the type of site-specific management we should encourage—not prevent.

3. Wildfire Changes the Equation

Wildfire conditions across the West have changed dramatically since the Roadless Rule was adopted more than 25 years ago. The Forest Service itself now acknowledges that the Roadless Rule can limit mechanical thinning and some fire-control tactics in inventoried roadless areas.

The agency estimates that approximately 9.8 million acres of inventoried roadless areas overlap the wildland-urban interface.

The Forest Service’s current proposal recognizes that rescission could provide additional opportunities for hazardous-fuel treatments and, where justified, strategically located roads that could improve wildfire suppression near communities and critical infrastructure. For UPLA, this is not an abstract policy discussion.

Communities, watersheds, wildlife habitat, recreation resources and public lands throughout the West face the consequences of catastrophic wildfire. Forest managers need every reasonable management tool available to them.

4. Roads Are Not Automatically the Enemy

UPLA also challenged the simplistic argument that roads should inherently be viewed as environmental liabilities. Responsible roads can provide access for firefighters, vegetation management, search and rescue, recreation, grazing, wildlife management, restoration projects, utility infrastructure and other legitimate public-land purposes.

The question should not be:

“Should roads be prohibited?”

The better question is:

“Where is access appropriate, and how should it be responsibly managed?”

Those decisions are best made through site-specific planning—not through a nationwide prohibition established more than two decades ago.

5. OHV Recreationists Are Part of the Stewardship Solution

Motorized recreationists do much more than simply use public lands. Across Utah, OHV clubs and volunteers contribute thousands of hours maintaining trails, clearing routes, repairing damage, supporting restoration projects, educating visitors, assisting land managers and helping maintain recreational infrastructure used by motorized and non-motorized visitors alike. UPLA highlighted these partnerships in our 2025 comments.

Responsible public access creates a constituency that cares deeply about these lands. People protect the places they know, use, maintain and love.

Closing or restricting access should not be treated as the default method of conservation.

What Rescission Does — And Does Not Do

There is considerable misinformation surrounding this proposal.

• Rescinding the Roadless Rule does not automatically turn millions of acres over to logging companies.
• It does not automatically build new roads.
• It does not eliminate environmental review.
• And it does not eliminate protections for wildlife, watersheds, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, or other important resources.

The Forest Service expressly states in the current proposal that rescission “does not mandate timber cutting or road construction.” Instead, rescission would remove the Roadless Rule’s nationwide prohibitions and return primary management decisions to the Forest Service’s normal land-management planning process.

That distinction matters. UPLA supports managed access and responsible multiple use, not unrestricted development.

The Forest Service Is Asking for Comments Now

USDA has now released its proposed rescission and Draft Environmental Impact Statement and is accepting another round of public comments.

Comments must be submitted by September 21, 2026.

This is where you can help.

Submit Your Comment

Tell the Forest Service that you support rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule.

SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT ON REGULATIONS.GOV

When commenting, consider explaining—in your own words—why these issues matter to you.

You might discuss your experiences with National Forest lands, motorized or non-motorized recreation, wildfire, forest health, volunteer trail maintenance, access for older or disabled recreationists, hunting, camping, local communities, or the importance of allowing local forest managers to make site-specific decisions.

Personal, substantive comments are more valuable than simply saying “I support rescission.”

Tell the Forest Service why you support it.

Read UPLA’s Detailed 2025 Comments

You don’t have to start from scratch.

UPLA’s September 2025 comments provide extensive background, arguments, examples, research and recommendations explaining why we believe the Roadless Rule should be rescinded. We encourage you to read them and use the information to help develop your own individual comments.

READ UPLA’S 23-PAGE ROADLESS RULE COMMENTS

Among the issues addressed in our comments are:

• Local forest planning versus nationwide prescriptions
• Congressional multiple-use direction
• Forest management and wildfire prevention
• Firefighter and emergency access
• Claims concerning roads and wildfire ignition
• OHV recreation and forest stewardship
• Forest Service road and maintenance funding
• Recommendations for responsible implementation following rescission

Public Lands Need Management — Not Management by Prohibition

UPLA believes conservation and public access are not opposing principles. We can protect watersheds, wildlife, forests, cultural resources and scenic landscapes while also providing responsible access and actively managing our public lands.

The 2001 Roadless Rule substitutes a broad national prohibition for the difficult work of locally informed land management. After more than 25 years, it is time for a better approach.

Give local Forest Service professionals the ability to manage local conditions.

Give firefighters and forest managers the tools they need.

Protect responsible public access.

Support multiple-use management.

Rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Take Action Before September 21, 2026

COMMENT NOW — SUPPORT RESCISSION OF THE ROADLESS RULE

Please don’t assume someone else will speak up for public access.

Make your voice heard.