USDA rescinds roadless rule

[Trogon]

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/23/secretary-rollins-rescinds-roadless-rule-eliminating-impediment-responsible-forest-management

Statement by the USDA toes the party line. What's everyone's thoughts on this?

My opinion is that if taken at face value there is merit for economic benefit, forestry management, and fire risk control. I truly believe the government lacks the ability and the will to make smart science based management decisions. Its clear to me that the people that push for this have motives beyond the health of our national forest. This is another cut in the thousand cuts effort to divest public land. Even if divesture is not outright sale, it can come in the form of leases that make big money for big corps at the expense of those of us who value roadless areas. I'm surprised conservations groups and hunters are not up in arms about this like the public land sale.

 

[Poser]

I've seen this. I'm not sure there is much of anything anyone can do to actually fight it since it was an E.O. The language in it suggests that the decisions going forward will come down to the area manager. I also full expect to see this day 1 rescinded in 3.5 years.

 

[Poser]

Colorado negotiated a separate “roadless rule” agreement with the U.S. Forest Service after extensive statewide stakeholder meetings in the early 2000s, and the petition to have unique state rules was approved by federal authorities in 2012.

“At the Western Governors’ Association this week Gov. Polis confirmed with Secretary Rollins directly that the USDA Secretary’s announcement will not impact the Colorado Roadless Rule, and that the Colorado Roadless Rule will remain intact,” Polis spokesperson Shelby Wieman said.

A USDA spokesperson in Washington, D.C., confirmed that assessment in an email early Thursday.

 

[Skerhunter]

I saw this being pushed as a win for allowing access and improved maintenance focused on use for fire personnel. I definitely don’t like the idea of more roads, but also understand the challenges those guys face. Maybe we will get lucky and they will be locked up/restricted access.

 

[Poser]

I saw this being pushed as a win for allowing access and improved maintenance focused on use for fire personnel. I definitely don’t like the idea of more roads, but also understand the challenges those guys face. Maybe we will get lucky and they will be locked up/restricted access.

I highly doubt that any forrest service district anywhere has any money at all to budget towards building new fire roads. My district had to do a public fundraiser just to have enough money to open the public restrooms this season. Build roads with what money?

 

[Trogon]

Exactly, and that's a perfect excuse to put that into private hands: government doesn't need to foot the bill for logging roads, private leases can do that and then the roads are available for fire. I would love to see that done strategically, with a long term vision for overall wellbeing of all resources. Just dont see that happening.

 

[Skerhunter]

I highly doubt that any forrest service district anywhere has any money at all to budget towards building new fire roads. My district had to do a public fundraiser just to have enough money to open the public restrooms this season. Build roads with what money?

Right - I would imagine it needs to be funded now before it’s possible to perform the previously restricted repairs/construction. I doubt we see any changes this season (gov isn’t that efficient anyways).

 

[elkhunter505]

Most of the talk I’ve seen suggests that the areas that the roadless rule covered are not necessarily profitable for timber harvest and they’re saying it’s more for firefighting access. Fires are 3 to 4 times as likely to be ignited within I think 50 meters of a road, so build more roads and essentially it’s likely to start more fires. Just flat out doesn’t make sense to me when the profitability of the parcels suggested is minimal.

 

[elkhunter505]

Sometimes it feels like these people see a wildfire occur and don’t see anything other than $ going down the drain rather than wildlife habitat being created.

 

[wowzers]

Many of the areas selected when the rule was implemented already had roads in them.

 

[wowzers]

Exactly, and that's a perfect excuse to put that into private hands: government doesn't need to foot the bill for logging roads, private leases can do that and then the roads are available for fire. I would love to see that done strategically, with a long term vision for overall wellbeing of all resources. Just dont see that happening.

The government doesn’t foot the bill for the construction of logging roads. Timber purchasers are required to factor that cost (which is almost always undervalued compared to actual costs) into their bid appraisals.

That said the comment period is open https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...rea-conservation-national-forest-system-lands

I see that the Conservation Industrial Complex has already framed it as the dozers are lined up to start pushing roads into the Wilderness.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

I predict it end up like most government endeavors somewhere between FUBAR and a nothing burger..regardless of the outcome a ridiculous amount of government money will be spent with little to no effect on the original objective.

 

[TaperPin]

Having seen a number of fire budgets and lists of priorities for fire management, never do I recall more fire roads as the top of the list.

Our government is being run like a reality TV show and fire roads are easy to point to like “see what a great job we’re doing!” If they actually help or not.

 

[wowzers]

Having seen a number of fire budgets and lists of priorities for fire management, never do I recall more fire roads as the top of the list.

Our government is being run like a reality TV show and fire roads are easy to point to like “see what a great job we’re doing!” If they actually help or not.

I don’t think the intent is for fire roads. The intent is to allow roads to be built for more forest management. Also roads are used a ton during fire management.

 

[tipsntails7]

This is the first step towards divesting of them. Roll back this rule under the guise of “fire and timber management” as if these forests can’t sustain or manage themselves without us ******* with them constantly, as if fires are not inherently good for the long term health of forest lands.

Point to the cost of potentially implementing these roads and management strategies, say that the fed can’t possible pay for it all, sell the land, or give it to the state so they sell it. end game achieved.

Political lean however you would like, but republicans have continuously pushed and proposed federal land divestment for the better part of 40 years now and that’s not changing anytime soon.

 

[menhaden_man]

How did we survive before 2001 when it went into place?

Not advocating one way or another but I’m not exactly sure things have improved over 25 years.

The NEPA comment period will draw some attention.

 

[Windigo]

How did we survive before 2001 when it went into place?

Not advocating one way or another but I’m not exactly sure things have improved over 25 years.

The NEPA comment period will draw some attention.

You should look into the NEPA rule changes and how the public is engaged now…

 

[TaperPin]

I don’t think the intent is for fire roads. The intent is to allow roads to be built for more forest management. Also roads are used a ton during fire management.

It makes as much sense as “drill baby drill”. How much has drilling increased? None. It’s whackadoodle ideas thrown out if they make sense or not to clog the news cycle so people are so worn out trying to keep up with all the crazy ideas that the real issues get swept under the rug. Just the effort to read about this is time and effort taken away from thinking about why the biggest grifts are being swept under the rug. The administration has a loose relationship with the truth.

 

[98XJRC]

The administration has a loose relationship with the truth.

Every administration has a loose relationship with the truth. We've all been and continue to be played by .gov.



This is a weirder issue then the talk of public land sale and it's getting the exact response intended. Many hikers or those who want easier access are all for supporting this, while those who enjoy getting away from any sign of humans are against. I live out East and unfortunately roads are a way of life here even in large tracts of state and national forests. I wish that wasn't the case, but by allowing forestry activities and gas drilling we have broken up what once was strictly forests. It's difficult to get more then a mile from a road (although it may be gated off) in the NE.

 

[Customweld]

The government doesn’t foot the bill for the construction of logging roads. Timber purchasers are required to factor that cost (which is almost always undervalued compared to actual costs) into their bid appraisals.

That said the comment period is open https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...rea-conservation-national-forest-system-lands

I see that the Conservation Industrial Complex has already framed it as the dozers are lined up to start pushing roads into the Wilderness.

Also to note, existing roads (especially system roads) are rebuilt, have new gravel laid down and are finaled after timber hauling is done. You guys up there in the Nez Perce do a pretty decent job on road maintenance. If you spend any time on the Payette or Boise NF and you'll see the difference between their management approach.