U.S. Forest Service Files Proposed Rule to Rescind 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule
The U.S. Forest Service has proposed entirely rescinding the 2001 rule that protected about 59 million acres of national forests.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 6:28 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 6:28 p.m. ETFirst report
U.S. Forest Service Proposes Rescinding 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
The U.S. Forest Service has filed a proposed rule to entirely rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, according to reporting by FOX 10 Phoenix. The 2001 rule protected about 59 million acres of national forests. Rescinding the rule would open about 44 million acres of national forest land to road construction, drilling, and logging, allowing individual forest plans to guide decisions in 10 affected Western states, FOX 10 Phoenix reported. Comments on the proposed rule close on September 21, 2026, according to FOX 10 Phoenix.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 07:23current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 22:28current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.