Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas
August 28, 2020
(IRAs)
Anne A. Riddle
Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are areas of the National Forest System (NFS)
Analyst in Natural
managed according to regulations, known as roadless rules, that general y limit timber
Resources Policy
harvesting and road building. The NFS contains approximately 193 mil ion acres of land

located in more than 150 national forests and grasslands; IRAs comprise approximately
Adam Vann
58.2 mil ion acres of NFS lands, constituting approximately 30% of NFS lands, though
Legislative Attorney
IRAs are highly concentrated in a few states. The scale of roadless rules, and associated

impacts to NFS lands, resources, and adjacent communities, has generated congressional
interest.

For decades, the FS has inventoried and administratively designated undeveloped areas of the NFS under various
names and has managed these areas to preserve their undeveloped qualities. From the 1920s to 1964, the FS
designated and managed undeveloped NFS lands, first through forest-level planning and later through regulations.
In 1964, the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to review certain FS lands for
wilderness potential and to make recommendations to the President regarding the suitability of those lands for
wilderness designation. The FS attempted to inventory and review so-cal ed roadless areas for wilderness
potential twice, but the results were blocked, and FS management of associated lands was limited, through legal
action. Congress intervened to legislatively address the reviewed areas, such as by designating them as wilderness
or returning them to multiple-use management. In 2001, the FS issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule
(2001 Rule) and designated the first IRAs, which were based on the roadless area reviews. The rule’s intended
purpose was to protect the nation’s col ective roadless area resources from the negative impacts of roads and
timber harvesting, control costs associated with roads on FS lands, and reduce the costs of litigation. However, the
issuance of the 2001 Rule prompted more than a decade of conflict, including revocation and replacement with an
alternate rule in 2005 (2005 Rule) and litigation chal enging both rules.
Inventoried roadless areas are now defined, and their management specified, by three separate rulemakings. The
2001 Rule defines IRAs as areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps. This definition initial y
applied to al IRAs. However, the FS subsequently issued individual roadless rules for Colorado and Idaho
following issuance of the 2005 Rule. IRAs for Colorado and Idaho are also designated through a set of maps that
accompanied their individual roadless rules. IRAs may have characteristics associated with general y undeveloped
land (e.g., high-quality or undisturbed soil, water, or air; plant and animal diversity; sources of public drinking
water; and others).
The 2001 Rule addresses two issues: (1) roads and (2) timber harvesting in IRAs. Under the 2001 Rule, road
construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting are prohibited in IRAs except under specified
circumstances. These restrictions apply to NFS lands, except those in Colorado and Idaho. The rules of Colorado
and Idaho also address restrictions to road building and timber harvesting but may address other IRA uses or
resources.
FS management of roadless areas has been contentious and is often the subject of congressional interest. Debates
surrounding IRA management often center on whether current FS roadless rules specify desirable levels of
resource protection or resource development, with various sides supporting or opposing the rules’ current
provisions. Debates also center on which level of governance—national forest, state, or federal—should manage
roadless areas and on which branch of federal government should lead roadless area policymaking.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 27 link to page 28 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Appendixes
Appendix. Inventoried Roadless Area Statistics ................................................................. 23

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Introduction
Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are areas of the National Forest System (NFS) identified
administratively by the Forest Service (FS) and managed according to regulations, known as
roadless rules, that limit timber harvesting and road building.1 For decades, the FS has
inventoried and administratively designated undeveloped areas of the NFS under various names,
and managed these areas to preserve their undeveloped qualities. In 2001, the FS issued the first
roadless rule and defined the modern-day IRAs, setting the framework for modern FS
management of these areas.
The NFS includes approximately 193 mil ion acres of land located in more than 150 national
forests and grasslands.2 NFS lands cover large portions of some states, especial y in the West.
IRAs comprise approximately 58.2 mil ion acres of NFS lands, constituting roughly 30% of NFS
lands. IRAs are highly concentrated in a few states (see Figure 1). Thus, the scale of the roadless
rules, and associated impacts to NFS lands, resources, and adjacent communities, has generated
high interest, particularly in states where a large proportion of NFS lands are affected.
Figure 1. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), from Forest Service (FS), FS Geodata Clearinghouse, “Roadless
Areas: 2001, Idaho, and Colorado Rules Combined,” and U.S. Geological Survey, Protected Areas Database of
the United States.
Notes: Given the relatively smal acreage of some IRAs, not al IRAs may be visible on this map. Due to
limitations in the map’s resolution, IRAs may not be accurate as relative areas of the National Forest System
(NFS). NFS Non-IRA Acres includes al areas of the National Forest System that are not IRAs.

1 For more information on the National Forest System (NFS), see CRS Report R43872, National Forest System
Managem ent: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS), Land Areas Report (LAR), 2019.
Congressional Research Service
1

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Congress has weighed in on the issue of IRAs at numerous points and continues to actively
consider FS roadless area management through legislative and oversight activities. Congress may
continue to exercise these prerogatives in regard to various aspects of the issue, such as whether
roadless area designation is an appropriate activity for the executive branch and, if so, at what
scale; specific provisions of the roadless rules themselves, either nationwide or in specific areas;
the appropriate level of state involvement; and other issues.
This report provides an overview of FS roadless area management. It provides a historical
overview of FS roadless area policy, including the legal chal enges surrounding the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule of 2001 (2001 Rule). The report also covers the definition of IRAs, IRA
statistics, and FS management of IRAs under current FS regulations. It concludes with a
discussion of issues and options that Congress may wish to consider in the context of FS roadless
area management.
History of Forest Service Roadless Area
Management
The publication of the first roadless rule in 2001 is the most recent phase in a long history of FS
efforts to manage undeveloped NFS lands. The FS has sought to identify NFS lands with
undeveloped conditions and provide for special management of those lands since early in its
history. The first such areas were approved or planned at the regional level through recreation
planning on individual national forests. For example, beginning in 1924, FS district foresters
approved or planned the administrative designation of wilderness areas in district recreation plans
in several states. Road building, summer home construction, and other activities were temporarily
restricted in these areas.3
In the 1930s, the FS issued the first nationwide regulations for undeveloped areas, the so-cal ed L
regulations. The L regulations directed the Chief of the FS to administratively designate primitive
areas, to be managed for “primitive conditions of environment, transportation, habitation, and
subsistence.”4 Construction of permanent improvements, occupancy under special-use permits,
and other activities were not al owed in these areas.5 The FS had designated approximately 14
mil ion acres of primitive areas by 1939.6 In 1939, the FS superseded the L-regulations through
the so-cal ed U regulations, which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to designate wilderness
and the Chief of the FS to designate wild areas. Roads, motorized transport, commercial timber
harvesting, and occupancy under special-use permits were prohibited in both wilderness and wild
areas.7

3 Dennis Roth, “T he National Forests and the Campaign for Wilderness Legislation,” Journal of Forest History, vol.
28, no. 3 (1984).
4 FS, “Forest Service Policy Covering Preservation of Natural Areas,” Regulation L-20, National Forest Manual, July
12, 1929, as amended August 7, 1930. T his regulation predates the Federal Register.
5 FS, “Lands,” 1 Federal Register 1100, August 15, 1936.
6 Robert Glicksman, “Wilderness Management by the Multiple Use Agencies: What Makes the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management Different?,” Environm ental Law, vol. 44, no. 447 (2014), p. 447. Hereinafter cited as
Glicksman, “Wilderness Management.”
7 FS, “Land Use,” 4 Federal Register 3994, September 20, 1939. FS undeveloped area regulations were issued under
the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. §473 -476).
Congressional Research Service
2

