On August 19, the U.S. Forest Service released a 333-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) alongside a proposed rule to strip road-building and logging protections from 44.7 million acres of national forest, nearly the size of North Dakota. Buried inside that document, written by the agency’s own scientists, is the truth about what repeal would actually do: increase the risk of wildfire starts, push hundreds of already-struggling species further into decline, degrade drinking water for millions of Americans, and cost taxpayers and rural communities money.
Wildlife will suffer
The Forest Service’s preliminary biological assessment found that its preferred alternative (rescinding the Roadless Rule entirely) is “likely to adversely affect” 327 threatened and endangered species and 71 designated critical habitats. Include the agency’s broader sensitive-species review, and the number of species facing likely harm climbs to nearly 3,500. The northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, bull trout, and multiple salmon and steelhead populations all show up on the list of species the government expects this rule to hurt.
The DEIS itself points out that new roads fragment habitat: the report’s citations show a 42 percent decline in southern mountain caribou abundance for every one percent increase in nearby road density. One experimental study found a 25 percent drop in bird abundance when road noise was introduced to a previously roadless area.
Wildfire risk may not decrease
The Trump administration’s central argument for repealing the rule is that it will help fight wildfires by making it easier to build roads for fuel treatment. The DEIS undercuts that story. Its own fire analysis states that “as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions,” and that roadless areas currently see fewer, less frequent wildfire starts than other national forest land. The document also concedes that budget and terrain constraints would make any real gain in fuel treatment capacity “modest.” In other words, the rule the administration is selling as a wildfire fix could actually increase wildfire risk, according to its own scientists.
The math doesn’t add up
The DEIS undermines the economic case for repeal as well. It projects the rule could generate $5 to $11 million a year in new timber revenue nationally. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already sitting on a $7 billion road maintenance backlog, and the agency’s own analysis admits that timber revenue “would not be sufficient to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining all new roads” the rule would enable. New road construction in the steep, remote terrain typical of roadless areas runs anywhere from $80,000 to more than $2 million per mile. While timber companies or other developers may pay the upfront cost to build these roads, the responsibility of maintaining them generally falls on the Forest Service, and therefore taxpayers. Repealing the rule would also harm recreation economies in the West. The DEIS estimates $9 million or more a year in lost visitor spending in communities near affected forests, on top of degraded scenery and backcountry access across millions of acres.
Tribal values are at stake
The DEIS also concedes that the legally-required Tribal consultation process surfaced widespread Tribal opposition to the repeal. The government summary states that “the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission,” with Tribes citing threats to sacred sites, treaty-protected hunting and fishing rights, and the ecological health of ancestral homelands. The DEIS also acknowledges that road construction and logging “could potentially have long-term negative impacts” on historic and archaeological sites nationwide.
The public opposes the repeal
A national survey of 1,200 likely voters conducted for The Pew Charitable Trusts in December 2025 found voters support the Roadless Rule by 76 percent to 13 percent, and oppose the Forest Service’s plan to rescind it by a similar margin, with majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike favoring conservation of roadless national forest over new logging and mining access. The public again expressed overwhelming support for the Roadless Rule when the Trump administration first floated the idea of repealing it last summer. A Center for Western Priorities analysis of public comments submitted during last year’s preliminary rulemaking process found over 99 percent of commenters opposed rescinding the rule.
What happens next?
The formal comment period for the proposed rule is open now, and it’s likely the public’s last real chance to weigh in before the Trump administration acts. The agency published the proposed rule and the DEIS together in the Federal Register on August 20, opening a comment period that closes on September 21, which is an unusually short timeframe for a rule of this scale. Comments can be submitted at regulations.gov under docket FS-2025-0001. The Forest Service has not announced a timeline for issuing a final rule once the comment period closes.
For more information, visit westernpriorities.org. Sign up for Look West to get daily public lands and energy news sent to your inbox, or subscribe to our podcast, The Landscape.
This is about money not for people
Absolutely