I am opposed to the revocation of the 2001 Roadless Rule in National Forests. I am a kayaker, hiker, biker, and camper. Over the past 35 years I have visited at least 25 National Forests across 14 states, from Georgia to West Virginia, over to South Dakota and down to Utah, including almost all the National Forests in Colorado, Chequamegon-Nicolet (WI), Cherokee (NC, TN), George Washington and Jefferson (VA), Monongahela (WV), Black Hills (SD), and Dixie and Manti-La Sal (UT), among many others. All of these forests have roadless areas. As an outdoor enthusiast, in addition to recreating, I go to National Forests to enjoy their spacious serenity and beauty and to be a part of nature for a while. Even as I sit here, I revel in the images of the Sunrise and Pine Lake Campgrounds and Candy Cliffs/Yant Flats area in Dixie National Forest from my most recent trip. My time in these wild places not only nourishes my well-being but deepens my reverence for the non-human beings that live there. I think the forests are accessible enough already to humans and believe deeply in ensuring that wildlife have protected natural environments in which to live. Revocation of the Roadless Rule could have numerous adverse effects. on ecosystems, including wildlife, and on humans: (1) New roads in roadless areas would segment intact ecosystems that species such as elk, lynx, and grizzly bears need. Intact forests filter water naturally and better serve the 60 million people who depend on water from national forests. Trout and salmon, depend on undammed streams whose banks are unlogged. (2) Given the overall anti-environment, pro-development policy orientation of the Trump administration, it is justifiable to surmise that roads in the now roadless areas are intended for extraction of forest resources and for other development. Extraction activities (mining, logging, and drilling) damage and destroy ecosystems much beyond that of the roads themselves, and therefore wildlife habitat and negatively impact biodiversity. In addition, these activities involve disruptive amounts of noise that impact wildlife and humans. Furthermore, the Trump administration has not provided adequate justification for the revocation. The administration’s rationale that roads in roadless areas are needed for fire management is rebutted by the following findings from Forest Service reports(*): (1) 80% of wildfires in National Forests are started by humans within a half mile of forest roads. Thus, roads in now roadless areas create enhanced opportunities for human-started fires deep in the forest. (2) Management for fire prevention in roadless areas already exceeds that in roaded areas; also, exceptions are built into the 2001 Roadless Rule for activities for fire prevention and management. There is a backlog of maintenance needs on forest roads amounting to millions of dollars. Given that the Trump administration has stripped the Forest Service of funds, allowing for new road building does not make sense. Presumably, the administration is creating another opportunity for private businesses to profit from public lands and taxpayers. The 2001 Roadless Rule garnered the highest level of support from public comments in the history of the Forest Service and should not be revoked.
*Reported in “The Real Reason the Forest Service is Killing the Roadless Rule” by Natalie Krebs. Outdoor Life. August 26, 2026. https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/roadless-rule-deregulation/.