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the National Wilderness Preservation System and designated
FS wild and wilderness areas as parts of that system.8 The law specified further actions for the FS
in regard to remaining primitive areas, which had not al been redesignated as wild or wilderness
areas after the U regulations were issued. These primitive areas today form part of the basis for
the IRAs.
Roadless Area Inventories
The Wilderness Act directed the Secretary of Agriculture to review the wilderness potential of
NFS primitive areas and to make recommendations to the President about the suitability of those
lands for wilderness designation, within 10 years of the act’s passage (i.e., by 1974).9 The act
provided that the President “shal advise” Congress regarding wilderness designation of those
areas, including revising the boundaries of proposed wildernesses (e.g., by “recommending the
addition of any contiguous area of national forest lands predominantly of wilderness value”).10
The FS conducted two inventories of NFS lands under this authority. As discussed below, courts
enjoined both inventories, and neither inventory was presented to Congress. Legal decisions also
constrained FS management actions in areas related to the inventories.
The FS referred to the first such inventory as the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE
I). RARE I included previously identified NFS primitive areas as wel as other undeveloped
areas.11 The FS recommended 12.3 mil ion acres for possible wilderness designation in RARE I.12
However, RARE I was abandoned following a judicial ruling that the agency had failed to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in conducting a timber sale in the
Teton National Forest.13 The FS began a second review (RARE II) in 1977, which recommended
15.1 mil ion acres for possible wilderness designation by Congress.14 However, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) found that the agency again failed to comply with
NEPA requirements in promulgating RARE II.15 In the case of RARE II, the Ninth Circuit again

8 P.L. 88-577, §3a, 16 U.S.C. §1132a. T he Wilderness Act designated all existing FS wild, wilderness, and canoe areas
as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Canoe areas referred to a single administratively
designated FS area, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. For more information on wilderness, see CRS Report RL31447,
Wilderness: Overview, Managem ent, and Statistics, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover.
9 Pub. L. No. 88-577 §3(b), 16 U.S.C. §1132(b) (“ T he Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after September
3, 1964, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness, each area in the national forests
classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as “ primitive” and
report his findings to the President.”)
10 Pub. L. No. 88-577 §3(a), 16 U.S.C. §1132(a).
11 FS, Roadless and Undeveloped Areas Draft Environmental Statement: Selection of Proposed New Study Areas from
Roadless and Undeveloped Areas of the National Forests, January 1973. Notice of availability given at FS, “ Selection
of Proposed New Study Areas from Roadless and Undeveloped Areas of the National Forests: Notice of Availability of
Draft Environmental Statement,” 38 Federal Register 2774, January 30, 1973.
12 Id.
13 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370m-12. Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661
F.3d 1209, 1221 (10th Cir. 2011), citing Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t Wyoming Outdoor Coordinating Council v. Butz, 484
F.2d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 1973) (overruled, in part, on unrelated grounds by Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Marsh,
956 F.2d 970, 973 (10th Cir. 1992).
14 FS, Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II: Final Environmental Statement, January 1979. Notice of availability
given at FS, “Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements,” 44 Federal Register 3087, January 15, 1979.
15 California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 775 (9th Cir. 1982).
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 17 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

enjoined the FS from releasing areas not recommended for wilderness designation, which
included 47 mil ion acres recommended for either further study or non-wilderness use.16
The ongoing legal issues with FS inventories, and the associated limits on timber harvesting, road
building, and other management actions, generated considerable congressional debate and
interest.17 In the 1980s, Congress enacted a number of state-specific wilderness laws.18 These
laws designated mil ions of acres inventoried in RARE I and II as wilderness, specified some
areas for further study as potential wilderness, and released remaining RARE I and II lands from
potential wilderness designation.19 Management direction for the remaining RARE I and II areas
was determined at the national forest level, through individual FS land and resource management
plans (forest plans).20
The 2001 Roadless Rule
In the late 1990s, under the Clinton Administration, the FS began a process of returning to
administratively designating and managing undeveloped NFS lands at the system level. In
January 2001, after a 14-month rulemaking process, the FS promulgated the first roadless rule.21
The 2001 Rule both defined and designated modern IRAs, which were based (in part) on RARE I
and II areas not designated as wilderness. It prohibited timber harvesting, road construction, or
road reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas except under specified conditions (see
“Inventoried Roadless Area Management” for more information on the provisions of the 2001
Rule).
When the 2001 Rule was promulgated, the FS indicated that several issues warranted a
nationwide rule, as opposed to the existing system of roadless area management at the unit level.
In the explanatory text accompanying the rule, and in the final environmental impact statement
for the 2001 Rule, the FS discussed the following issues:

16 Id. at 765.
17 See, e.g., Hearing on RARE II Wilderness Proposals, S. Comm. on Agric., Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcomm. on
Env., Soil Conservation, and Forestry, 96th Cong. (1979), and Hearing on Rare II Review Act of 1981, S. Comm. on
Energy and Nat. Res., Subcomm. on Public Lands and Reserved Water, 97th Cong. (1981).
18 For example, in 1984, 18 state-specific wilderness acts were passed. See Michael Blumm and Andrew Erickson,
Federal Wild Lands Policy in the Twenty-First Century: What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been , 25 COLO. N. RESOURCES
ENERGY & ENVTL. L. REV. 1, 14 (2014).
19 For example, the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-406) designated approximately 1.1 million acres of
wilderness. T he law specified parcels of NFS lands to be studied further for potential wilderness designation and
released remaining NFS lands in Arizona that were reviewed in the RARE II program, and Arizona NFS roadless lands
of less than 5,000 acres, from further wilderness review by the USDA. H.R. 406 provides that areas in Arizona
reviewed in RARE II that were not designated wilderness or wilderness study shall be managed for multiple use. See
also Robert Glicksman and George Coggins, Wilderness in Context, 76 Denv. U. L. Rev. 383 (1999).
20 Michael Anderson, The Roadless Rule: A Tenth Anniversary Assessment, T he Wilderness Society, 2011; hereinafter
cited as Anderson, Roadless Rule. T he National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588) requires that the FS
prepare a comprehensive land and resource management plan ( forest plan) for each NFS unit. Forest plans specify
desired resource conditions of the unit and inform decisions on how uses of the unit will be balanced, pursuant to any
additional statutory authorities or requirements. See also CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Managem ent:
Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle. For a summary of
management provisions for roadless areas in forest plans prior to the 2001 Rule, see FS, Chapter 3 in Forest Service
Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environm ental Im pact Statem ent, vol. 1, November 2000.
21 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” 66 Federal Register 3244, January 12, 2001.
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 12 link to page 12 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

 Cumulative Impacts of Roads and Timber Harvesting. The FS specified a
number of negative impacts of these activities in issuing the 2001 Rule, such as
fragmentation and degradation of habitat; increased erosion, runoff, and slope
instability; reduced water quality for wildlife and human uses; and increased
human disturbances in remote areas (such as increased frequency of human-
caused fires.)22 The FS specified that, compared with other uses of roadless areas,
road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting had the greatest
likelihood of creating such negative impacts, and their management at the unit
level could result in significant cumulative losses to roadless area quantity and
quality.23
 Management and Fiscal Constraints Created by the NFS Road Network.
When the 2001 Rule was issued, the NFS road system was over 386,000 miles
long.24 The FS argued that budget constraints, coupled with the size of the forest
road system, prevented the agency from managing the road system to required
safety and environmental standards.25 For example, in issuing the 2001 Rule, the
FS indicated that there was an estimated $8.4 bil ion in deferred maintenance and
reconstruction on NFS roads and that, in addition to the 2001 Rule, it sought
additional measures to control the transportation share of its budget.26
 Costs of Litigation. The FS asserted that controversy over roadless area
management had been a major point of conflict in land management, generating
“costly and time-consuming” litigation.27 The FS specified that issuing a
nationwide policy would reduce local appeals and litigation about activities
addressed in the rule, which could avoid future costs to the agency.
The issuance of the 2001 Rule prompted more than a decade of conflict, through two primary
means: (1) its revocation and replacement with an alternate rule in 2005 (2005 Rule) and (2)
litigation chal enging both rules.
A Decade of Uncertainty: The 2001 and 2005 Rules
The controversy over FS management of IRAs has been shaped by the issuance of two
contrasting rules and ongoing legal chal enges to those rules. At certain points, federal courts
were in conflict, leading to uncertainty over which rule (if any) was in effect. Furthermore, as a
result of related rulemaking efforts during this period (see the “State-Specific Rules and
Provisions” section, below), even after resolution of the legal chal enges to the nationwide rules,
a patchwork of differing roadless rules remains in effect for some states.

