Repeal of the Roadless Rule

1. This repeal is being presented as something needed to prevent wildfires. However:

Researchers found wildfire ignition density of approximately:

7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares within 50 meters of roads

compared with:

1.97 fires per 1,000 hectares in Inventoried Roadless Areas.

2. The existing rule already permits some vegetation management when needed to:

• Reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects.
• Restore ecosystem conditions.
• Improve habitat for threatened or sensitive species.
• Protect public health and safety.

Prescribed burning generally does not require permanent roads.

3. Drinking Water May Be One of the Most Important Underreported Issues

The Roadless Rule is usually discussed as a forest-conservation policy.

It is also a major watershed-protection policy.

A peer-reviewed study published in PLOS Water in July 2026 examined Inventoried Roadless Areas across the continental United States.

Researchers found that roadless protections include more than:

130,000 kilometers of rivers and streams.

More than 100,000 kilometers of those waterways depend primarily on roadless-area protection rather than overlapping conservation designations.

Most importantly, the researchers estimated that watersheds influenced by roadless areas provide drinking water to:

at least 25 million Americans.

Roadless watersheds were especially important in national forests including:

• Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina.
• Ashley National Forest in Utah.
• Uinta National Forest in Utah.

Roadless Areas Protect Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystems – PLOS Water, July 2026

4. Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity

Inventoried Roadless Areas also contain some of the country's least fragmented remaining National Forest landscapes.

Roads affect wildlife not only through direct habitat destruction but by fragmenting larger ecosystems.

Possible effects include:

• Wildlife-vehicle collisions.
• Increased hunting and human access.
• Noise disturbance.
• Habitat fragmentation.
• Spread of invasive species.
• Changes in predator behavior.
• Increased edge habitat.
• Reduced movement between populations.

Research published in Conservation Science and Practice found roadless lands often increase the effective size and connectivity of existing protected areas.

They can function as ecological bridges between:

• Wilderness areas.
• National parks.
• Wildlife refuges.
• Other protected lands.

This connectivity becomes particularly important as climate change causes species to shift their geographic ranges.

Roadless Areas, Conservation Connectivity and Ecosystem Benefits – Conservation Science and Practice

Repeal of the Roadless Rule and the Future of National Forests

The future of nearly 45 million acres of relatively undeveloped national forest land is again being debated after the U.S. Department of Agriculture formally proposed rescinding the federal Roadless Area Conservation Rule in August 2026. The rule has not yet been repealed. It remains in effect while the Forest Service completes the rulemaking process and considers public comments.

The debate is often described simply as a fight between logging and conservation. In reality, the Roadless Rule affects wildfire management, drinking-water supplies, wildlife habitat, road construction, timber production, federal spending, carbon storage, Indigenous interests, and the larger question of who should decide how federal public lands are managed.

What the Roadless Rule Actually Does

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was adopted in 2001 and applies generally to designated Inventoried Roadless Areas, commonly known as IRAs, within the National Forest System.

The rule generally prohibits:

• Construction of new permanent roads.
• Reconstruction of many existing roads.
• Most commercial timber harvesting.

However, the Roadless Rule does not require the Forest Service to leave these areas completely untouched.

Exceptions allow certain activities involving:

• Public health and safety.
• Wildfire response.
• Existing legal rights.
• Environmental cleanup.
• Certain mineral leases.
• Restoration of ecosystem conditions.
• Improvement of habitat for threatened or sensitive species.
• Reduction of the risk of severe or uncharacteristic wildfire.

This distinction is important because the political debate sometimes presents roadless areas as places where the Forest Service cannot manage vegetation or respond to fires.

That is not accurate.

The rule restricts road building and most commercial timber harvesting, but it contains multiple exceptions allowing active management under specified circumstances.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule – U.S. Forest Service

Roadless Does Not Mean Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas are also not the same thing as federally designated wilderness.

Congress designates wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act. Those lands receive much stronger restrictions on development and motorized activity.

Roadless areas are an administrative category created through Forest Service planning.

Some roadless areas contain:

• Existing roads.
• Previous logging activity.
• Grazing.
• Utility corridors.
• Mining claims.
• Recreational infrastructure.

Approximately 63 percent of the acreage affected by the current federal proposal is classified as forested.

The Roadless Rule therefore protects more than forests. It also includes grasslands, alpine areas, watersheds, shrublands, and other ecosystems.

