Comment deadline for Roadless Area Conservation rule extended
Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation
Forest ServiceFederal Register 2026-18648 ↗
The public now has until October 6, 2026 to weigh in on rules protecting national forest roadless areas.
What’s at risk
Roadless areas in national forests could gain or lose protection depending on what this rule finalizes. The comment period is the public's formal opportunity to shape that outcome.
If we stay silent
Comments submitted by October 6, 2026 become part of the official record and can directly influence the final rule governing millions of acres of roadless national forest land.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The strongest findings read from the agency’s own document, each quoted word for word. The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.
Relationship of the 2001 Roadless Rule to Land Management Planning
The agency says
“45 of those were revised between 2001 to 2011 when the status of the Roadless Rule was uncertain due to litigation. Therefore, these plans are less likely to have incorporated IRAs into their management areas or provided specific direction for these areas.”
The document's central rationale for rescission is that land management plans will adequately protect roadless values once the 2001 Rule is removed.
Road System Management Costs and Funding
The agency says
“the Forest Service received approximately $270 million in fiscal year 2023, or less than 20 percent of the estimated funding needed to maintain its existing road infrastructure.”
The document acknowledges a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog on existing NFS roads, that appropriated funding has dropped nearly 70 percent over 20 years to $73 million annually against an estimated need of $1.6 billion, and that temporary funding sources like the Great American Outdoors Act and IIJA are expiring.
Fire Control
The agency says
“new permanent road construction, strategically planned to support fuels and fire objectives, is less likely to be widespread within potentially affected IRAs, given the costs of road construction costs, maintenance funding limitations, constraints on placement of roads, and current land management plan restrictions.”
The document makes wildfire risk reduction a primary justification for rescission, yet its own fire data show that initial attack success rates are already above 90 percent in IRAs (94.4 percent), that only 29.9 percent of large fire perimeters nationally aligned with any road, and that most new roads projected under the alternatives would be temporary spur roads within 0.5 miles of existing roads rather than strategically placed fire-control roads.
Table 35
The agency says
“there are more than 7,000 municipal water intakes within watersheds containing potentially affected inventoried roadless areas.”
The document projects that roughly 24 million people obtain drinking water from watersheds containing potentially affected IRAs, including nearly 5 million people in the Pacific Southwest served by direct intakes.
ESA-Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat
The agency says
“Interagency cooperation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is ongoing and will be completed prior to a final decision.”
The preliminary biological assessment finds 'may affect, likely to adversely affect' determinations for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 critical habitats under alternative 2, and the document states that formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS and NMFS has not yet been completed.
9 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I support this action and urge the agency to advance it.
- The document's central rationale for rescission is that land management plans will adequately protect roadless values once the 2001 Rule is removed. Yet the document itself admits that 108 of 126 plans were written under the 1982 regulations, that 45 of those were revised during the period when the Rule was enjoined and therefore 'less likely to have incorporated IRAs into their management areas,' and that plan revisions happen only every 15 years or more. The agency provides no analysis of how many acres would be effectively unprotected during the gap between rescission and eventual plan revision. The agency should quantify, by region and forest, the acres of IRAs covered by plans that lack IRA-specific components, and it should either defer rescission until adequate plan coverage exists or prepare a supplemental analysis demonstrating that existing plan components are sufficient…
- The document acknowledges a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog on existing NFS roads, that appropriated funding has dropped nearly 70 percent over 20 years to $73 million annually against an estimated need of $1.6 billion, and that temporary funding sources like the Great American Outdoors Act and IIJA are expiring. Despite this, the agency projects that new road construction in IRAs under alternatives 2 and 3 will be funded primarily by timber revenues and will not require analysis at this stage. No quantitative estimate of additional maintenance costs from new IRA roads is provided, and the agency concedes there is 'no means to determine deferred maintenance for only roads within the potentially affected environment.' The agency should prepare a detailed fiscal analysis estimating the lifecycle maintenance cost of roads reasonably foreseeable under each alternative and explain…
- The document makes wildfire risk reduction a primary justification for rescission, yet its own fire data show that initial attack success rates are already above 90 percent in IRAs (94.4 percent), that only 29.9 percent of large fire perimeters nationally aligned with any road, and that most new roads projected under the alternatives would be temporary spur roads within 0.5 miles of existing roads rather than strategically placed fire-control roads. The document states explicitly that 'new permanent road construction, strategically planned to support fuels and fire objectives, is less likely to be widespread.' The agency thus acknowledges the fire-control benefit of new roads is speculative and localized but does not quantify it or compare it against the documented increased human-ignition risk that accompanies roads. The agency should provide a region-by-region analysis comparing…
- The document projects that roughly 24 million people obtain drinking water from watersheds containing potentially affected IRAs, including nearly 5 million people in the Pacific Southwest served by direct intakes. It also shows that 40 percent of Pacific Northwest watersheds containing IRAs already have 303(d)-impaired streams, and that the Southern and Eastern regions have the highest proportions of operable IRA acres combined with the weakest existing soil and water quality ratings. Yet the analysis of water quality effects under alternatives 2 and 3 is entirely qualitative, relying on best-management-practice compliance rates and general statements that 'impacts would be reduced.' No quantitative estimate of sediment loading, water treatment cost increases, or probability of 303(d) listing is provided for any watershed. The agency should conduct watershed-level water quality modeling…
Show every point from the document
- The preliminary biological assessment finds 'may affect, likely to adversely affect' determinations for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 critical habitats under alternative 2, and the document states that formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS and NMFS has not yet been completed. Under NEPA and the ESA, a final rule cannot be issued until consultation is complete and a Biological Opinion is in hand. The agency is circulating a draft EIS and proposed rule while candidly admitting the ESA process is 'ongoing.' The agency should not finalize the rule until formal Section 7 consultation is complete and the Biological Opinion, including any reasonable and prudent alternatives or measures, is incorporated into the final EIS and record of decision.