22 Id. at 3244 and 3246-3247, and at USDA, FS, Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation: Final Environmental
Im pact Statem ent, Volum e 1, November 2000, at ES-5 and 1-14 through 1-17. Hereinafter cited as 2001 Rule FEIS.
23 2001 Rule, at 3246. T he FS acknowledged that other activities create impacts to roadless areas but specified that
these other activities’ effects were difficult to analyze at the national level and were best handled through forest-level
planning. Id, at 3244.
24 Id, at 3245.
25 Id, at 3245-3246.
26 Id. at 3245.
27 Id. at 3244.
Congressional Research Service
5

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Challenges to the 2001 Rule
Upon the transition between Administrations in late January 2001, the incoming George W. Bush
Administration postponed for 60 days the effective date of any regulations not yet in effect, which
included the 2001 Rule.28 In May 2001, before the 2001 Rule’s effective date, a federal district
court in Idaho granted an injunction to block implementation of the 2001 Rule, based on a finding
that al eged flaws in the NEPA process for the rule could result in irreparable harm.29 This ruling
was reversed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in December 2002, with the court finding that the
plaintiffs had not demonstrated a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” of their NEPA
claims.30 As a result, the Ninth Circuit reinstated the 2001 Rule.31
On July 14, 2003, the federal District Court of Wyoming enjoined the 2001 Rule, finding that the
FS had violated NEPA in several respects.32 The court also equated the roadless areas with de
facto wilderness, finding substantial similarities in the consequences of the two designations.33
Final y, the court concluded that the rule itself was a “thinly veiled attempt to designate
‘wilderness areas’ in violation of the clear and unambiguous process established by the
Wilderness Act for such designation.”34 As discussed below, on appeal, the Tenth Circuit vacated
the district court decision.35
The 2005 Rule
In 2005, the Bush Administration issued new roadless area regulations,36 sometimes cal ed the
State Choice Rule and referred to here as the 2005 Rule. The 2005 Rule gave state governors 18
months to submit petitions to the Secretary of Agriculture requesting adoption of special rules
governing roadless area management within their respective states.37
Governors’ response to the 2005 Rule was mixed. Many states did not file petitions. Of those that
did, most sought to preserve existing roadless areas under the same protections provided under
the 2001 Rule, though some sought to reduce roadless acreage or increase development.38
After the 2005 Rule: Challenges, Injunctions, and Uncertainty
In August 2005, a group of states and environmental organizations filed a legal chal enge to the
2005 Rule. The plaintiffs al eged that the 2005 Rule offered less protection and a more localized
approach than the 2001 Rule,39 and thus required environmental analysis under NEPA and

28 Andrew H. Card, Jr., Memorandum for the Heads and Acting Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Jan.
20, 2001).
29 Kootenai T ribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 2001 WL 1141275 (D. Idaho 2001).
30 Kootenai T ribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F. 3d 1094 , 1123 (9th Cir. 2002).
31 Id. at 1126.
32 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1231-32 (D. Wyo. 2003).
33 Id. at 1236.
34 Id. at 1239 (D. Wyo. 2003).
35 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 414 F.3d 1207 (10 th Cir. 2005).
36 70 Federal Register 25,654 (May 13, 2005).
37 Id.
38 States that filed to protect all of their roadless areas are California, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Virginia. Petitions from Colorado and Idaho recommended development in some of the inventoried roadless areas.
39 T he states of California, Oregon, and New Mexico filed a lawsuit in the federal District Court for Northern
Congressional Research Service
6

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).40 In a summary judgment effective
September 20, 2006, the federal District Court of Northern California set aside the 2005 Rule and
reinstated the 2001 Rule until the FS complied with NEPA and ESA.41 The court also “enjoined
from taking any further action contrary to the Roadless Rule without undertaking environmental
analysis consistent with this opinion.”42 On November 29, 2006, the district court clarified that its
previous order prohibited the FS from taking any management activities that would have been
banned under the 2001 Rule.43 This had the effect of, among other things, nullifying oil and gas
leases that had been issued under the 2005 Rule.44
The promulgation of the 2005 Rule also impacted ongoing litigation related to the 2001 Rule. On
July 11, 2005, the Tenth Circuit vacated the Wyoming district court’s decision that had enjoined
the 2001 Rule, holding that the 2005 Rule mooted the dispute over the 2001 Rule.45 This created a
disparity between the Ninth Circuit, which had held that the 2001 Rule was in effect, and the
Tenth Circuit, which had enjoined the 2001 Rule.
Following the injunction of the 2005 Rule, the State of Wyoming filed a new legal chal enge to
the 2001 Rule.46 In 2008, the District Court of Wyoming again enjoined the 2001 Rule, finding
that it was issued in violation of NEPA.47 The Wyoming court acknowledged the California
decision that had enjoined the 2005 Rule, saying that “the [Wyoming] Court is disturbed, and
frankly shocked” that the California court reinstituted the 2001 Rule, which the Wyoming court
had concluded violated the law.48
Faced with this uncertainty, the FS filed motions in both the Wyoming and California district
courts to suspend the injunctions so as not to risk violating one of the injunctions in the course of
administering IRAs.49 In response to the FS motion, the district court in California issued a ruling
in December 2008 limiting the scope of the injunction by reinstating the 2001 Rule only to New
Mexico and the 10 Western states and territories within the Ninth Circuit.50 In 2009, the Ninth