Final 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule – Federal Register

Why Some Reports Say 58.5 Million Acres and Others Say 44.7 Million

The original 2001 Roadless Rule covered approximately 58.5 million acres of National Forest System lands.

That number still appears frequently in discussions of the policy.

However, Idaho and Colorado subsequently adopted separate state-specific roadless rules.

The current USDA proposal would leave those two state rules in place.

As a result, the national Roadless Rule that the federal government is now proposing to rescind applies to approximately:

44.7 million acres.

More than 95 percent of the acreage affected by the proposal is located in ten Western states:

• Alaska
• Arizona
• California
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• Oregon
• Utah
• Washington
• Wyoming

Proposed Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule – Federal Register, August 2026

USDA Acts to Remove Roadless Rule Restrictions – U.S. Department of Agriculture

What Repeal Would Actually Change

Repealing the Roadless Rule would not immediately authorize logging or road construction throughout 44.7 million acres.

Instead, repeal would remove the national prohibition that currently applies to those lands.

Management decisions would then generally revert to individual national forest land-management plans and future Forest Service decisions.

Individual projects could still be subject to laws including:

• National Environmental Policy Act.
• Endangered Species Act.
• National Forest Management Act.
• Clean Water Act.
• Other federal and state environmental requirements.

The immediate effect could therefore be smaller than headlines suggesting that tens of millions of acres would suddenly be opened to logging.

The long-term institutional change could be considerably larger.

Under the existing system, road construction and most commercial logging are presumptively prohibited unless an exception applies.

Without the Roadless Rule, those activities could be considered wherever individual forest plans allow them.

Forest supervisors and regional officials could also revise those plans in future years.

The basic change would therefore be:

Current system:

Road construction and most commercial timber harvesting are nationally prohibited in Inventoried Roadless Areas unless an exception applies.

After repeal:

Road construction and timber harvesting could potentially be authorized according to individual forest plans and project-specific environmental reviews.

This would replace a national conservation standard with a more decentralized forest-by-forest system.

Proposed Roadless Rule Rescission and Draft Environmental Analysis – Federal Register

USDA Estimates Where Roads Could Be Built

The federal government's own analysis contains some of the most important numbers in the debate.

USDA estimates that approximately:

18.2 million acres

are located where existing forest-management plans could potentially permit permanent road construction if the Roadless Rule prohibition disappeared.

That represents approximately 45.5 percent of the potentially affected area.

Temporary roads are considered most likely near existing road networks.

Approximately:

11.3 million acres

of affected land lies within one-half mile of an existing road.

However, the Forest Service does not expect roads to be constructed across all of this acreage.

Terrain, cost, environmental restrictions, lack of commercial timber, and other practical constraints would continue to limit development.

Draft Environmental Impact Analysis – Federal Register

How Much Additional Logging Could Occur?

The amount of land realistically available for increased timber harvesting is considerably smaller than the total roadless acreage.

USDA estimates that approximately:

4.8 million acres

are both operationally suitable for active forest management and located where current forest plans could allow those activities.

That represents roughly 16 percent of affected forested acreage.

USDA does not expect all of this land to be harvested.

Its analysis estimates that additional access could potentially increase total National Forest System sawtimber harvest by approximately:

5 to 10 percent.

The agency estimates additional annual federal revenue of approximately:

$5.2 million to $11.4 million

and additional timber-industry revenue of approximately:

$4.6 million to $10.6 million.

These estimates help put the economic argument in perspective.

The proposal could increase timber production, but the federal government's own analysis does not describe anything approaching commercial logging across all 44.7 million affected acres.

USDA Economic and Environmental Analysis of Proposed Roadless Rule Rescission

The Forest Service Already Has a Large Road-Maintenance Backlog

One particularly important issue receives relatively little attention.

The Forest Service already manages an enormous road network.

According to USDA's own analysis, the agency faces approximately:

$6.9 billion

in deferred road and bridge maintenance.

Building new permanent roads does not create only a one-time construction expense.

Roads also require:

• Drainage maintenance.
• Culvert replacement.
• Bridge repair.
• Erosion control.
• Landslide repair.
• Vegetation management.
• Eventual reconstruction or decommissioning.

The financial question is therefore not merely whether new roads can be built.

It is:

Can the Forest Service afford to maintain additional roads when it already has billions of dollars of deferred maintenance on the road system it currently manages?

