If the Roadless Rule Falls: How 45 Million Acres—and America’s Backcountry—Could Change

Earlier this summer, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced plans to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which currently protects nearly 45 million acres of National Forest lands from most road construction and commercial logging. If the rule is repealed, road building and timber harvesting could expand into these roadless areas, threatening recreation access, wildlife habitat, and the economies tied to backcountry recreation.

What the 2001 Roadless Rule protects

• The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule limits road construction, road reconstruction and certain commercial timber activities on about 45 million acres of National Forest System lands. The full rule text and regulatory history are posted by the Federal Register: 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
• The rule explicitly distinguishes roadless areas from designated Wilderness: mechanized travel such as mountain biking is generally prohibited in Wilderness areas but is allowed in Roadless areas. The rule states these areas “may have many Wilderness-like attributes” yet often permit mountain biking and other mechanized travel, helping relieve pressure on Wilderness units and providing dispersed recreation opportunities.

Why recreation would be affected

• Outdoor Alliance reports that the roadless areas include 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking routes. These corridors are widely used by hikers, mountain bikers, climbers, paddlers and dispersed campers. Source: Outdoor Alliance overview and interactive resources (Outdoor Alliance action page, interactive map: Roadless Areas Map).
• Timber harvesting and new roads can fragment trail networks, close or reroute routes, increase motorized traffic and noise, and accelerate erosion and stream sedimentation—all of which degrade the backcountry experience and can make some routes unsafe or unusable.

Wildfire mitigation: the stated rationale and the facts

• Secretary Rollins defended the proposed change saying, “It is abundantly clear that properly managing our forests preserves them from devastating fires and allows future generations of Americans to enjoy and reap the benefits of this great land.”
• Wildfire mitigation is frequently cited as a reason to open roadless areas. However:
  • There are already an estimated 386,000 miles of roads within the lands currently protected by the Roadless Rule, and many fuels-management and wildfire mitigation activities are already permitted under the 2001 rule.
  • Expanding road networks can itself increase ignition sources, fragment habitats, and facilitate intensive logging that may not reduce—and in some cases could exacerbate—long-term wildfire risk.
• Bottom line: wildfire mitigation and targeted forest health projects can be and often are carried out without wholesale removal of roadless protections. Any proposed change should be judged on the specifics of proposed projects and scientific review, not only on general claims.

Ecological and species-conservation stakes

• Roadless areas provide relatively undisturbed habitat for a wide range of plants and animals, including species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Road construction, logging, and increased human access tend to fragment habitat, alter hydrology, and increase invasive species spread.
• The loss of contiguous roadless tracts can reduce climate resilience for wildlife and limit ability for species to move across landscapes in response to changing conditions.

Economic and community impacts

• Communities near national forests often depend on outdoor recreation—mountain biking, climbing, fishing, hunting and paddling—for jobs, tourism revenue and quality of life. Damage to popular routes or restricted access can reduce visitation and economic returns for local businesses.
• Conversely, timber operations can create jobs, but those are often short-term and spatially concentrated. The tradeoff between long-term recreation-based economies and expanded extractive operations is an important local policy question.

What you can do — public comment and deadlines

• Public comment on the proposed rescission is open through the end of the day on September 19, 2025. Submit comments directly to the U.S. Forest Service at Regulations.gov: Submit comment to FS-2025-0001-0001.
• If you prefer a simplified form, the Outdoor Alliance provides an easy-to-use comment form: Outdoor Alliance comment form.
• View an interactive map of potentially affected roadless areas here: Interactive Roadless Areas Map.

Recommended points to include in your comment

• State whether you recreate in these areas and describe how you or your community would be affected if logging or road construction were expanded.
• Note that wildfire mitigation is already allowed under the 2001 rule and ask for specifics: what projects are proposed, where, with what scientific justification and monitoring?
• Request protections for trail networks, watershed health, and habitat connectivity; insist on project-level environmental review and public input for any proposed road building or timber sale.
• If relevant, cite local economic dependence on recreation and request analysis of long-term economic tradeoffs.

Takeaways

• Rescinding the Roadless Rule could open nearly 45 million acres to road building and commercial timber activities, with direct consequences for mountain biking and other backcountry recreation, wildlife habitat, water quality and local economies.
• Wildfire mitigation is an important goal, but it is not an automatic justification for eliminating roadless protections—many mitigation approaches are already permitted and the ecological impacts of road expansion must be weighed carefully.
• Public engagement matters: comments to the Forest Service submitted by September 19, 2025, will be part of the administrative record and can influence the decision-making process.