California challenging the 2005 Rule on August 28, 2005. Environmental groups also filed suit to challenge the rule,
and the cases were consolidated. T he State of Washington joined the states’ suit as a plaintiff intervenor. Montana and
Maine filed an amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs. However, Alaska and Wyoming filed an amicus brief on behalf of
defendants.
40 Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-44. California v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874, 882 (N.D.
Cal. 2006).
41 Id.
42 California v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d at 919.
43 California v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
44 Id. at 1149.
45 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 414 F.3d 1207, 1212 (10 th Cir. 2005).
46 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 570 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1318 (D. Wyo. 2008).
47 Id. at 1350. Initially, the State of Wyoming moved to reinstate the 2003 Wyoming district court decision enjoining
the 2001 Rule. However, the 2003 decision had been appealed, and the T enth Circuit dismissed it as moot based on
adoption of the 2005 Rule. T he federal District Court of Wyoming refused to consider Wyoming’s action to revive the
2003 ruling, holding it lacked the authority. T herefore, the State of Wyoming brought a new suit. Wyoming v. U.S.
Dep’t of Agric., No. 01-CV-86 (D. Wyo. June 7, 2007).
48 Wyoming, 570 F. Supp. 2d at 1352.
49 California v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 710 F. Supp. 2d 916, 919 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
50 Id. at 921. T he Ninth Circuit includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington. New Mexico was included even though it is not part of the Ninth Circuit
because the state was a plaintiff in the case.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 10 link to page 10 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision enjoining the 2005 Rule, returning the 2001 Rule to
effect in the relevant jurisdictions.51
Resolution
In October 2011, the FS appealed the 2007 Wyoming district court decision enjoining the 2001
Rule, arguing it was improper.52 The Tenth Circuit agreed with the FS and upheld the 2001 Rule,
vacating the injunction imposed by the Wyoming district court.53 In reinstating the 2001 Rule in
the Tenth Circuit, the court rejected arguments that the 2001 Rule violated NEPA and created de
facto wilderness in violation of the Wilderness Act.54 As a result, the 2001 Rule is currently in
effect throughout the United States, except in Colorado and Idaho, as discussed in the following
section.
State-Specific Rules and Provisions
At various periods, individual states have sought state-specific policies for roadless area
management on NFS lands within their borders. States, especial y states containing large areas of
NFS lands or IRAs (or both), have contended that a nationwide rule creates disproportionate
burdens on adjacent areas and reduces land managers’ abilities to make site-specific management
decisions. At times, the USDA has been responsive to these arguments; at other times, the USDA
has issued nationwide policies. Thus, state-specific policies have been pursued through both
executive and judicial means.
The 2005 Rule created a process for developing state-specific policies, but no state-specific
policies were issued under it due to the Ninth Circuit’s injunction of the rule (see “After the 2005
Rule: Chal enges, Injunctions, and Uncertainty”). However, prior to the injunction, a number of
states had submitted petitions under the 2005 Rule. In response, petitions for roadless area
management for two states, Colorado and Idaho, were processed under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) rather than under the 2005 Rule.55 The Colorado and Idaho Roadless Rules
remain in effect as of the publication of this report.
States also have sought specific policies through legal chal enges to nationwide rules. For
example, the State of Alaska petitioned the courts for exemption from the 2001 Rule several
times, first in 2003. In December 2003, the Bush Administration exempted the Tongass National
Forest’s inventoried roadless areas from the roadless rule through a settlement following Alaska’s
2003 suit.56 In 2018, Alaska petitioned the USDA for a state-specific roadless rule, a request
which USDA granted; that rulemaking is ongoing as of the publication of this report.

51 California v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 575 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2009).
52 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1220 (10th Cir. 2011).
53 Id. at 1272.
54 Id. at 1229-34.
55 5 U.S.C. §553(e), 7 C.F.R. §1.28. On October 4, 2006, the charter for the advisory committee responsible for
considering state petitions was formally amended to direct the committee’s review of state petitions under the
Administrative Procedure Act and associated regulations. FS, “ Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory
Committee,” 71 Federal Register 58577, October 4, 2006.
56 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the T ongass National Forest, Alaska,” 68 Federal
Register 75136, December 30, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 7 link to page 20 link to page 20 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas: Definition, Description
and Statistics
Inventoried roadless area is an administrative land designation for areas of the NFS that were
simultaneously defined and designated in the 2001 Rule. It is in effect for 48 of 50 states. The
2001 Rule defined IRAs as “areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained
in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 2, dated November 2000, and any subsequent update or revision of those maps through
the land management planning process.57” The FS derived the 2001 IRAs primarily from lands
surveyed for potential inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System pursuant to the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (e.g., the RARE inventories; see “Roadless Area Inventories”).58 Some
areas were derived from lands inventoried pursuant to other laws or as part of the forest planning
process.59
The definition specified in the 2001 Rule applies to IRAs in al states except Colorado and Idaho,
which have individual rules for roadless area management (see “State-Specific Rules: Colorado
and Idaho,” below). IRAs for these states are also defined and designated through a set of maps
that accompanied their individual roadless rules.60 Although Colorado’s and Idaho’s IRAs are
defined in each state’s respective rules, they are general y derived from the 2001 IRAs for these
states. For the purposes of this report, IRAs wil refer to IRAs defined in the 2001 Rule, the
Colorado Roadless Rule, and the Idaho Roadless Rule.
What Characteristics Do Inventoried Roadless Areas Have?
Given the map-based definition of IRAs and the disparate historical origins of the areas
designated as IRAs, it is sometimes unclear what precise criteria were used to include, exclude, or
delineate designated areas or what characteristics these areas have. However, various descriptive
criteria exist, both in the 2001 Rule itself and in the inventories on which it was based.
Explanatory material accompanying the 2001 Rule described IRAs as potential y having some or
al of the following characteristics, known as roadless area characteristics:
 High-quality or undisturbed soil, water, or air
 Sources of public drinking water
 Diversity of plant and animal communities

57 2001 Rule, p. 3246, and 2001 Rule FEIS.
58 2001 Rule, p. 3246, and 2001 Rule FEIS.
59 T he FS must develop and maintain an inventory of all NFS lands and renewable resources and land and resource
management plans (forest plans) for units of the NFS (16 USC §§1603-1604). T he Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975
(P.L. 93-622) directed that 17 areas in national forests in Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina,
T ennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin be studied for “suitability for nonsuitability” for inclusion in the
NWPS.
60 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Idaho ,” 73 Federal
Register 1135, January 7, 2008, hereinafter cited as Idaho Rule, and FS, “ Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation;
Applicability to the National Forests in Colorado,” 77 Federal Register 39576, July 3, 2012, hereinafter cited as
Colorado Rule.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 5 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species
and for species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land61
 Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of
dispersed recreation
 Reference landscapes62
 Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality
 Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites
 Other local y identified unique characteristics63
Some aspects of IRA management (for example, timber harvesting) are based on maintaining or
enhancing roadless area characteristics.
Many lands that became IRAs in the 2001 Rule initial y were inventoried for potential
designation as wilderness, within the purpose and meaning of the Wilderness Act. Thus, the
inventory criteria for these areas often centered on identifying and determining whether areas met
the criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act.64 For example, the RARE II
inventory criteria focused on areas without improved roads but specified that the lands could
include some other development, such as evidence of past timber harvesting or mining, range
improvements, or minor recreation sites, if the area appeared natural (and therefore could stil
provide wilderness benefits to the public).65 However, these inventories were sometimes
conducted prior to the 2001 Rule’s issuance. Therefore, it is possible that some of these
characteristics changed in the intervening period. For example, the FS specified that in 2001
(prior to the 2001 Rule’s issuance), road construction was al owed on 34.3 mil ion acres of IRAs
and approximately 2.8 mil ion acres of IRAs had been “roaded” or developed.66
Inventoried Roadless Area Statistics
IRAs constitute roughly one-third of al NFS lands, or approximately 58.2 mil ion acres. NFS
lands constitute approximately 193 mil ion acres, or 6% of the U.S. land base; thus, IRAs cover
approximately 3% of the land base in the continental United States (see Figure 1).67 As shown in

61 For definitions of terms (such as endangered) related to the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205), see CRS Report
RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A Prim er, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
62 Reference landscapes are areas that are generally unaltered by human activity and as such can act as baselines in
scientific research on changes to the natural environment.
63 2001 Rule.
64 T he Wilderness Act defined wilderness as
an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities
for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of
land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value.
P.L. 93-622, §1(c). For more information, see CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview, Managem ent, and
Statistics, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover.
65 FS, Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II: Final Environmental Statement, January 1979, p. 6.
66 FS, National Forest System Road Management Strategy Final Environmental Assessment, January 2001, p. 40.
67 CRS, from data provided by the FS legislative affairs office, March 20, 2020. T his acreage is smaller than the 58.5
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 16 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Figure 2, IRAs are overwhelmingly concentrated in the West, with more than 96% of al IRAs
located in 12 western states.68 Alaska, the largest state, is also the state with the most NFS and
IRA acres, containing over 25% of al IRA acreage. However, states with more NFS acres do not
necessarily have the most IRA acres. For detailed information on state IRA acres, see Appendix
A.

