FS-2025-0001-601452

October 6, 2026 I am writing to express my continued opposition to repeal of the U.S. Forest Service’s Roadless Area rule (36 C.F.R. pt. 294). As a law professor specializing in natural resources and public land law, my views on this matter are based on more than 40 years researching, writing, and teaching about America’s public lands, including national forest history, policy, and law. The roadless rule has served the nation well since its adoption in 2001. It has not seriously hindered timber production on the national forests; rather the decline in timber production is due to numerous other factors, including mill closures, overriding ecological concerns, and less costly alternative timber sources. By all accounts, there is little commercially viable timber that is readily accessible on the roadless lands, which are generally in remote, higher elevation, and often steep terrain. In fact, significant amounts of commercially viable national forest timber remain available on the existing, lower elevation national forest lands that are managed for multiple-use purposes. Opening the roadless national forest lands will do little to address the growing wildfire risk. In fact, research shows that the presence of roads is a frequent factor in human-caused fire ignitions in forests. Most roadless acreage is remote and not proximate to the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zone, so there is little need to undertake hazardous fuel reduction projects on existing roadless lands. Given current budget cuts and personnel reductions, the Forest Service simply does not have the capacity to meaningfully extend its fuel reduction work onto roadless lands. Besides, the Roadless Area rule contains exceptions that would allow necessary hazardous fuel reduction projects to proceed near WUI zones. The roadless areas were initially set aside to address watershed protection and wildlife conservation, and to provide diverse recreational opportunities. By any measure, this has proven a success, meeting these important Forest Service multiple use statutory objectives. Rescinding the Roadless Area rule will adversely impact these important resource uses with little gain, as recognized in the explanatory material accompanying the Federal Register notice, i.e., the acknowledgment that few roads, timber sales, or energy projects are likely to be constructed on the roadless lands. Further, existing and accessible Forest Service roads provide those interested in motorized and off road vehicle recreation adequate opportunities to pursue these recreational activities. There is simply no compelling legal, policy, or practical reason to rescind the rule and to put watershed, wildlife, and recreation uses and values at risk. There is little doubt that the construction of roads, timber sales, and energy projects will divert Forest Service resources from other multiple use purposes at a time when the agency is facing severe budget cuts and workforce reductions. Given the number of public comments on the rule recission proposal, it is clear that the public does not support this change in agency policy. Because state, local, and tribal governments enjoy a special privileged status regarding participation in forest management decisions, including proposals for exceptions to the roadless rule, the local decision-making rationale for revising the rule is neither necessary or compelling. Moreover, the clear direction of Forest Service policy during the past 30 years has been toward conservation rather than the production of commodities that often negatively impacts ecological integrity. And should the agency rescind the rule, that decision will undoubtedly be challenged in court, as will most road building, timber harvesting, and other development decisions affecting roadless lands, putting a costly and unnecessary burden on the agency. All of which can and should be avoided by not rescinding the roadless rule in this time of budgetary pressures, workforce reductions, and political divisiveness. In short, the proffered rationale for rescinding the roadless rule is far outweighed by the myriad benefits derived from the existing rule and the costs that will attach to its recission, which would not significantly benefit the national forests or the nation. Thank you for considering my professional and personal views on this matter, which do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Robert B. Keiter Wallace Stegner Professor of Law University Distinguished Professor University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law Salt Lake City, UT 84112