- The document states that tribal consultation began in July 2025, that 64 tribes requested consultation, that 29 have been held and 5 more are scheduled, and that 'consultations will be ongoing throughout the rulemaking process.' A final Tribal Impact Summary Statement is promised only with the final rule. At the same time, the document eliminates from detailed study a tribal co-stewardship alternative, characterizing it as better addressed through land management planning. This structure means tribes must comment on a proposed rule whose tribal impact analysis is incomplete, and the alternative most responsive to tribal requests has been screened out before consultation is finished. The agency should complete all requested tribal consultations and incorporate a tribal impact summary before the close of the public comment period, and it should explain in the final EIS why a tribal…
- The document's purpose-and-need statement frames rescission as necessary to address wildfire, insect and disease, and forest health, yet the agency's own data show that in most western regions IRA forests have equal or lower insect and disease risk than other NFS lands outside designated areas. For example, in Regions 3, 5, and 6 the percent of IRA forested acres at risk is lower than on other NFS lands. The document also acknowledges that under alternative 1, hazardous fuels treatments including prescribed fire and wildfire use have been conducted on about 5 percent of IRA acres over the last decade without road construction. The gap between the stated need and the agency's own data is not explained. The agency should provide a region-specific quantitative demonstration that existing Rule exceptions and non-road-dependent treatments are inadequate to address the stated forest health…
- The document states that a 21-day NOI comment period was used to scope the EIS, during which over 220,000 letters were received representing more than 625,000 submissions, with approximately 99 percent generally opposed to the proposed rescission. The agency's own interim NEPA regulations at 7 CFR 1b.7(b) allow for comment periods, but the document does not explain why 21 days was adequate for a programmatic action affecting 44.7 million acres, 327 ESA-listed species, and 24 million drinking water users. By comparison, the 2001 Roadless Rule scoping involved multiple years of public engagement. The compressed timeline is inconsistent with the scale and complexity of the action. The agency should extend the DEIS comment period to at least 90 days and hold regional public meetings to ensure meaningful participation by affected communities, tribes, and technical experts.
- The document projects a potential 5 to 10 percent increase in NFS sawtimber harvest nationally under alternative 2, citing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandate to increase annual timber sales by 250 million board feet each year through 2034. However, the economic analysis does not account for the agency's own finding that road construction in IRA terrain can cost 3 to 10 times more per mile than flat terrain, that less than 20 percent of current NFS roads are in good condition, and that timber revenues will not cover all road construction and maintenance costs. The document presents no net present value or cost-benefit analysis comparing timber revenues against infrastructure costs, water treatment cost increases, or recreation economic losses. Table 50 shows recreation provides hundreds of millions in annual visitor benefits to affected forests, but no comparison with projected…
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule titled Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2026 (91 FR 53827). The notice of proposed rulemaking invited public comment on the proposed rule, the associated draft environmental impact statement, and cost benefit analysis, which were published simultaneously. 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. Th…
Did the agency answer?
