Public Lands at a Crossroads: USDA, Congress Target Wilderness Protections
Public Lands at a Crossroads: USDA, Congress Target Wilderness Protections
Federal public lands cover about 640 million acres, nearly 28 percent of the continental United States. These lands include national parks, forests, wilderness areas, and Bureau of Land Management holdings. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities while supporting responsible resource use under laws like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. In recent years, legislative efforts have increasingly focused on shifting management authority to states, accelerating energy development, and even selling off federal lands. Earlier this year, proposals to privatize millions of acres sparked intense debate before being stripped from a major spending package. At the same time, new laws have expanded fossil fuel leasing and reduced conservation funding, signaling a trend toward prioritizing economic and security concerns over preservation.
Against this backdrop, two new proposals stand out. The USDA seeks to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and Senator Mike Lee has introduced the Border Lands Conservation Act. Both measures challenge long-standing protections and raise questions about the future of America’s public lands.
USDA Proposal to Repeal the Roadless Area Conservation Rule
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced plans in August to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule restricts road construction and most timber harvesting on nearly 59 million acres of national forests and grasslands. USDA officials argue the policy is outdated and hampers rural economic growth. They also claim that lifting restrictions would improve wildfire prevention and allow responsible timber production.
Opposition is strong. Conservation groups, tribes, and local communities emphasize that roadless areas safeguard clean drinking water for more than 60 million Americans and provide critical wildlife habitat. They also warn that new roads could fragment ecosystems, increase maintenance costs, and heighten wildfire risks. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly against repeal, with comments submitted nearly universally opposed to the change.
The proposal will undergo an environmental review and had a public comment period that closed on September 19, 2025. The Federal Register notice can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16581/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation-national-forest-system-lands.
Senator Lee’s Border Lands Conservation Act (S.2967)
Meanwhile, Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced the Border Lands Conservation Act in October, which among other things, would amend the Wilderness Act to grant the Department of Homeland Security expanded authority within 100 miles of U.S. borders. The bill would allow road construction, tactical infrastructure, and motorized access in national parks and designated wilderness areas. Supporters frame the measure as a response to border security challenges, citing environmental damage and criminal activity in remote border lands.
This legislation could affect more than 9 million acres of wilderness, including areas in Alaska and the continental United States. Critics argue the bill undermines core conservation principles and risks turning protected lands into militarized zones, thereby drastically altering the recreational experience of wilderness visitors. They warn of habitat fragmentation, disruption of wildlife corridors, and loss of public accountability.
Senator Lee has a history of challenging federal land protections. Earlier this year he led the charge to sell off millions of acres of public land as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” That proposal aimed to transfer large tracts of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands to private buyers and state governments. The plan drew intense opposition from conservation groups and outdoor recreation advocates, who warned of foreign investment and loss of public access. Facing backlash and procedural hurdles, Lee ultimately withdrew the land-sale provision. His current push for the Border Lands Conservation Act reflects a continued effort to downplay, if not physically alter, the role served by protected public lands. Further information on the bill can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2967.
Why These Proposals Matter
Both initiatives share a common theme: opening protected lands to new infrastructure. One is claimed to be driven by economic and regulatory priorities, the other by national security. Each raises significant environmental questions, from water quality and wildlife habitat to the integrity of the wilderness experience. Further, both proposals stand to significantly alter equestrian access and use and enjoyment of public lands.
Call to Action: Preserving Equestrian Access
Both the USDA’s repeal of the Roadless Rule and the Border Lands Conservation Act would significantly impact trail-based riding, an important component of public land recreation.
Impacts of Roadless Rule Repeal on Horseback Riders
- Loss of Wildland Trail Settings
The Roadless Rule preserves “wildland settings,” which equestrians highly value for their undeveloped character—minimal facilities, packed trails, and remote riding challenges. - Potential Trail Fragmentation
Rescinding the rule paves the way for new road construction and industrial activity. Such developments can fragment existing trail systems, disrupt route continuity, and degrade scenic trail corridors. - Conflict Between Uses
While horseback riders sometimes share trail space with vehicles, expanding road networks often prioritize motorized access—leading to trail closures, rerouting, or the potential for decreased equestrian access.
As the plan opens millions of acres to possible road development and forest product extraction, equestrian trails and the riding experience across those landscapes could be permanently altered.
Impacts of the Border Lands Conservation Act on Equestrian Trail Use
- Expansion of Motorized Access in Wilderness
The bill would allow DHS to build roads, install tactical infrastructure, and operate motor vehicles in wilderness areas within 100 miles of U.S. borders—zones currently protected from motorized intrusions. - Displacement or Degradation of Horseback Routes
Equestrian trail networks in wilderness zones (like Joshua Tree NP, Big Bend NP, and Boundary Waters) rely on intact, non-motorized environments. The influx of vehicles, roads, and aircraft would create noise, light, and safety conflicts for riders. - Shift in Management Priorities
With DHS gaining authority, traditional Wilderness Act protections—favoring natural conditions and low-impact recreation—may be sidelined. Riders could face sudden trail closures and reduced access with limited public input.
If you support keeping public lands accessible for equestrian use:
- Oppose repeal of the Roadless Rule via the Federal Register and Regulations.gov under docket FS‑2025‑0001. Let agencies know why trail riders need intact wildland settings. Even though the official comment period has closed, it can’t hurt to add your voice to the groundswell of opposition that’s already been logged.
- Track S.2967 and contact your Senators and Representatives to voice concern. National parks and Wilderness areas in border regions often support horseback riding. Ask them to preserve management priorities that protect rider access.
Engaging now can help ensure safe and scenic horseback riding remains a viable part of America’s public lands future.