10/6/2026
Dear Forest Service,
Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. As a lifelong Virginian, I believe roadless areas are essential for our state. They supply fish and wildlife habitat we can secure nowhere else, they are sources of drinking water for nearby communities and millions more downstream, and they are loved places for outdoor recreation. All of these values and resources benefit our quality of life and economy in Virginia.
I grew up on a farm in southern Augusta County, in the Shenandoah Valley, and still live in the area. The George Washington National Forest – and roadless areas specifically – is the scenic backdrop to Valley communities and a refuge for locals and visitors alike. Areas like Kelley Mountain on the east side and Elliott Knob, Crawford Mountain, Little River, Oak Knob, Gum Run/Dry River west of the Valley are popular places to get out for a hike or mountain bike ride, run the dog, camp, fish, or just quietly enjoy these beautiful mountain forests. As a fly fisher, I know our Virginia roadless areas have some of the best native brook trout habitat left in the entire Southern Appalachian region. Our communities also benefit from the scenic beauty and outdoor recreation opportunities that roadless areas provide to our area, where drawing visitors for tourism and recreation is critical to the local economy.
Beyond the benefits to Virginia, the national Roadless Rule should remain in place. The rule represents a balanced approach to managing our national forests. All Americans benefit from a consistent approach that sets this strong base level of protection for all roadless areas. Fish and wildlife and water resources often move across state lines. I want to have the opportunity – and all Americans deserve the same opportunity – to visit and enjoy roadless areas in other states, across the public National Forest System.
The rule is also incredibly popular. I would be hard-pressed to identify any single issue on which 99% of Americans agree, but the public comment numbers shows that 99% of those who have expressed an opinion to the Forest Service agree that the Roadless Rule should stand. This support has not wavered since the agency began developing the rule in the 1990s, in fact, support may have grown. The popularity of the rule belies the agency’s claims that local Forest Service officials should make decisions for roadless areas in their bailiwick, informed by input from stakeholders, communities, and local, state, and tribal governments. Many voices have already spoken up strongly for keeping the nationwide Roadless Rule in place. If the Forest Service actually intends to listen to the public, then it should withdraw this misguided proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
The Forest Service should retain the Roadless Rule of 2001 in entirety.
Thank you for considering my comment.
Sincerely,
Sarah Francisco
Staunton and Lyndhurst, VA