The Trump administration has proposed formally rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule, which restricts road construction in roadless areas of national forests, with the rule expected to be finalized in 2026. The change could open previously protected lands to development, potentially affecting wildlife habitats and watersheds that provide drinking water to 47 million Americans.

Adopted in 2001, the Roadless Rule prohibited new road construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas, aiming to preserve ecological integrity and water quality on public lands. The rule applies to more than 40 million acres of forest, many of which serve as critical habitat for species designated as imperiled or threatened.

Studies show that more than half of the suitable habitat for the relictual slender salamander, a critically imperiled species native to California’s Sierra Mountains, lies within roadless areas. Nearly 40 percent of the Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk, an imperiled subspecies, also depend on roadless habitats in California. Each formally designated roadless area supports at least two conservation‑concern species, with a median of ten such species per area; some Arizona roadless regions contain habitats for up to 62 species.

Roadless areas also protect watersheds that supply drinking water to 47 million people. The Forest Service’s Watershed Condition Framework identifies road density as a primary indicator of conditions that may disrupt water quantity and quality, and increased road presence can elevate sediment loads and impair stream health.

Public comments submitted on the rescission notice overwhelmingly opposed rolling back the rules, a review by the Center for Western Priorities found, reaffirming continued public support for the 2001 protections.

Mariah Meek, associate professor of integrative biology at Michigan State University, and Travis Belote, assistant professor of landscape ecology at Montana State University, said preserving roadless areas helps maintain ecosystem health and sustains outdoor recreation opportunities for future generations.

The proposal will be subject to further review and potential legal challenges, and the ultimate impact on wildlife and water resources remains uncertain pending implementation.