What the U.S. Forest Service's own analysis says about access, wildfire, recreation, economics, wildlife and the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers believes hunters, anglers and public land owners deserve the full picture before weighing in on a decision this consequential. So rather than asking you to take our word for it, we went directly to the Administration’s own Draft Environmental Impact Statement – the analysis prepared to evaluate the consequences of rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Below, we examine some of the most common misconceptions surrounding the Roadless Rule alongside what the Administration’s own analysis actually says about access, recreation, economics, wildfire, wildlife and more.
Our goal is simple: separate the rhetoric from the record, and provide important context, so you can decide for yourself.
Note: Unless otherwise noted in parentheses, quoted language below is reproduced verbatim from U.S. Forest Service publications, including any errors or typos. BHA commentary appears in parentheses.
Misconception: Roadless areas are largely inaccessible, or otherwise unused, lands.
The Record: “...the national forests that include current inventoried roadless areas receive about 125 million visits annually or 76 percent of the 164 million visits each year to all NFS lands.” (Roadless DEIS, p. 163)
Misconception: Repealing the Roadless Rule will increase public access.
The Record: Short-term: “Under the proposed rule, there could be temporary impacts to recreation and related industry opportunities, including noise, visible infrastructure, and temporary closures ... (Roadless DEIS, p. 11).”
Long-term: “Regarding Alternative 2 (full rescission): In the long-term, losses in trail and dispersed recreation visits because of changes in the recreation opportunities or desirability of landscape conditions could yield lower aggregate expenditures from trail and dispersed area visitors in the communities around roadless areas ...” (Roadless DEIS, p. 233)
(Another common misconception about the Roadless Rule is that it closes or gates existing roads or limits existing motorized travel. It does neither.)
Misconception: Rescinding the Roadless Rule is critical for fire management.
The Record: “Currently, the number, frequency, and density of wildfire ignitions are lower in designated wilderness and potentially affected IRAs compared to other National Forest System lands. Under alternatives 2 and 3, if there is an increase in public road access, there could be increase [in] the number and frequency of wildfires as human-ignitions are more likely near roads. However, public access could be limited to minimize fire hazard in high-risk areas.” (Roadless DEIS, p. 24)
(Read: Fires may already be less prevalent on IRAs than other USFS lands. And the proposed solution to an increase in human-ignitions near roads is to potentially shut down access.)
Misconception: Repeal of the Roadless Rule is fiscally responsible.
The Record: “Losses in economic benefit to recreationists could be an estimated $6.1 million annually are most likely to be associated with the operable areas of current Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)” (Roadless DEIS, p. 11)
... ”if annual timber harvest in all those [inventoried roadless] areas occurred (which is unlikely due to budgets, unforeseen limits on operability, and market conditions), it could result in an estimated 5 to 10 percent increase in total annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest and $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." (Roadless DEIS, p. 10)
... "any efficiency gains are expected to be incremental and limited by road costs, maintenance funding gaps, and the $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges." (Roadless Rule Proposed Rule, p. 3)
(Put simply: The potential economic gains from increased timber harvest are limited, as is the amount of inventoried roadless land where timber harvest is actually feasible due to operability, budgets, market conditions and other constraints identified in the DEIS. Additionally, losses in economic benefit from recreation will offset much of that potential gain.)
Misconception: The Roadless Rule restricts economic gain from our National Forests.
The Record: “Deferred maintenance and management cost increases are likely under Alternative 2 (full repeal) and Alternative 3 (partial repeal).” (Roadless DEIS, p. 50)
“There could be a need to shift resources or funding to account for additional permanent mileage added to the National Forest System.” (Roadless DEIS, p. 23)
(In other words: Spend your taxpayer dollars because rescinding the Rule will lose money.)
Misconception: Repealing the Roadless Rule will make these public lands more useful to the public."
The Record: “Alternative 2 [full rescission] would have the greatest negative effects to the quality of life for people that hold intrinsic value for the existence of roadless areas, the ecosystem services and recreation benefit they provide.” (Roadless DEIS, p. 26)
Misconception: Rescinding the Roadless Rule would positively impact wildlife through enabling habitat restoration projects.
The Record: “The most recent USFWS and NMFS data indicate that the potentially affected environment of inventoried roadless areas provides habitat for more than 300 threatened, endangered, and proposed species. Additionally, the potentially affected environment provides habitat for thousands (approx. 3,500) of Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Species of Conservation Concern (SCC).” (Roadless DEIS, p. 133)
“...Within the potentially affected environment, there are 79 final or proposed critical habitats designated under the Endangered Species Act for species managed by USFWS and 19 critical habitats designated for species evolutionarily significant units or distinct population segments managed by NMF.”(Roadless DEIS, p. 133)
(Read: Increased road construction and timber harvesting could undermine the integrity of critical wildlife habitat.)
Misconception: Roadless Areas, in their current state, pose no economic benefit.
The Record: “In 2024, visitors to the national forests and grasslands potentially affected by the roadless rule rescission spent $8.5 billion in local communities during their recreation visits.” (Roadless DEIS, p. 212)
0