10 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe draft EIS's Scope of the Analysis section flatly states that none of the alternatives would cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, but the same document discloses that the
The draft EIS's Scope of the Analysis section flatly states that none of the alternatives would cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, but the same document discloses that the rescission is likely to adversely affect 327 ESA-listed species and 71 critical habitats and that permanent road construction and old-growth removal are reasonably foreseeable elsewhere in the effects chapters. The agency cannot credibly disclaim any irreversible resource commitment while its own analysis predicts exactly that. The Forest Service should revise this section to honestly disclose and analyze the irreversible and irretrievable commitments described in its own biodiversity, vegetation, and roads chapters, or explain the contradiction.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe agency reports that a preliminary biological assessment found the rescission likely to adversely affect 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats, but formal Section 7 consultatio
The agency reports that a preliminary biological assessment found the rescission likely to adversely affect 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats, but formal Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries has not been completed. Basing a nationwide rulemaking decision on preliminary, unconsulted findings covering hundreds of species means the public cannot know whether the final Biological Opinion will require different alternatives, mitigation, or a jeopardy finding. The Forest Service should complete ESA consultation and disclose the resulting Biological Opinion before finalizing this rule.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe purpose and need argues that the 2001 Roadless Rule limited vegetation management and contributed to forest-health problems, but the agency's own Fire and Fuels Management chapter cites research f
The purpose and need argues that the 2001 Roadless Rule limited vegetation management and contributed to forest-health problems, but the agency's own Fire and Fuels Management chapter cites research finding that the Roadless Rule did not meaningfully constrain hazardous fuel treatment activities when measured as a share of forested land treated. The document's own cited evidence contradicts the central justification offered for rescinding the rule. The Forest Service should reconcile this contradiction and justify the purpose and need with data rather than an unsupported claim that roadless status caused a forest-health crisis.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingEven under full rescission, existing land management plans independently restrict timber harvest on 26.7 million acres, or 66.5 percent, of the potentially affected IRAs and restrict road construction
Even under full rescission, existing land management plans independently restrict timber harvest on 26.7 million acres, or 66.5 percent, of the potentially affected IRAs and restrict road construction on more than half the acreage, regardless of the Roadless Rule's status. If most of the land is already off-limits under plan direction that would survive rescission, the agency has not shown that eliminating the national rule delivers the forest-health and timber benefits it claims. The Forest Service should quantify what rescission actually adds beyond existing plan restrictions before relying on those benefits to justify the rule.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe agency's own activity-tracking data show that timber harvest within potentially affected IRAs has averaged only about 500 acres per year, with volume inconsequential to overall nationwide harvest
The agency's own activity-tracking data show that timber harvest within potentially affected IRAs has averaged only about 500 acres per year, with volume inconsequential to overall nationwide harvest levels, across the 44.7 million acres covered by the rule. That trivial historical harvest level undercuts the claim that roadless prohibitions are a meaningful driver of the national forest-health and timber-supply problems the agency describes. The Forest Service should explain, with data, how opening land that has produced inconsequential harvest volume for over two decades will now deliver the promised benefits.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe agency touts fire-control benefits from new roads in roadless areas, but its own data show that nationally only 23.5 percent of Forest Service road length that intersected wildfires was associated
The agency touts fire-control benefits from new roads in roadless areas, but its own data show that nationally only 23.5 percent of Forest Service road length that intersected wildfires was associated with successful containment, with success rates as low as 12.7 to 20.8 percent on the lower-maintenance-level roads that are most likely to be built in these remote areas. Because the DEIS elsewhere states that new roads in IRAs would mostly be temporary, low-standard spur roads, the type of road most likely to actually be built is the type least associated with successful containment in the agency's own analysis. The Forest Service should not cite general fire-control benefits without confronting this road-class-specific containment data.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe agency admits it does not track when requests for exceptions under the current rule were abandoned or not approved, and separately concedes its tally of documented exception proposals since 2018 e
The agency admits it does not track when requests for exceptions under the current rule were abandoned or not approved, and separately concedes its tally of documented exception proposals since 2018 excludes approvals made below the regional forester level. The entire narrative that roadless exceptions have been limited and inconsistent rests on this incomplete record-keeping. The Forest Service should compile complete national data on how the existing exception process has actually been used before relying on that history to justify eliminating the underlying prohibitions.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingOf the more than 220,000 comment letters (representing over 625,000 signatures) received on the Notice of Intent, approximately 99 percent were generally opposed to the proposed rescission while appro
Of the more than 220,000 comment letters (representing over 625,000 signatures) received on the Notice of Intent, approximately 99 percent were generally opposed to the proposed rescission while approximately 1 percent were generally in support, yet that comment window lasted only 21 days. Near-unanimous documented opposition, generated during an unusually short notice period, warrants a longer public comment window on the actual draft EIS and proposed rule text. The Forest Service should extend the comment period given the scale of opposition already on record.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe agency proposes to authorize new permanent road construction in currently roadless areas while its own transportation chapter discloses a 2024 deferred maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion for road
The agency proposes to authorize new permanent road construction in currently roadless areas while its own transportation chapter discloses a 2024 deferred maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion for roads and bridges, funded at less than 20 percent of the annual need. Adding new permanent road mileage to a system the agency cannot currently afford to maintain will deepen this backlog and, as the DEIS itself acknowledges, could require shifting funding between regions. The Forest Service should disclose how new road construction and its maintenance will be funded given the existing $6.9 billion backlog before finalizing a rule that foreseeably expands the road network.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingIn the operable areas most likely to be logged under the proposed action, the agency's own data show that roughly 11 to 16 percent is old-growth forest and 54 to 63 percent is mature forest, meaning o
In the operable areas most likely to be logged under the proposed action, the agency's own data show that roughly 11 to 16 percent is old-growth forest and 54 to 63 percent is mature forest, meaning old and mature stands make up the large majority of the timberland the rule would open. The DEIS does not identify any old-growth-specific protection beyond general land management plan compliance before these irreplaceable stands could be harvested. The Forest Service should separately analyze and disclose old-growth-specific safeguards before authorizing timber harvest in this largely mature and old-growth land base.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
More logging. Fewer protections for big trees, roadless country and wildlife. Another sweeping change to America’s public lands is moving fast.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .