I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working. Our National Forests have only remained intact because of this 25-year-old commitment not to build roads in these areas.
The Forest Service contends that more roads means improved wildfire suppression effectiveness, and therefore rescinding the roadless rule would be a beneficial action for these roadless areas. Yet, rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas. It is highly likely that, on balance, more roads would increase -- not decrease -- the negative fire impacts on wildlands and wildlife in national forests.
For decades I have been fortunate enough to traverse roadless areas in national forests around the West -- on foot, on skis, on snowshoes, and in rafts -- from Arizona to New Mexico to Utah to Oregon to Idaho. I've seen wildlife in these places that I've never seen anywhere else. I've experienced solitude and profound quiet in roadless areas that can't be quantified or monetized. Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate, relax, recharge, and recommit to taking care of this gift of a planet we live on. Without these places and the water, plants, animals and other essential elements that they provide humankind, we would certainly perish as a species.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America. Protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather. I live in Flagstaff, Arizona, where my property abuts the Coconino National Forest and I walk my dogs every morning on trails in the largest ponderosa pine forest in the world. I watch the forest get drier every year, and fear for the future of our beautiful ponderosa pines. More roads in the Coconino would inevitably mean more catastrophic fires, and threaten my home and habitats for many species who are already struggling to make it in a drier climate. And as a resident of Flagstaff, I have a vested interest in protecting the roadless areas of the San Francisco Peaks within the Coconino, which provide us with three-quarters of our drinking water (which is the best tasting water I've ever consumed). Without the water that falls as rain and snow on these mountains making its way unpolluted through the volcanic rock of the Peaks and into our homes, Flagstaff would be in serious trouble.
Across Arizona, roadless forests are oases for a remarkable concentration of threatened and endangered species such as Mexican gray wolves, Mexican spotted owls, Gila trout, jaguars, Chiricahua leopard frogs, and Mount Graham red squirrels. We need to protect these species and a myriad of other endemic and migratory species -- here in Arizona, and across the country -- that count on unspoiled habitats, migration corridors and resources of the national forests for their survival. Opening up the national forests to more roads means more logging, more wildfires, more mining, more drilling, less solitude, less quality recreation opportunities, and more money out of the pockets of taxpayers like me to build and maintain additional roads. I'm not in favor of all that just for "increased local management flexibility." Properly managing our national forests means protecting many of their key resources and values, not degrading them.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Pamela Hyde
Flagstaff, Arizona