- The USDA received 224,000 public comments regarding its intention to rescind the Roadless Rule.
- Various conservation groups submitted another 400,000 comments as bulk signatures.
- A conservation group's review of the comments found about 99% oppose rescinding the rule.
Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture closed the public comment period regarding its intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.
After 21 days, some 224,000 comments were submitted, as well as an additional 400,000 or so signatures collected by conservation activists who turned in responses in bulk.
In an analysis of the comments, the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation advocacy group, found that approximately 99% opposed rescinding the rule. That figure does not factor in the hundreds of thousands of signatories who were also opposed.
“It’s hard to find anything that the American people agree with across party lines, across state lines like this,” said Aaron Weiss, the deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities.
“This is not a conservative-liberal thing. This is not a rural-urban thing. This is 99% of the American people saying, ‘Don’t do this.’”
USDA response to opposition
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz maintain that the Roadless Rule represents gross over-regulation by the federal government and a missed economic opportunity for both local communities and the timber industry — priorities shared in executive orders signed by President Donald Trump
But the most often repeated reason they’ve articulated is that rescinding the rule would allow land managers to mitigate the threats posed by wildfire.
Asked for a response to the Center for Western Priorities analysis, the USDA provided the Deseret News a statement focused on wildfire mitigation. It did not address the public comments submitted to the agency or questions about a letter from four former Forest Service chiefs urging the USDA to reconsider rescinding the Roadless Rule
“Repealing the Roadless Rule is more important than ever,” a USDA spokesperson wrote and included a quote from Schultz.
“The forests we see today are not the same as the forests of 2001. They are dangerously overstocked and increasingly threatened by drought, insect-borne disease, and wildfire,” according to Schultz. “I applaud Secretary Rollins for taking decisive action to provide us with the tools and decision space we need to truly care for our forests and, in turn, protect the people and communities we serve.”
But based on the analysis of the public comments, including from those who have run the Forest Service since the rule has been put in place, a vast majority of Americans disagree with those arguments.
“You really are looking at the very, very margins of public opinion,” Weiss said, “to find anyone who thinks rescinding the Roadless Rule is a good idea.”
History of the Roadless Rule
The Roadless Rule was adopted in 2001, putting strict limitations on development within 58.5 million acres of public land managed by the Forest Service. During its consideration, it was one of the most well-received land-use plans, garnering over a million positive comments and significant public support.
After carve-outs by Idaho and Colorado, the rule now protects 44.7 million acres. That number is less than 2% of all the land in the country but it still represents around 30% of national forests.
The rule endured long periods of intense debate and litigation, ending in 2014 when the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling.
The debate was reignited in June when the USDA announced Rollins had rescinded the rule. But for that to happen, it must follow the Administrative Procedure Act that requires the agency to hold a public comment period and conduct an environmental review.
The USDA spokesperson referenced evidence that wildfires already pose a significant risk for communities near the wildland-urban interface — where forests meet towns — and there are 24.5 million acres within a mile of roadless areas that have the potential to burn.
“Roads improve access for wildland firefighting when timing is critical, and lives are at risk. As the secretary stated, the lack of maintenance and access have frustrated land managers for years, including firefighters who haven’t been able to reach fires in time to slow their spread,” according to the USDA spokesperson.
“There is a large body of research — including a recent intensive review of over 40 case studies — showing that fuel reduction activities can change how fires burn and reduce fire severity by more than 60%."
Weiss questions whether repealing the rule is the best way to address those concerns.
“All of the things that the Trump administration had claimed are reasons to rescind the Roadless Rule are, in fact, refuted by 25 years of science and economics,” he said.
Weiss said he doesn’t think there is an easy pathway for the Forest Service to convince a court — based on the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act — that there’s “good cause” to rescind the rule.
“With that much science behind it,” Weiss said, “there is no substantive response other than, ‘We don’t believe you.’”
Analyzing the public comments
In addition to going through every public comment, the Center for Western Priorities pulled a random sample of 5,000 from the first 183,168 comments that were available the morning the comment period ended.
Within that range, the margin of error they calculated — 1.4% — wound up being larger than the number of comments that supported rescinding the rule.
If every comment within the error margin agreed with the current administration, it would still mean that 98% of comments opposed rescinding the rule, according to the center.
By the time the center factored in nearly double the total comments with signatures, the percentages of those supporting the repeal became smaller. It also took steps to make sure its statistical review was accurate.
“That’s why we go through the full list. You’re looking to make sure you’re doing those sanity checks,” Weiss said. “The only possibility, based on those extra comments that came in, is that it goes from 99.2 to 99.9 or 99.95 or whatever.”
What’s next?
In the note published in the Federal Register, the administration states that the next decision will be presented in March 2026. After that, another round of public comments will open up, followed by another analysis. The USDA intends to have a new rule in place by the end of 2026.
The USDA spokesperson reiterated that, even if the rule is rescinded, it will not mean that all the areas will begin construction on roads.
“Subsequent decisions regarding land management would need to comply with a specific national forest or grassland management plan and other applicable laws and regulations,” according to the agency. “Land management plans are developed or amended through public involvement.”
With such an overwhelming response against the effort conflicting with the USDA’s intention to do away with the rule, Weiss worries about the ultimate outcome.
“The big picture is what kind of representative or nonrepresentative government asks the American people for their opinion on something, and then goes and does the exact opposite of what is unanimous agreement,” Weiss said. “It takes a real disdain for the people you claim to serve to give them all effectively a middle finger like this.”