Action Alert Policy Tracker

Comment on the Roadless Rule Rescission!

Comments will be accepted through September 19th

On August 29th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a Notice of Intent to rescind the popular 2001 Roadless Rule, a policy that protected 44 million acres of our nation’s last remaining intact landscapes from logging and road building.

*Update, Fri., Aug. 29th., 5 pm: We have just learned that the United States General Services Administration (GSA) has disabled the API used to submit Regulations.gov Advocacy forms like the one that previously appeared on this page. We are seeking further information and clarity from the agency, but while we await more information, our recommendation is to submit your comment on Regulations.gov.

Bark’s Comment Guide for the 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission

Intro 
Start your comment by introducing yourself and why you are submitting a public comment. For example: 

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because [insert your connection—e.g. you recreate in Mt. Hood National Forest, rely on forest watersheds for clean drinking water, or have a personal history with roadless protections. If you submitted a comment in 2001, mention that here.] 

I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule [insert reasons here—e.g. because of its environmental and economic impacts, impacts to wildlife and recreation, etc.] 

Additional context about the Roadless Rule and the proposed rescission’s impacts on Mt. Hood National Forest is available here. Then check out Bark’s complete Comment Guide to the Roadless Rule Rescission.

Body 
Now for the details. Lay out your reasons for opposing the rescission by citing specific impacts it would have on the national forest(s) you love. We’ve provided some talking points below, organized by topic. Choose the ones that resonate most with you and be sure to personalize whenever possible! 

Environmental Impacts

• The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. 
• Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. 
•  The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today.  
• The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. 

Fire 

• Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. 
• Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads.  
• New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. 
• The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. 
• Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. 

Clean Water 

• National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. 
• Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants.  
• Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. 

Intact Landscapes 

• With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. 
• Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. 

Economic Considerations 

• The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. 
• The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. 
• On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. 
• The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. 
• Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. 

Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion 

• The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. 
• Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. 
• Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. 
• USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. 

Closing 
End your comment by restating your opposition and calling on USDA to take concerted action to uphold the Roadless Rule. For example: 

For all these reasons—[summarize your reasons, e.g. public will, economic responsibility, ecological health, fire safety, and clean water]—I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: 

• Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; 
• Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; 
• Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; 
• And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. 
• [Insert your own reasons here] 

Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. 

[Your Name]

Don’t forget to click “Submit Comment” at the bottom of the page!

Again, please submit your comment through the Regulations.gov page.