million acres specified in the 2001 Rule, for unclear reasons. Some reasons could include improvements in mapping
technology since the publication of the 2001 Rule, changes in land designation due to congressional action (for
example, designation of IRAs as wilderness), or other factors.
68 T hese states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
Congressional Research Service
11

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Figure 2.Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and
National Forest System (NFS) Lands
(in mil ions of acres)

Source: CRS. States are ordered from greatest to smal est IRA area. Calculation from inventoried roadless area
data, Forest Service (FS) legislative affairs office, March 20, 2020; and National Forest System land area, FS,
USDA, Land Areas Report (LAR), 2019.
Notes: NFS Non-IRA Acres refers to NFS lands that are not IRAs. Total NFS acres are given by the sum of NFS
Non-IRA Acres and NFS IRA Acres. Delaware, Hawai , Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island
contain no NFS lands and are not listed. Listed states contain NFS lands but may or may not contain IRAs.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 17 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Area Management
The 2001 Rule addressed two issues: roads and timber harvesting in IRAs. Specifical y, the 2001
Rule placed restrictions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in IRAs.
These restrictions apply to 48 states, with separate rules governing IRA management in Colorado
and Idaho. The rules for these two states are discussed under the heading “State-Specific Rules:
Colorado and Idaho.” The following sections refer to IRA management in the remaining states
under the 2001 Rule.
Roads
The 2001 Rule defines three types of roads within the NFS (see Table 1) and specifies under what
conditions road construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of NFS roads may occur on each
road type. Some road definitions given in the 2001 Rule relate to the forest transportation system,
the overal system of roads, trails, and airfields on NFS lands. The forest transportation system
consists of forest roads and trails, which the FS authorizes and manages as needed for the
administration of the NFS and its resources, and NFS roads and trails, which the FS authorizes
through a legal y documented right-of-way with a state, county, or other local public road
authority, primarily for regional transportation purposes.69
Table 1. National Forest System (NFS) Road Types, 2001 Roadless Rule
Classified Road
Unclassified Road
Temporary Road
A road whol y within, partial y
A road on NFS lands that is not
A road authorized by the Forest
within, or adjacent to NFS lands
managed as part of the forest
Service through a contract, permit,
that is determined to be needed for
transportation system, such as
lease, other written authorization,
long-term motor vehicle access,
unplanned roads, abandoned roads,
or emergency operation, not
including state roads, county roads,
and off-road vehicle tracks that
intended to be part of the forest
privately owned roads, NFS roads,
have not been designated and
transportation system and not
and other roads authorized by the
managed as a trail and roads that
necessary for long-term resource
Forest Service.
were once authorized but were not
management.

decommissioned when the

authorization ended.

Source: Forest Service, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” 66 Federal Register 3244, January 12, 2001.
The 2001 Rule addresses road construction (building a new road) and reconstruction, which
includes both road realignment (i.e., relocating the roadway) and improvement (i.e., expanding a
road’s capacity or changing its function).70 Under the 2001 Rule, the three road types may not be
constructed or reconstructed in IRAs except in specified circumstances:71
 A road is needed to protect health and safety in cases of imminent danger, such as
wildfire
 A road is needed to conduct a response action to mitigate environmental hazards
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

69 36 C.F.R. §212.1
70 2001 Rule, Section 294.11.
71 2001 Rule, Section 294.12.
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 17 link to page 17 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Act (CERCLA) or a restoration action under CERCLA, the Clean Water Act or
the Oil Pollution Act72
 A statute or treaty provides for a road or one is needed in accordance with
outstanding or reserved rights
 The Secretary of Agriculture determines that a federal aid highway project is in
the public interest or is consistent with the purposes for which the land was
reserved or acquired, and there is no alternative route or site73
 For the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease original y issued
prior to 2001, provided such a road minimizes resource impacts and is removed
at the termination of the lease or when no longer needed for the purposes of the
lease
In addition, the rule al ows for certain actions to be performed on only classified roads (see Table
1) under these specified circumstances:
 Classified roads may be realigned to prevent irreparable resource damage, if the
damage cannot be mitigated by maintenance alone and if the road is deemed
essential for health and safety, natural resource management, or public or private
access
 Classified roads that are deemed hazardous to vehicle traffic may be
reconstructed to improve road safety
 Classified roads may be maintained
Other than these specified circumstances, roads may not be constructed or reconstructed in IRAs.
Although comprehensive data are unavailable, limited anecdotal information indicates that road
construction and reconstruction stil occur in IRAs.74 The scale and purposes of such activities is
unclear.
Timber Harvesting
Under the 2001 Rule, timber may not be cut, sold, or removed from IRAs except under specified
circumstances. “General y smal diameter timber” may be cut, sold, or removed if doing so wil

72 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, P.L. 96-510, as amended; for more
information, see CRS Report R41039, Com prehensive Environm ental Response, Com pensation, and Liability Act: A
Sum m ary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden. Clean Water Act,
P.L. 92-500, as amended; for more information, see CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Sum m ary of the Law,
by Laura Gatz; Oil Pollution Act, P.L. 101-380; for more information, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills:
Background and Governance, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
73 For more information on federal aid highways, see CRS Report R44332, Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In
Brief, by Robert S. Kirk.
74 Although comprehensive data are unavailable, examples of road construction and reconstruction for mining and
timber sales predating the 2001 Rule (Anderson, Roadless Rule) for energy and infrastructure projects, to facilitate
military uses, and to facilitate access to adjacent communities have been reported. USDA, FS, “ Frequently Asked
Questions Regarding Inventoried Roadless Areas in Alaska, 2018”; hereinafter cited as FS, “ FAQs Regarding IRAs.”
Because comprehensive information on road construction and reconstruction in IRAs is unavailable, it is unclear
whether the scale of such activities changed after the 2001 Rule was issued. Anderson, Roadless Rule, found that, as of
2011, 75 miles of roads had been built in IRAs since 2001. In 2001 Rule FEIS, the FS had expected to construct or
reconstruct 1,160 miles of roads in IRAs between 2000 and 2004, but it is unclear if this level of road construction and
reconstruction would have occurred or if comparable levels of road construction and reconstruction occurred prior to
2001.
Congressional Research Service
14

link to page 13 link to page 13 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

improve or maintain roadless area characteristics (see “What Characteristics Do Inventoried
Roadless Areas Have?”) and wil serve one of the following purposes:
 Improve habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species, as
defined under ESA75
 Restore ecosystem structure and function, such as reducing the likelihood of
uncharacteristic wildfire
In addition, “general y smal diameter timber” may be cut, sold, or removed if doing so wil
improve or maintain roadless area characteristics and if the following conditions are met:
 On the date of the rule’s publication, roadless area characteristics already had
been substantially altered due to the construction of a classified road and
subsequent timber harvest. In these cases, timber can be harvested only in the
altered area
 The timber harvest is incidental to other management activities that are not
otherwise prohibited
 The timber harvest is “needed and appropriate” for personal or administrative
use76
Other than these specified circumstances, timber harvesting is not permitted in IRAs. Although
comprehensive data are unavailable, limited anecdotal information indicates that timber
harvesting stil occurs in IRAs. The scale and purposes for such timber harvesting (for example,
whether it relates to specified exceptions) are unclear.77
Other National Forest System Uses Under the 2001 Rule
The 2001 Rule does not place restrictions on activities other than road construction, road
reconstruction, and timber harvesting in IRAs. It specifies that activities that do not require the
construction of new roads wil be al owed, such as motorized uses of existing roads, off-highway
motorized use in specified areas, livestock grazing, and energy and mineral development.
Although comprehensive data are unavailable, the available information suggests a variety of
uses continue to occur in IRAs. For example, energy-related projects (such as pipelines,
hydropower facilities, and others) have been authorized.78 However, the overal scale and scope
of such activities are unclear.

