I am writing in support of keeping the Roadless Area Conservation Rule set by the USDA Forest Service in place. As stated on the official regulations.gov comment page, the Roadless Rule has been upheld by federal appeals courts. The rule was created with widespread bipartisan support in 2001 with the views and service for the American people in mind. This attempt at rescission is being framed as being beneficial for the American Public, but opening up the Inventoried Roadless Areas would actually harm the American public in multiple ways.
As stated “The National Forest Management Act requires that plans shall assure multiple use and sustained yield of National Forest System products and services and include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)). The National Forest Management Act establishes the requirement for the Forest Service to develop land management plans, including direction in 16 U.S.C. 1604(a) and (b) for interdisciplinary planning and consideration of landscape-level conditions.” The Roadless Rule rescission would likely make it more difficult for USFS to manage these properties for their multi-use designations.
Roads already exist throughout the vast majority of USFS lands due to these areas being reasonably accessible and able to create timber profits. Opening more areas to timber extraction goes against the multi-use directive by limiting outdoor recreation, watershed, and wildlife considerations as well as has negative economic impacts. Rural areas increasingly depend on our National Forests for ecotourism including hunting, fishing, and recreation with visitors adding significant economic provisions to these local economies. By opening up these areas to timber extraction, the USFS removes a long term and sustainable source of economic power for these communities in favor of short term gains.
Roadless Areas are also providing significant uncalculated water quality benefits. Many Roadless Areas contain the headwaters of tributaries that supply fresh drinking water to millions of Americans. Opening up Roadless Areas will negatively impact water quality, putting an additional financial strain on municipalities treating the water and putting Americans at risk.
The rescission attempt also states that this would assist the USFS with addressing wildfire issues. This is a complex topic, but can be simplified in many ways. 1. Researchers are finding no significant difference in Roadless Areas burned compared to forests near roads. 2. Roads can often act as the ignition source for destructive forest fires, building more roads would actually have the opposite intended effect of exacerbating wildfires in our public lands. 3. Most of the American landscape is ecologically and evolutionarily adapted to fire. Since Roadless Areas are roadless, and have a reduced Wildland Urban Interface, our wildfire fighting resources would be better spent focused on infrastructure rather than the back country.
Timber specialists and researchers have also found that the expense of extracting timber from these areas have limited if not net losses for the American taxpayer; contrary to what the stated goal of the rescission is. The argument that roads would likely be temporary and that logging operations could provide an economic boon for the Forest Service is optimistic at best and dishonest at worst. The rescission document itself states “However, given the small number of operable areas for timber harvest in roadless areas and the large number of variables that may occur, it is difficult to predict the potential impact rule rescission may have on timber harvest.”
In all, the Roadless Rule was put in place with wide support and with good reason in 2001. The reasons provided by the USFS to rescind the rule in 2026 fall short of reasonable and sound logic and is an incredibly unpopular decision. The USFS should listen to the American public who deeply value our public lands and leave the Roadless Rule in place.
People of all walks of life and backgrounds supported this measure to leave currently undeveloped forest service land, roadless and undeveloped.