ab ovo

USDA proposes to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule

6 September 2026

The Department of Agriculture published a proposed rule on 20 August 2026 to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which it promulgated at 66 FR 3244 on 12 January 2001 “to provide long-term protection for 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System.”12 The mechanism is removal: USDA “proposes to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by removing and reserving 36 CFR part 294, Subpart B,” leaving management direction to “the applicable land management plans for each unit of the National Forest System.”1 The Department states the intent is “to reduce regulatory burden and return decisionmaking for the management of inventoried roadless areas to the land management planning process at the individual national forest level.”1 Comments were originally due 21 September 2026, under RIN 0596-AD66 and docket FS-2025-0001; on 11 September the Department extended the period by 15 days, to 6 October 2026.13

  1. The comment window opened at 32 days on a rule the Department itself calls economically significant, and stands at 47 after the extension.3 USDA records that the proposal “has been determined to be economically significant under E.O. 12866 section 3(f)(1)” and that impacts “could exceed $100 million”; section 6(a)(1) of the same order says each agency “should afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulation, which in most cases should include a comment period of not less than 60 days.”14 Forty-seven days is still short of sixty. The earlier notice of intent, published 29 August 2025 at 90 FR 42179, ran a 21-day window and drew “more than 220,000 comment letters on behalf of over 625,000 individuals and organizations.”15

  2. Less is being rescinded than the name suggests, and what remains on the page is not what is in force. Only subpart B goes; the state-specific rules for Idaho at subpart C and Colorado at subpart D “will not be affected by this proposed rule and will remain in effect.”1 USDA also records that the codified text is stale: a 2006 ruling of the Northern District of California set aside the 2005 State Petitions Rule and reinstated the 2001 rule, affirmed in California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009), but “the text published in the Code of Federal Regulations has not been amended to remove the State Petitions Rule to reflect this judicial history.”16

  3. On the Department’s own figures the recreation loss sits inside the range of the timber gain. If annual harvest occurred across all operable acreage — which USDA calls “unlikely due to budgets, unforeseen limits on operability, and market conditions” — it estimates “$5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry,” against recreation losses it puts at “an estimated $6.1 million annually.”1 The operable timber acreage is 4.8 million acres, 16 percent of forested areas in the potentially affected inventoried roadless areas.1

  4. Rescission by itself opens no ground. The proposal “does not authorize any specific ground-disturbing projects” and does not “require or compel the amendment or revision of any land management plan”; the near-term road acreage USDA identifies, 18.2 million acres or 45.5 percent of the affected environment, is land “where current land management plans allow them (but where the 2001 Roadless Rule currently prohibits them).”1 Separately, the Forest Service states it will hold subsistence hearings under section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, with dates “announced in a subsequent notice” that had not issued when the comment period opened.17

Footnotes

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” proposed rule, 36 CFR part 294, RIN 0596-AD66, docket FS-2025-0001, 91 FR 53827–53833, published 20 August 2026, FR Doc. 2026-16965; comments due 21 September 2026. Quoted: the summary (purpose and the invitation to comment on the proposal, the draft environmental impact statement and the cost benefit analysis, “which are being published simultaneously”); Background (the 58.5 million acres; “extensive and complex litigation”; the rule “has been enjoined and reinstated on multiple occasions”; the 2006 Northern District of California ruling, Lockyer, and the unamended CFR text; the Idaho and Colorado subparts developed on petitions under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7 CFR 1.28); Rationale (a “single, national blanket approach … constrains responsible officials from exercising the timely, place-based discretion needed”); Scope (removing and reserving subpart B; no ground-disturbing authorisation; no compelled plan revision); the environmental and economic discussion (18.2 million acres at 45.5 percent; 11.3 million acres at 28.3 percent within 0.5 miles of existing roads; 4.8 million acres at 16 percent of forested area; 9.8 million acres at 24 percent overlapping the wildland-urban interface; the 5 to 10 percent sawtimber figure and the two revenue ranges; the $6.1 million recreation estimate; “no net change, relative to baseline conditions, in domestic leasable production”; impacts that “could exceed $100 million”); Public Involvement (the 21-day notice-of-intent window, the comment count, and the ANILCA section 810 hearings); the rulemaking petition from an Alaska resident; and Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866 section 3(f)(1)). The proposal also cites Executive Order 14153, “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” as having “directed the Secretary of Agriculture to reinstate the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule that exempted the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from the 2001 Roadless Rule.” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/20/2026-16965/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12

  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” final rule, 66 FR 3244, published 12 January 2001, codified at 36 CFR part 294, subpart B. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/12/01-726/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation ↩

  3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” proposed rule; extension of comment period, 91 FR 57841, published 11 September 2026, FR Doc. 2026-18648. “The original comment period is scheduled to close on September 21, 2026. The Department is extending the comment period by 15 days to allow the public additional time to submit comments. The new deadline for comments is October 6, 2026.” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/11/2026-18648/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation ↩ ↩2

  4. Executive Order 12866 of 30 September 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735. § 3(f)(1) defines a significant regulatory action as one likely to “[h]ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.” § 6(a)(1): “each agency should afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulation, which in most cases should include a comment period of not less than 60 days.” The 60-day figure is hortatory — “should,” not “shall” — and E.O. 12866 creates no right enforceable at law. https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf ↩

  5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands,” notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and rulemaking, 90 FR 42179, published 29 August 2025, FR Doc. 2025-16581. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16581/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation-national-forest-system-lands ↩

  6. California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009), affirming the district court’s order setting aside the 2005 State Petitions Rule and reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule. Cited by USDA in the proposal’s Background section as the reason subpart B “as it was originally promulgated, is the version currently in effect.” Decided 25 August 2009. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1213812/california-ex-rel-lockyer-v-us-department-of-agriculture/ ↩

  7. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act § 810, 16 U.S.C. § 3120, requiring an evaluation of the effect on subsistence uses and needs before a federal agency withdraws, reserves, leases or otherwise permits the use, occupancy or disposition of public lands in Alaska, and notice and hearings in the affected vicinity where a significant restriction is found. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title16-section3120&edition=prelim ↩

regulationpublic-lands