75 Endangered Species Act, P.L. 93-2015. For more information, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species
Act: A Prim er, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
76 “Generally small diameter timber” is referred to in 2001 Rule, Section 294.13. T he FS specified in 2001 Rule,
p.3257, that a description of what constitutes generally small diameter timber is not specifically included in the rule
because such determinations are better guided by project - or forest plan-specific analyses due to variation in vegetation
types. Adm inistrative use includes FS activities such as research and demonstration projects; construction, maintenance,
or repair of NFS resources (such as trails or fences); and management for multiple-use values and disaster relief by
public agencies (36 C.F.R. §223.2). Personal use includes use by settlers, prospectors, miners, and residents within and
immediately adjacent to NFS lands for personal use (such as firewood, building, or mining) or to protect and improve
forests, in which case generally dead or damaged timber, or debris, may be used ( 36 C.F.R. §223.5).
77 For example, Anderson, Roadless Rule, specified that timber harvesting for hazardous fuels reduction, to enlarge
recreation sites, and to fulfill timber contracts issued before the 2001 Rule had been reported, without specifying the
size of such activities. In another case, conservation groups alleged that timber harvesting had o ccurred on 18,000 acres
of IRAs in Idaho and 32,000 acres in Montana over a decade. T he purpose for this timber harvesting is unclear. Rob
Chaney, “Conservation Groups Accuse Forest Service of Evading Roadless Rule,” Missoulian, March 31, 2019.
78 Anderson, Roadless Rule; FS, “FAQs Regarding IRAs.”
Congressional Research Service
15

link to page 10 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Few data exist to confirm or dispute whether the 2001 Rule may have contributed to reductions in
any given activity on NFS lands. The uncertainties related to both the FS policies and the legal
status of roadless area management potential y influenced the behavior of NFS managers,
prospective users, or both.
State-Specific Rules: Colorado and Idaho
Under the provisions of the 2005 Rule, Colorado and Idaho (among other states) submitted
requests for state-specific roadless area rulemakings. Although the rule was vacated prior to the
individual rules being finalized, the FS specified that state-specific rulemakings would continue
under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act and subsequently issued state-specific
rules for Colorado and Idaho (for more information, see “The 2005 Rule”).79 Both rules
established limitations regarding timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction
within the designated IRAs. Both rules also addressed topics not explicitly mentioned in the 2001
Rule, such as wildland fire, fish habitat, surface occupancy, and energy and mineral development.
Idaho Rule
Idaho’s roadless rule (Idaho Rule) established five different management classifications within
IRAs: Wild Land Recreation; Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance; Primitive;
Backcountry/Restoration; and General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland.80 The Idaho Rule
specifies a “management continuum” across these classifications related to the extent certain
activities may occur.81 Across the general categories mentioned above, the Idaho Rule places
fewer restrictions on activities in General Forest, Rangeland, or Grassland areas and more
restrictions on Wild Land Recreation areas. The FS identified 9.3 mil ion IRA acres in Idaho that
were subject to the Idaho Rule. The Idaho Rule was applied to approximately 9.0 million acres.
The remaining acres, deemed forest plan special areas, were excluded.82
Like the 2001 Rule, the Idaho Rule addresses timber harvesting and road construction and
reconstruction in Idaho IRAs. However, the Idaho Rule addresses other resources and land uses
not explicitly mentioned in the 2001 Rule. For example, the Idaho Rule addresses energy and
mineral development (e.g., the use or sale of common variety mineral materials) and associated
road construction or reconstruction to access those mineral materials. The Idaho Rule also
addresses surface occupancy for leases, contracts, permits, and other associated activities, which
is not mentioned in the 2001 Rule.83
Colorado Rule
Colorado’s roadless rule (Colorado Rule) established two different management classifications of
IRAs: Upper Tier Acres and Non-Upper Tier Acres, with differential management provisions
regarding timber harvesting, roads, and other developments between the two areas. In general, the
Colorado Rule places more restrictions on Upper Tier Acres than on Non-Upper Tier Acres. The

79 Administrative Procedure Act, P.L. 79-404.
80 36 C.F.R. §294.22.
81 36 C.F.R. §294.22.
82 Idaho Rule, “Alternatives Considered.” Forest plan special areas are defined by map but include research natural
areas, designated and eligible wild and scenic river corridors, developed recreation sites, or other areas with specified
management purposes. 36 C.F.R. §294.21.
83 36 C.F.R. §294.25.
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 23 link to page 23 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Colorado Rule applies to approximately 4.2 mil ion acres of NFS lands, including roughly
410,000 acres not covered by the 2001 Rule. It does not apply to approximately 467,000 acres
that were covered by the 2001 Rule.84
Like the 2001 Rule, the Colorado Rule addresses timber harvesting, road construction, and road
reconstruction in Colorado IRAs. In contrast to the 2001 Rule, the Colorado Rule specifies that
any authorized road construction or reconstruction (pursuant to the other provisions of the rule)
must minimize and mitigate impacts to native cutthroat trout habitat.85 The Colorado Rule also
addresses timber harvesting and road construction under circumstances not explicitly mentioned
in the 2001 Rule, such as to reduce wildfire risk or maintain authorized water conveyance
structures.86 Unlike the 2001 Rule, the Colorado Rule also addresses linear facilities, such as
pipelines, telecommunications lines, canals, and power lines, and linear surface disturbances used
to instal or maintain them (linear construction zones).87
Issues for Congress
Stakeholders continue to debate several issues regarding FS roadless area management. The
appropriate scale (e.g., forest, state, or national) and authority (e.g., FS, Congress, or others) for
designation and management of IRAs continue to be points of contention and have been
particularly expressed through the disparities in different Administrations’ rulemaking
approaches. Debates surrounding the roadless rules also often center on the tradeoffs between
resource development and resource protection inherent in their provisions. Since 2018, state-
specific petitions to the FS for individual roadless rulemakings have reemerged and have been a
focus of congressional, media, and other stakeholder attention. These issues often intersect in
regard to specific IRA topics (e.g., ongoing FS state-specific rulemaking; see “Inventoried
Roadless Areas in Alaska and Utah,” below, for more information).
Scope and Scale of Roadless Area Designation and Management
The appropriate scale and authority for designation and management of IRAs continue to be
points of contention. At various times, different presidential Administrations have taken different
stances on the topic. Disputes on this issue include practical concerns about impacts when policy
is implemented at various scales, beliefs regarding appropriate authority across governmental
units, and other concerns. Some examples of unresolved questions in this area include the
following.
 What branch of the federal government should make roadless area policy?
Some argue that only Congress may appropriately make decisions regarding
federal lands and resources at the scale of the 2001 Rule.88 Others contend that
IRAs’ designation and management through executive authority is appropriate, in

