More than a million responses were sent to the government saying they wanted to keep the Roadless Rule intact

Nevada Public Radio | By Yvette Fernandez

Published October 9, 2026 at 11:46 AM MDT

A harvester crane processes a log on a thinning project in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The project was led by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the result of growing efforts by state agencies to conduct work on federal land. President Donald Trump's plans to increase logging on federal lands will depend heavily on states' cooperation, experts say

Over 1 million people submitted comments on the federal government's effort to rescind the Roadless Rule, and despite holding no public hearings, an analysis from one group shows that over 99% of the approximately 400,000 published comments opposed the effort.

The rule has been in place since 2001, intending to protect over 58 million acres of undeveloped public land — many in western states.

The Trump administration announced it wanted to do away with the rule, saying it impeded wildfire mitigation, reduced "regulatory burdens" and shifted land management to the "individual national forest level." Environmentalists tried to have the public comment period extended and held at accessible locations. The federal government did not agree to these requests.

Despite these limitations, 99% of respondents said they were against the rescission. Kate Groetzinger is the communications director with the Center for Western Priorities. The organization analyzed the approximately 400,000 "unique" comments published by the U.S. Forest Service.

"The public overwhelmingly supports protections for our national forests and doesn't want to see an increase in road building and logging and other types of development," said Groetzinger.

Groetzinger also points to the government's own environmental impact study, which showed repealing the rule would provide only "modest" improvement in wildfire mitigation. The study analyzes the three options under consideration: retaining the rule as is, doing away with it entirely or identifying specific areas that could remain protected.

"Their own analysis acknowledges that this would have very little impact on wildfire risk and could actually, more likely, increase wildfire risk than decrease it," she said.

The federal government must respond to public comments, but Groetzinger says there's no real deadline. However, she expects environmental organizations will likely file additional lawsuits in the future in response to any decisions that lessen current protections.

The U.S. Forest Service did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

This story was produced by the Mountain West News Bureau, a collaboration between Wyoming Public Media, Nevada Public Radio, Boise State Public Radio in Idaho, KUNR in Nevada, KUNC in Northern Colorado, KANW in New Mexico, Colorado Public Radio, KJZZ in Arizona and NPR, with additional support from affiliate newsrooms across the region. Funding for the Mountain West News Bureau is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Eric and Wendy Schmidt.