USDA proposal would remove Roadless Rule protections from 58 million acres of National Forests

# What's happening

# What the proposal would change

Citizens were given three options in the proposal:

• No action: retain the existing Roadless Rule and its protections.
• Rescind the rule: remove the federal prohibitions on new roads and many forms of industrial development in inventoried roadless areas.
• Modify the rule: adjust boundaries so new roads could be built within half a mile of an existing road and remove protections for areas defined as within the wildland-urban interface (WUI).

Under the modification option, the change would be especially consequential in regions where nearly all National Forest lands lie within WUI zones, notably in the Southeast, where advocates say that option would amount to effectively eliminating protections.

# Why the USDA says it wants the change

The USDA frames the proposal as a tool for wildfire mitigation. Its summary emphasizes that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase opportunities for hazardous fuel treatments in places where high-intensity fires threaten communities, infrastructure, or drinking-water sources.

# What advocates and stakeholders say

Trail and public-lands advocates voiced concern that rescinding the rule would open roadless areas—places that contain popular mountain-bike trail networks and remote backcountry—to new road building and extractive activities. Philip Darden, executive director of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), told Singletracks that areas such as Pisgah National Forest include many classic trails that fall inside roadless boundaries and could face significant impacts.

Advocates also point out two practical counterarguments to the USDA rationale: the Roadless Rule already allows for measures relating to wildfire management, and many roadless areas contain existing roads that provide access. Supporters of retention say the primary result of rescinding the rule would be increased opportunities for logging and mineral extraction more than measurable improvements in wildfire outcomes.

# Geographic and resource consequences

Areas named in coverage include Pisgah, Deschutes, Eldorado, Tahoe, Tonto, and other National Forests. The proposal's effects would likely be uneven: in the eastern U.S., where public lands and roadless areas are relatively scarce, removing protections could have disproportionate impacts on contiguous trail networks and local watersheds.

# What you can do and deadlines

The USDA opened a public comment period on the proposal. Organizations such as SORBA have posted interactive maps and guidance for interested citizens. The deadline to submit comments noted in the reporting is September 21.

# Bottom line