84 Colorado Rule, “Decision Rationale,” p.39583. T he excluded areas were either “substantially altered”
(approximately 459,000 acres) or were associated with ski areas (approximately 8,000 acres).
85 36 C.F.R. §294.43.
86 36 C.F.R. §294.42. Some road construction and reconstruction provisions were added in 2017. FS, “ Roadless Area
Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Colorado,” 81 Federal Register 91811, December 19, 2016.
87 36 C.F.R. §294.41.
88 Sandra Zellmer, “T he Roadless Area Controversy: Past, Present, and Future,” University of Nebraska-Lincoln
College of Law, Faculty Publications, 2002, hereinafter cited as Zellmer, “ Roadless Area Controversy.”
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 12 link to page 12 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

that Congress has granted the FS substantial discretion to determine uses of NFS
lands.89
 What is the appropriate scale for roadless area policymaking? At various
times, federal roadless area policy has been made at subnational (such as forest
and state) and national levels. Which of these scales is most appropriate for
roadless area management is not a settled question. Some contend that
management at subnational scales (such as forest plans or state-specific rules) is
most appropriate, because local decisionmakers may have a better understanding
of the effects of management choices on affected communities.90 Others contend
that national decisionmaking is necessary to account for collective impacts to
roadless area characteristics.91
 What role should state governments have? At various times, state governments
have been involved in roadless area policymaking (see “State-Specific Rules and
Provisions”). The substance of such involvement has varied, but it has included
federal adoption or consideration of policies proposed or developed by states.92
Questions about the suitability of such involvement in federal roadless area
policymaking often relate to the above debates regarding appropriate scale and
authority. Some contend that rulemaking involvement by state governments
better accounts for local conditions and is more appropriate for addressing local
management chal enges.93 Others may view rulemaking involvement by state
governments as an abdication of federal responsibility or as setting precedent for
state control of federal land management, particularly if such involvement is
extensive.94 Such disputes can be particularly contentious in regard to states with
large amounts of IRAs.
Resources Under the Roadless Rules
The FS specified that one purpose of the 2001 Rule was to prevent a variety of negative impacts
to roadless area characteristics by prohibiting certain resource uses and developments. The 2001
Rule specifical y did not limit resource development activities other than timber harvesting, road
construction, and road reconstruction.95 Thus, debates surrounding the 2001 Rule often center on
the desirability of these provisions. Stakeholders may support maintaining the rule’s current
provisions, increasing prohibitions under the rule, decreasing prohibitions under the rule, or
removing the rule altogether.

89 Glicksman, “Wilderness Management.”
90 Zellmer, “Roadless Area Controversy.”
91 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need.” For example, the FS specified that a nationwide rulemaking was the appropriate
decisionmaking path for roadless area conservation because at “the national level, FS officials have [sic] the
responsibility to consider the ‘whole picture’ regarding the management of the NFS.” 2001 Rule.
92 For example, the FS’s proposed rule for the State of Alaska is the same as the rule requested in Alaska’s petition to
the USDA. Letter from Andrew T . Mack, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, to Sonny Perdue,
Secretary of Agriculture, January 19, 2018. T he FS’s final Colorado Rule adopted aspects of Colorado’s initial petition,
but changes and specific provisions were adopted through the rulemaking process. For examples of changes to
Colorado’s petition, see FS, “ Side by Side Comparison of the 2009 Draft Petition and the 2010 Final Petition,” March
25, 2010.
93 Zellmer, “Roadless Area Controversy”; 2005 Rule, “Overview.”
94 Juliet Eilperin, “Roadless Rules for Forests Set Aside,” Washington Post, July 13, 2004.
95 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for Action.”
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 17 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Some proponents of the 2001 Rule seek to maintain the rule’s current provisions or broaden its
prohibitions, often to maintain or enhance resource protections. Those in support of maintaining
or increasing restrictions may contend that the 2001 Rule has led to increased economic
prosperity or that it is vital to conserve resources.96 Some opponents of the 2001 Rule seek to
relax or remove current provisions of the rule, often to increase management flexibility or open
IRAs to resources uses. Such groups may contend that the 2001 Rule negatively affects rural
economic prosperity or is not necessary to confer additional resource protection.97
Complicating this debate, comprehensive metrics on roadless area characteristics and resource
use or development in IRAs (such as road construction and reconstruction, timber harvesting, and
others) general y are not available, although certain local or anecdotal information is sometimes
available (see “Inventoried Roadless Area Management”). Thus, it is not clear what, if any,
general effect the 2001 Rule may have had on associated issues of concern, such as economic
opportunity, roadless area characteristics, and others, and quantitative analysis of competing
claims regarding these topics is difficult.
Inventoried Roadless Areas in Alaska and Utah
Since 2018, two states, Alaska and Utah, have submitted petitions to the FS requesting state-
specific roadless rulemakings.98 Pursuant to the State of Alaska’s request, the FS has initiated a
rulemaking to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Rule and has issued a proposed
rule and draft environmental impact statement.99 Utah’s petition remains pending.100
Management of roadless areas in Alaska has been a source of ongoing controversy for decades,
particularly as it concerns the Tongass, the nation’s largest national forest.101 Alaska’s 2018
request follows a long history of attempts to seek specific roadless area management provisions
for the State of Alaska.102 The FS’s proposed rulemaking has generated renewed interest from

96 For example, see Robert Berrens et al., Economic And Community Benefits of Protecting New Mexico’s Inventoried
Roadless Areas, Center for Sustainable Economy, 2006 (positive economic impacts); Wilderness Society, “ Why It’s
Important to Keep the Wildest Forests Free of Roads and Logging,” Wilderness Society Blog, November 12, 2019
(resource conservation).
97 For examples, see testimony of Kyle Moselle, Associate Director, Office of Project Management and Permitting,
Department of Natural Resources of the State of Alaska, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving
National Forest Roadless Protections, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., October 13, 2019 (negative economic impacts), and
Senator Lisa Murkowski, “Why I Support T rump’s Proposal to Lift Restrictions in the T ongass,” Washington Post,
September 25, 2019.
98 Alaska: Letter from Andrew T . Mack, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, to Sonny Perdue,
Secretary of Agriculture, January 19, 2018. CRS has been unable to locate the State of Utah’s original petition. In a
letter from the State of Utah to the House Committee on Natural Resources, the State of Utah confirmed that its petition
to the USDA was dated February 28, 2019. Letter from the Office of the Governor, Public Lands Policy Coordinating
Office, to Rep. Raúl Grijalva, Chairman, Ho use Committee on Natural Resources, March 26, 2019.
99 FS notice of intent to make a rule for Alaska: Forest Service, “Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System
Lands in Alaska,” 83 Federal Register 44252, August 30, 2018. Proposed rule and draft environmental impact
statement at FS, “ Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska,” 84 Federal
Register 55522, October 17, 2019.
100 USDA, “USDA Forest Service and State of Utah Invest in Utah’s Future T hrough Shared Stewardship,” press
release, July 16, 2019.
101 T here are two national forests in Alaska, the T ongass and the Chugach National Forests, which cover over 21.9
million acres (over 34 thousand square miles). T he T ongass is approximately 16.7 million acres, or over 26,000 square
miles. Of this, approximately 9.2 million acres, or 55%, are designated IRAs.
102 For an example of congressional action, see S. 3203, 114th Congress, Alaska Economic Development and Access to
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 25 link to page 25 Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Congress and other stakeholders. Those opposed to the rulemaking may contend that the
proposed action jeopardizes the Tongass’s rare ecological qualities and certain economic sectors
that depend on them.103 Those in favor of the rulemaking may argue that it wil improve economic
activity in certain sectors, such as the timber industry, or that the Tongass is sufficiently protected
without the 2001 Rule’s provisions.104 Concerns regarding the Tongass have prompted
congressional action and scrutiny.105
Options for Congress
Congress has shown consistent interest in FS roadless area management for decades. Options for
congressional action regarding FS roadless area management are broad and varied. Such actions
could refer to roadless areas throughout the NFS general y or could be limited to a certain
geographic region or state. Such actions also might relate to areas that fit a specified “roadless” or
“undeveloped” definition and not only to IRAs.
Oversight
One option for Congress may be to conduct oversight of the FS’s administration of roadless areas.
Congress might oversee various aspects of FS roadless area management, such as
 Directing the FS to Inventory or Report on Aspects of FS Roadless Area
Management. For example, Congress might direct the FS to inventory current
IRA conditions, timber harvesting and/or road construction or reconstruction in
IRAs, other resource uses in IRAs, the purposes of resource development and use
in IRAs, or other aspects of roadless area management.
 Directing the FS to Re-inventory or Report on FS Roadless Areas (i.e., areas
fitting a specified “roadless” description but not necessarily IRAs). Any
resulting information may clarify how current IRA policies have affected NFS
lands and resources and may inform other debates or legislative proposals related
to roadless areas management. Inventories or reports of this scale may take
substantial time to complete or be subject to legal chal enges, however.
Unless Congress also addressed FS roadless area management legislatively (see “Legislative
Action,” below), an oversight approach would maintain the FS’s broad autonomy to designate
roadless areas; specify management provisions; and make other NFS-wide policies regarding
roadless areas, including changing land designations or management provisions over time, such
as it has in the past under different presidential Administrations.