The existing maintenance backlog is one reason USDA itself concludes that large-scale permanent road construction is unlikely across much of the affected acreage.

Proposed Roadless Rule Rescission – Federal Register

Wildfire Is the Administration's Central Argument

The Trump administration has made wildfire prevention one of its principal arguments for eliminating the national Roadless Rule.

USDA states that more than 40 percent of Inventoried Roadless Areas have high or very high wildfire-hazard potential.

The department also says only about 5 percent of those lands have received hazardous-fuels treatments since 2014.

Approximately:

9.8 million acres

of affected roadless land overlaps the wildland-urban interface, where fires can threaten homes, infrastructure, communities, and water supplies.

Road access can assist:

• Firefighters.
• Mechanical thinning operations.
• Fuel removal.
• Emergency evacuation.
• Equipment transport.
• Post-fire restoration.

USDA therefore argues that the Roadless Rule can restrict the Forest Service's ability to conduct some forms of wildfire-risk reduction.

USDA Wildfire Argument for Rescinding the Roadless Rule

But Roads Can Also Increase Wildfire Ignitions

Recent scientific research complicates the argument that more roads necessarily mean less wildfire.

A 2026 peer-reviewed study published in Fire Ecology examined wildfire ignitions on National Forest System lands between 1992 and 2024.

Researchers found wildfire ignition density of approximately:

7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares within 50 meters of roads

compared with:

1.97 fires per 1,000 hectares in Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Human-caused fire ignitions declined sharply as distance from roads increased.

The researchers concluded that building additional roads into currently roadless areas would probably increase opportunities for human-caused wildfire ignition.

However, the study also found an important counterpoint.

Fires near roads tended to remain smaller, probably because they were:

• Discovered sooner.
• More accessible to firefighters.
• Easier to suppress.

For the largest approximately 2 percent of fires, differences were much smaller.

The findings therefore do not support a simple conclusion that roads are either good or bad for wildfire management.

Instead, roads appear capable of producing two opposing effects:

Roads can increase human-caused wildfire ignitions while also improving firefighters' access to fires after they begin.

Wildfire Ignitions and Roads on National Forest Lands – Fire Ecology, 2026

Earlier Forest Service Research Reached a Similar Nuanced Conclusion

Research conducted by Forest Service scientist Sean Healey also examined differences between roadless and roaded national forest lands.

The study found that forests with roads and forests without roads had burned at roughly similar rates over nearly two decades.

Fuel-management treatments occurred more frequently per square kilometer in roadless areas, although treatments conducted in roaded areas generally covered larger areas.

The research also found an important ecological difference involving invasive plants.

Non-native vegetation was approximately twice as common within 500 feet of roads as it was farther away.

The results suggest roads can provide management access while simultaneously increasing ecological disturbance.

Roadless Areas, Wildfire, Forest Management and Invasive Species – U.S. Forest Service Research

Can Wildfire Treatments Occur Under the Existing Rule?

Another important question is whether eliminating the Roadless Rule is necessary to conduct wildfire-risk reduction.

The existing rule already permits some vegetation management when needed to:

• Reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects.
• Restore ecosystem conditions.
• Improve habitat for threatened or sensitive species.
• Protect public health and safety.

Prescribed burning generally does not require permanent roads.

Some mechanical thinning can also occur under existing exceptions.

The more precise policy question is therefore not:

Does the Roadless Rule prohibit wildfire management?

It generally does not.

The more useful question is:

Does the Roadless Rule prevent particular kinds of road-dependent mechanical treatment that would significantly reduce wildfire risk?

That is a substantially narrower and more scientifically testable question.

U.S. Forest Service Roadless Rule Guidance

Drinking Water May Be One of the Most Important Underreported Issues

The Roadless Rule is usually discussed as a forest-conservation policy.

It is also a major watershed-protection policy.

A peer-reviewed study published in PLOS Water in July 2026 examined Inventoried Roadless Areas across the continental United States.

Researchers found that roadless protections include more than:

130,000 kilometers of rivers and streams.

More than 100,000 kilometers of those waterways depend primarily on roadless-area protection rather than overlapping conservation designations.

Most importantly, the researchers estimated that watersheds influenced by roadless areas provide drinking water to:

at least 25 million Americans.

Roadless watersheds were especially important in national forests including:

• Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina.
• Ashley National Forest in Utah.
• Uinta National Forest in Utah.

