Stop Rollback of Forest Protections

The current administration has made good on its promise to begin the process of rescinding a highly popular conservation policy that has preserved vital public lands and waters for almost a quarter of a century. It’s time to raise your voice in defense of the “roadless rule,” which protects about a third of our national forest lands — including over 4 million acres in Utah and almost 2 million acres in Arizona — from commercial logging and road building.

An abbreviated 21-day comment period just launched to gather the public’s perspectives on the rule.

Tell the U.S. Forest service that you oppose repealing the roadless rule by September 19, 2025. Comment now

Why roadless areas matter

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule sets aside millions of acres of national forest lands as “roadless areas,” protecting old-growth forests, drinking water sources, recreation and hunting opportunities, healthy fish and wildlife habitat, and irreplaceable cultural places. Safeguarding these values far outweighs any economic benefits that could be had from carving up our forests with roads and opening them up to commercial logging. The majority of our national forests are currently open to development, so protecting what remains of our roadless national forests should be a high priority.

Learn more about roadless areas in Utah and why they matter

Aren’t there already a lot of roads in our national forests?

The Forest Service already manages about 370,000 miles of roads — more than the entire U.S. interstate highway system. It has a colossal deferred maintenance backlog of almost $5 billion for transportation, and President Trump’s 2026 budget proposes to slash the annual roads budget to $50 million, down from $73 million for the last few years. Instead of repealing the roadless rule to build new roads, taxpayer money should be spent fixing and maintaining what we already have.

Rollbacks under the guise of reducing wildfire risk

The current administration is seeking to rescind the roadless rule under the guise of reducing wildfire risk, despite the fact that wildfire risk is best mitigated near homes and communities, not in far-flung, undeveloped forests.

Chris Wood, currently the president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, worked for the Forest Service on the roadless rule when it was written. He told the Washington Post that the effort to rescind the policy “feels a little bit like a solution in search of a problem. There are provisions within the roadless rule that allow for wildfire fighting. My hope is once they go through a rulemaking process, and they see how wildly unpopular and unnecessary this is, common sense will prevail.”

The roadless rule is conservative, and it already allows carve outs for fire mitigation, insects and disease, and public safety. If we’re serious about protecting homes and communities from wildfire, we need to focus our limited resources on reducing wildfire risk near urban areas, not on boosting timber sales and commercial logging in remote roadless areas.

Bad fire policy, bad science

Roads are actually known to increase wildfire ignition frequency. Most human-caused wildfires have a common ignition point — people along roads. One study found that 90% of all fires begin near roads. Another found that over the last 30 years, the highest wildfire-ignition density was in lands within 150 feet of roads.

Repealing the roadless rule is also bad climate science — mature and old growth trees are natural carbon sinks that store carbon dioxide and provide shade, resulting in cooler temperatures. Essentially, these forests fight climate change simply by existing, and roadless areas include most of our remaining mature and old growth trees. Many roadless areas in Utah are high-elevation subalpine forests that rarely burn, and the roadless rule already allows for thinning small diameter trees, like in lower-elevation roadless areas that might benefit from fire mitigation.

The decision to repeal the roadless rule isn’t about fire safety. It’s another slash in the death by a thousand cuts for our public lands — starving our land management agencies through mass layoffs and budget cuts, selling our public lands, and selling out our forests for logging. This unpopular idea will harm Americans, hurt wildlife and recreation, and could make wildfires worse.

Comment by September 19, 2025

As disheartening as it may be, we’ve been here before. In 2004, the George W. Bush administration tried to mess with the roadless rule too. After years of litigation, the rule was upheld.

Now, your comments are needed to ensure that the current administration and the Forest Service know that eliminating the roadless rule would be unpopular, unscientific, and run counter to our natural and cultural heritage.

Please add your voice to the chorus of Americans opposing the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule by September 19, 2025.

After the September comment period, federal officials should review and incorporate public input and release a new draft rule and draft environmental impact statement in spring 2026. Stay tuned for more details on how to engage then.