Resources Act .
103 For example, see T om Wathen, “Plan to Lift Roadless Rule in Alaska’s T ongass National Forest T hreatens
Economy,” The Hill, December 12, 2019, at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/472757-plan-to-lift-
roadless-rule-in-alaskas-tongass-national-forest .
104 Office of Governor Mike Dunleavy, “Governor Applauds USDA Support to Lift T ongass Roadless Rule
Exemption,” press release, October 15, 2019, and Senator Lisa Murkowski, “Why I Support T rump’s Proposal to Lift
Restrictions in the T ongass,” Washington Post, September 25, 2019.
105 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving National Forest Roadless Protections,
116th Cong., 2nd sess., October 13, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
20

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Respond to Newly Issued Forest Service Roadless Regulations
In the case of newly issued regulations, Congress may review and revoke the rule within a
specified time frame, per the Congressional Review Act.106 Congressional revocation of a newly
issued rule would apply to the rule in its entirety but would not al ow Congress to respond to
portions of a rule. In addition, this action would prohibit the applicable agency from issuing a rule
that is “substantial y the same” and thus would constrain the FS’s related future rulemakings.
This congressional authority is subject to specific procedural requirements.107
Legislative Action
Congress could introduce legislation to address roadless area management and designation, taking
a variety of approaches. For example, Congress could introduce
 Legislation That Relates to the FS’s Roadless Rules Generally. Such
legislation could codify one of the existing rules into law, parts of an existing rule
into law, or an existing rule into law while amending its provisions.108 Such an
action may al ow Congress to ensure specific aspects of roadless rules remain in
effect, while al owing the executive branch to make potential changes to aspects
of the rules that are not codified in law. Legislation related to the FS’s roadless
rules, by definition, would respond to the provisions the FS included in those
rules.
 Legislation That Specifies FS Roadless Area Management Provisions and/or
Designations. For example, Congress could specify a degree of federal or state
control regarding roadless area management and designation, specify prohibited
or permitted management actions in roadless areas, or specify other provisions.
Such legislation also could designate lands, specify what branch of government
may designate lands, and/or create designation criteria.
 Legislation That Amends Related Laws to Specify Management and/or
Designation of FS Roadless Areas. For example, Congress could amend the
Wilderness Act to specify management provisions or designation procedures for
roadless areas.
 Legislation That Designates and/or Releases IRAs into Management Under
Other Laws. For example, Congress could designate IRAs as wilderness or
release IRAs into multiple-use management.109 The effect of such legislation on
the lands themselves would depend on what specific designation or management
was chosen.
 Legislation That Addresses the FS’s Authority to Issue Roadless Rules. The
legislative options discussed above would not supersede the FS’s broad authority

106 Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. §§801, 804(2). For an introduction to the Congressional Review Act, see CRS
In Focus IF10023, The Congressional Review Act (CRA), by Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis.
107 For more information on the Congressional Review Act’s procedural requirements, see CRS Report R43992, The
Congressional Review Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis.
108 For example, see S. 1311, 116th Congress, Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, and H.R. 2491, 116th Congress,
Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, which would codify certain FS roadless regulations into law, or untitled
H.Amdt. 598 to H.R. 2, 115th Congress, Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which would exempt a state from FS
roadless regulations.
109 For example, see S. 193, 114th Congress, Inventoried Roadless Area Management Act, which would exempt certain
areas from FS roadless regulations.
Congressional Research Service
21

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

to manage NFS lands and resources. That is to say, while the options presented
above represent various ways in which Congress could address roadless area
management on FS lands, the FS would remain able to issue rules or policies
addressing roadless area management or designation, including, for example, in
areas not covered by enacted legislation. Congress could enact legislation
specifying the FS’s authorities to issue regulations or policies related to roadless
area management (e.g., by amending existing FS authorities). The effects of such
legislation could impact the FS’s ability to manage other lands and resources.
 Legislation That Addresses Other Issues. Such other issues could include
funding for activities in IRAs, for example.
Congressional Research Service
22

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

Appendix. Inventoried Roadless Area Statistics
Table A-1.Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)
(in thousands of acres)
State
IRA Acres % NFS Acres % State Acres
Alabama
12.7
1.9%
0.0%
Alaska
14,778.8
66.8%
4.0%
Arizona
1,174.2
10.5%
1.6%
Arkansas
95.0
3.7%
0.3%
California
4,416.1
21.2%
4.4%
Colorado
4,185.7
28.9%
6.3%
Connecticut
0.0
0.0%
0%
Florida
50.5
4.2%
0.1%
Georgia
63.4
7.3%
0.2%
Idaho
9,305.8
45.5%
17.6%
Il inois
10.7
3.5%
0.0%
Indiana
8.4
4.1%
0.0%
Kansas
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
Kentucky
2.8
0.3%
0.0%
Louisiana
7.2
1.2%
0.0%
Maine
6.0
11.1%
0.0%
Michigan
16.1
0.6%
0.0%
Minnesota
62.1
2.2%
0.1%
Mississippi
2.6
0.2%
0.0%
Missouri
25.5
1.7%
0.1%
Montana
6,395.2
37.2%
6.9%
Nebraska
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
Nevada
3,186.1
55.3%
4.5%
New Hampshire
234.7
31.1%
4.1%
New Mexico
1,549.2
16.8%
2.0%
New York
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
North Carolina
172.4
13.7%
0.6%
North Dakota
266.1
24.1%
0.6%
Ohio
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
Oklahoma
13.3
3.3%
0.0%
Oregon
1,965.0
12.5%
3.2%
Pennsylvania
24.9
4.8%
0.1%
Puerto Rico
23.7
82.4%
1.1%
Congressional Research Service
23

Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas

South Carolina
7.6
1.2%
0.0%
South Dakota
79.6
4.0%
0.2%
Tennessee
84.9
11.7%
0.3%
Texas
4.1
0.5%
0.0%
Utah
4,013.5
49.0%
7.6%
Vermont
25.1
6.1%
0.4%
Virginia
393.7
23.6%
1.6%
Washington
2,014.8
21.6%
4.7%
West Virginia
201.7
19.3%
1.3%
Wisconsin
69.0
4.5%
0.2%
Wyoming
3,257.0
35.3%
5.2%
Total
58,205.2
30.2%
2.6%
Source: Congressional Research Service. Calculation from inventoried roadless area data, Forest Service (FS)
legislative affairs office, March 20, 2020; U.S. state land area data, Sonja Oswalt et al., Forest Resources of the
United States, 2017: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2020 Update of the RPA Assessment, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), FS, 2017; and National Forest System (NFS) land area, FS, USDA, Land Areas
Report (LAR), 2019.
Notes: District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawai , Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island
contain no NFS lands and are not listed. % NFS Acres is the percentage of NFS acres in the state that are IRAs. %
State Acres is the percentage of state acres that are IRAs. Listed states contain NFS lands but may or may not
contain IRAs, as shown. Totals may not add due to rounding. States with nonzero IRA acres may show
percentages of 0.0% due to rounding.

Author Information

Anne A. Riddle
Adam Vann
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46504 · VERSION 1 · NEW
24