Roadless Areas Protect Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystems – PLOS Water, July 2026

Why Roads Affect Water Quality

Road construction can influence watersheds even when relatively little commercial logging occurs.

Roads can increase:

• Soil erosion.
• Sediment entering streams.
• Landslides.
• Culvert failures.
• Stream fragmentation.
• Changes in drainage patterns.
• Vehicle-related pollution.
• Access for additional development.

Mountain headwaters are particularly important because disturbances there can affect water supplies far downstream.

That means the consequences of road construction may extend well beyond the boundaries of a national forest.

People living hundreds of miles from a roadless area may still depend on water originating within it.

This gives the Roadless Rule a broader public-interest dimension than the logging debate alone suggests.

PLOS Water Study of Roadless Watersheds

Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity

Inventoried Roadless Areas also contain some of the country's least fragmented remaining National Forest landscapes.

Roads affect wildlife not only through direct habitat destruction but by fragmenting larger ecosystems.

Possible effects include:

• Wildlife-vehicle collisions.
• Increased hunting and human access.
• Noise disturbance.
• Habitat fragmentation.
• Spread of invasive species.
• Changes in predator behavior.
• Increased edge habitat.
• Reduced movement between populations.

Research published in Conservation Science and Practice found roadless lands often increase the effective size and connectivity of existing protected areas.

They can function as ecological bridges between:

• Wilderness areas.
• National parks.
• Wildlife refuges.
• Other protected lands.

This connectivity becomes particularly important as climate change causes species to shift their geographic ranges.

Roadless Areas, Conservation Connectivity and Ecosystem Benefits – Conservation Science and Practice

Roadless Areas and Vulnerable Wildlife

Other research has examined the importance of roadless National Forest lands for wildlife species that require relatively large areas with low levels of human disturbance.

Roadless areas can be particularly important for animals vulnerable to:

• Human disturbance.
• Habitat fragmentation.
• Roads.
• Increased recreation.
• Hunting pressure.
• Development.

This does not mean every roadless acre has exceptional biodiversity value.

It means roadlessness itself can be an important ecological characteristic because large blocks of relatively undisturbed habitat have become increasingly rare.

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Vulnerable Wildlife – Global Ecology and Conservation

Forest Integrity

A 2026 study published in Biological Conservation examined the ecological condition of Inventoried Roadless Areas.

The researchers described these lands as containing some of the highest-integrity forests remaining in the United States.

Forest integrity refers not simply to the number of trees present but to characteristics including:

• Ecological structure.
• Native biodiversity.
• Limited fragmentation.
• Natural ecological processes.
• Low levels of human disturbance.

This is important because a forest can remain technically forested while losing many of the ecological characteristics of an intact forest.

Forest Integrity of Inventoried Roadless Areas – Biological Conservation, 2026

Alaska and the Tongass National Forest

The Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska represents a particularly important part of the Roadless Rule debate.

Approximately:

9 million acres

of Inventoried Roadless Areas are located within the Tongass.

The policy has repeatedly changed.

In 2020, the first Trump administration exempted the Tongass from the national Roadless Rule.

In 2023, the Biden administration restored Roadless Rule protections.

The current nationwide proposal would again remove those protections if the national rule is rescinded.

Congressional Research Service – Roadless Areas and the Tongass National Forest

Why the Tongass Is Different

The Tongass is not a typical dry Western national forest.

It is one of the world's largest remaining temperate rainforests.

It contains:

• Old-growth forests.
• Salmon habitat.
• Bears.
• Eagles.
• Wolves.
• Extensive carbon-rich soils.
• Indigenous cultural and subsistence resources.

One peer-reviewed analysis estimated that the Tongass stores approximately:

2.7 petagrams of carbon.

That represents roughly 20 percent of carbon stored throughout the entire National Forest System.

Inventoried Roadless Areas contain slightly more than half of the Tongass's estimated carbon.

Carbon Storage in the Tongass National Forest – Land

Indigenous and Subsistence Interests

The Tongass is also important to Alaska Native communities that have depended on the region's forests and waters for generations.

Traditional activities include:

• Salmon fishing.
• Hunting.
• Gathering plants.
• Cultural practices.
• Subsistence use.

