“consequences that are difficult or impossible to reverse”
“Once an undeveloped forest is fragmented by roads, it cannot simply be put back the way it was”
What it names
Roadless areas
Adams PeakLittle RiverLittle Walker Mountain
The comment
Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66
Dear Secretary Rollins and U.S. Forest Service,
I am writing because I strongly disagree with the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I believe these areas are worth protecting, and I don’t think removing these protections is in the best interest of the people who live near and use these forests.
This is especially important here in Virginia. The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests contain nearly 394,000 acres of designated roadless areas, which is the largest amount of roadless forest in the eastern United States. From what I understand, getting rid of the current protections could leave more than 332,000 acres, or about 84% of these areas, open to potential commercial development.
I am particularly concerned about places such as Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain. These aren’t just empty pieces of land. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and places for people to hike, hunt, fish, bike, and enjoy being outdoors. The Appalachian Trail also passes through some of these areas.
Building more roads and increasing timber activity could have consequences that are difficult or impossible to reverse. Roads can break up wildlife habitat, contribute to erosion and water-quality problems, and increase the risk of animals being hit by vehicles. The streams and forests in these areas are also important habitat for native brook trout.
I also have concerns about the practical cost of expanding the road system. The Forest Service already has a large backlog of roads that need maintenance, while the agency has fewer employees than it did previously. It doesn’t make much sense to take on thousands of additional acres of roads and development when maintaining the existing system is already such a significant challenge.
These forests belong to the public, and I believe their value goes far beyond whatever short-term revenue could come from additional logging or development. Once an undeveloped forest is fragmented by roads, it cannot simply be put back the way it was.
For these reasons, I ask that the Forest Service keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and reject the proposal to rescind it.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my comment.
Thank you.