Because the proposed rule could affect subsistence resources, USDA must conduct additional hearings and analysis under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

The Roadless Rule debate in Alaska therefore involves not simply timber and conservation but questions of:

• Indigenous rights.
• Traditional food systems.
• Cultural continuity.
• Local economic development.
• Federal management of ancestral landscapes.

USDA Roadless Rule Proposal – Alaska Subsistence Analysis

National Standards Versus Local Control

The Roadless Rule also raises a fundamental question about democratic governance.

The national rule represents one approach:

Some federal lands provide benefits of national significance and should therefore receive a nationwide minimum level of protection.

Those benefits can include:

• Clean water.
• Wildlife habitat.
• Carbon storage.
• Recreation.
• Biodiversity.
• Fisheries.
• Scenic landscapes.

The proposed rescission represents another philosophy:

Local Forest Service officials, states, tribes, and communities should have greater flexibility to determine how individual forests are managed.

There are arguments for both systems.

Local decision-making can better reflect:

• Local ecological conditions.
• Wildfire threats.
• Economic needs.
• Community priorities.
• Different forest types.

National standards can protect resources whose benefits extend beyond local political boundaries.

A watershed may supply cities far downstream.

Wildlife may migrate between states.

Carbon stored in a forest affects the global climate.

National forests are also federal public lands owned collectively by the American public.

The Roadless Rule debate is therefore partly a dispute over:

Who should decide the future of nationally owned public resources?

The Intergenerational Question

Road construction also has a characteristic that distinguishes it from many other administrative decisions.

It can be difficult to reverse.

A future president can restore a regulation.

Congress can change a law.

An agency can rewrite a forest-management plan.

But once roads are constructed, forests fragmented, and development begins, restoring the original roadless landscape can take decades or centuries.

That creates an intergenerational dimension to the debate.

Current governments are deciding whether future generations should inherit large landscapes that remain relatively undeveloped or landscapes containing additional networks of roads and development.

The Roadless Rule Has a Long Legal History

The Roadless Rule has been litigated repeatedly since its adoption in 2001.

The George W. Bush administration attempted to replace the nationwide rule in 2005 with a system allowing states to petition the federal government for state-specific management rules.

Court challenges followed.

Different federal courts initially reached conflicting conclusions.

The national 2001 rule was eventually restored.

In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected arguments that the Roadless Rule unlawfully created de facto wilderness or violated federal environmental law.

Congressional Research Service – The National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Rule

New Litigation Is Likely

Environmental organizations have indicated that they are prepared to challenge a final rescission of the Roadless Rule.

Potential legal disputes could involve:

• National Environmental Policy Act.
• Administrative Procedure Act.
• Endangered Species Act.
• Adequacy of the government's environmental analysis.
• Whether USDA adequately justified reversing a longstanding national policy.

The principal legal issue may not be whether USDA has any authority to alter Forest Service policy.

Rather, courts could examine whether the agency followed required procedures and adequately explained the factual and legal basis for reversing a rule that has existed for approximately 25 years.

Trump Administration Moves Ahead With Roadless Rule Rescission – Associated Press

Trump Administration Moves to Rescind Roadless Rule – Reuters

The Rule Was Originally Intended Partly to Reduce Litigation

There is an interesting historical irony.

One reason the Forest Service adopted a nationwide Roadless Rule in 2001 was to avoid repeated forest-by-forest battles over roadless lands.

Before the rule, individual management decisions frequently produced:

• Administrative appeals.
• Lawsuits.
• Political disputes.
• Conflicting forest-management policies.

A national rule was intended to create greater consistency.

Rescinding it could therefore return the Forest Service toward a system in which individual forests face separate disputes over road construction and timber development.

Congressional Research Service – History of the Roadless Rule

Congress Could Settle the Issue

Because the Roadless Rule is an administrative regulation rather than a statute enacted by Congress, presidential administrations can attempt to modify or rescind it.

Congress could change that.

The Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, introduced as H.R. 3930 and S. 2042, would effectively establish Roadless Rule protections in federal law.

If enacted, those protections could no longer be eliminated simply by changing Forest Service regulations.

H.R. 3930 – Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025

Legislation has also been introduced in the opposite direction.

H.R. 7695, introduced in 2026, would nullify the Roadless Rule and direct additional road development on National Forest System lands.

H.R. 7695 – Legislation Concerning National Forest Roads

Congress therefore faces a larger institutional question:

Should the management of nearly 45 million acres of federal land continue to change between presidential administrations, or should Congress establish a permanent national policy?

What Is Actually at Stake?

The Roadless Rule debate is often reduced to the question:

Should these forests be logged?

That is too narrow.

The larger issues include:

• Approximately 44.7 million acres of federal land.
• Potential road construction across portions of those lands.
• Additional timber harvesting.
• Wildfire management.
• Human-caused wildfire ignitions.
• Forest Service road-maintenance costs.
• Drinking water for at least 25 million Americans.
• More than 130,000 kilometers of streams and rivers.
• Wildlife habitat.
• Habitat connectivity.
• Invasive species.
• Carbon storage.
• Indigenous subsistence and cultural resources.
• Local versus national decision-making.
• Federal regulatory authority.
• Intergenerational land management.

Perhaps the most important distinction is between the immediate and long-term effects.

The federal government's own analysis suggests that large-scale road construction and logging would not occur immediately across all affected lands.

Many areas are too remote, steep, commercially marginal, or environmentally constrained.

The larger change would be institutional.

The national presumption against road building and most commercial timber harvesting would disappear.

After that, future forest plans, timber projects, wildfire programs, political administrations, and local management decisions could gradually determine which roadless areas remain roadless.

Conclusion

The proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule is therefore more consequential than a simple argument over logging.

The policy determines the starting point from which future decisions about nearly 45 million acres of public land will be made.

Under the current system, road building and most commercial timber harvesting begin with a national prohibition and require an exception.

Under the proposed system, those decisions would increasingly be made through individual forest plans and project reviews.

The immediate effects might be relatively limited.

The cumulative effects over decades could be substantial.

Roads built today could influence wildfire ignition, wildlife movement, water quality, timber access, recreation, development, and forest management for generations.

The central question is therefore not simply whether some additional logging will occur next year.

It is:

Who should decide the long-term future of America's remaining relatively undeveloped national forests—and according to what standard?

Selected External Sources

Federal Government and Primary Documents

| U.S. Department of Agriculture / U.S. Forest Service | Federal Register | August 2026

Proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and environmental analysis.

| U.S. Forest Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture | Roadless Rule guidance

Explanation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, restrictions, and exceptions.

| U.S. Department of Agriculture | USDA | August 18, 2026

Administration explanation of the wildfire, forest-management, and economic arguments for rescinding the rule.

Congressional and Legal Background

| Congressional Research Service | U.S. Congress | Roadless Rule report

History, litigation, statutory authority, and policy background concerning the national Roadless Rule.

| Congressional Research Service | U.S. Congress | Tongass report

Background on Alaska, the Tongass National Forest, and changes to Roadless Rule protections.

| U.S. Congress | Congress.gov | 2025

Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025.

| U.S. Congress | GovInfo | 2026

Legislation proposing to eliminate Roadless Rule protections and expand road access.

Wildfire and Forest Management Research

| Researchers | Fire Ecology | 2026

Peer-reviewed analysis of wildfire ignition density near roads and within Inventoried Roadless Areas.

| Sean Healey | U.S. Forest Service Research | Forest management study

Research comparing wildfire, forest treatments, roads, and invasive vegetation in roaded and roadless national forest lands.

Water and Watersheds

| Researchers | PLOS Water | July 2026

National study examining roadless-area protection of streams, watersheds, aquatic ecosystems, and drinking-water sources.

Wildlife, Biodiversity, and Forest Integrity

| Researchers | Conservation Science and Practice | Peer-reviewed study

Analysis of roadless areas, habitat connectivity, protected lands, water resources, and conservation benefits.

| Researchers | Global Ecology and Conservation | Peer-reviewed study

Research examining the importance of Inventoried Roadless Areas for vulnerable wildlife and relatively undisturbed habitat.

| Researchers | Biological Conservation | 2026

Study examining ecological integrity within Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Tongass and Carbon Storage

| Researchers | Land | Peer-reviewed study

Analysis of carbon storage in the Tongass National Forest and its Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Current News Coverage

| Reuters | Reuters | August 18, 2026

Coverage of the Trump administration's move to rescind the national Roadless Rule.

| Associated Press | AP News | August 2026

Coverage of the proposed Roadless Rule rescission, conservation opposition, and likely litigation.

| Los Angeles Times | Los Angeles Times | August 18, 2026

Reporting on the administration's proposal and potential consequences for national forests.

```