WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), along with U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, led 38 members of the California congressional delegation in opposing the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Roadless Rule, a landmark U.S. Forest Service conservation policy adopted in 2001 that protects nearly 60 million acres of undeveloped National Forest System lands. It prohibits new road construction, reconstruction, and commercial timber harvesting to preserve these areas’ ecological and recreational value. The Trump Administration issued its final proposed rule to advance the rescission of the Roadless Rule, allowing only a 47-day public comment period.
In their letter to Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins, the lawmakers underscored the importance of the Roadless Rule to California’s preservation of public lands and natural resources.
“Unpaved and poorly maintained forest roads are notoriously the largest source of human-made sediment in public waterways,” wrote the lawmakers. “Protected roadless areas actively safeguard California’s water quality by preventing the severe erosion and landslides that choke pristine rivers with silt and other pollution that inevitably follows road construction. Roadless areas directly anchor the vulnerable origin points of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, American, Kern, Smith, and Eel Rivers, and these protected areas capture, clean, and regulate more than 11 trillion gallons of water annually.”
The lawmakers warned of the possible impacts on California’s water and natural resources if the Roadless Rule is fully repealed, especially with the growing threat of devastating wildfires in California.
“Most alarming is that when new areas are opened up to roads, wildfires become much more likely,” continued the lawmakers. “Moreover, when fires do burn through roadless areas, they often burn at lower, more natural intensities which keeps the underlying soil healthy and minimizes post-burn soil erosion impacts. The State of California currently spends billions of dollars each year toward wildfire mitigation and suppression, so removing this rule will result in even more fires and will unnecessarily cost California taxpayers more to support the State’s wildfire response efforts.”
The lawmakers further emphasized the Roadless Rule’s importance to the outdoor economy by protecting access to trails, promoting outdoor recreation, and supporting small businesses and local economies that rely on public lands. The lawmakers highlighted that Americans across the country have supported the Roadless Rule since its implementation, and that efforts to overturn the rule undoes previous bipartisan support. Since the announcement of the repeal, the rule received a significant amount of public support within the Administration’s brief public comment period.
“The proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule is deeply unpopular among our constituents,” the lawmakers concluded. “At the time of its adoption, the Rule received over 600 public hearings and over 1.6 million comments—more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history. Despite the significant amount of public consultation that went into the 2001 Roadless Rule, this Administration only gave our constituents 21 days to comment on the initial announcement for the Roadless Rule repeal—during which more than 600,000 comments were submitted and 99% of which supported retaining the rule.”
Padilla has been a longtime champion of public land conservation, fighting tirelessly against Republican efforts to undo environmental protections. Last week, Padilla led a bipartisan group of 153 lawmakers in urging the Department of the Interior (DOI) to abandon a proposed transfer of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park that would facilitate private access to and development of an 83-acre parcel adjacent to the park known as Hazel Green Ranch. In June, Padilla co-led an effort to push back against Republicans’ efforts to codify the repeal of the Roadless Rule and proposed an amendment to the Wildfire Prevention Act to expand critical benefits for federal firefighters. Last year, Padilla reintroduced a public lands package, the Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California (PUBLIC) Lands Act, which would protect and restore more than 1.7 million acres of California’s public lands throughout northwest California, the Central Coast, and Los Angeles County.
Full letter is available here or below:
Dear Secretary Rollins:
We write to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”) that prohibits new road construction and commercial timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas (“roadless areas”). Eliminating the Roadless Rule will harm California’s already overburdened water sources, will counterintuitively decrease communities’ fire resilience, and will have negative economic impacts throughout our state.
For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected nearly 60 million acres across the United States from new road construction and commercial timber harvesting in some of our nation’s most intact and environmentally significant areas. In California, the U.S. Forest Service manages 20 million acres of national forests, including over 4.4 million acres of roadless areas. California’s national forests act as the state’s natural water infrastructure, supplying roughly 65% of California’s total water supply, despite making up only 20% of the state’s land area. Unpaved and poorly maintained forest roads are notoriously the largest source of human-made sediment in public waterways. Protected roadless areas actively safeguard California’s water quality by preventing the severe erosion and landslides that choke pristine rivers with silt and other pollution that inevitably follows road construction. Roadless areas directly anchor the vulnerable origin points of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, American, Kern, Smith, and Eel Rivers, and these protected areas capture, clean, and regulate more than 11 trillion gallons of water annually. The raw, wholesale market value of the water produced by California’s national forests is estimated at roughly $3.2 billion annually, and serves as the underlying foundation for our multi-billion dollar agricultural, municipal, and energy industries.
Despite what opponents of the Roadless Rule argue, it does not ban firefighting or fuel reduction activities in our national forests. Agencies retain full authority to remove trees, clear brush, and construct temporary emergency access roads to protect public safety. Local managers frequently conduct thinning, remove small-diameter trees and underbrush, and execute prescribed burns within roadless areas—particularly along existing boundaries where ignitions are most likely.
Most alarming is that when new areas are opened up to roads, wildfires become much more likely. Recent research demonstrates that wildfires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless areas. Because California’s national forests—such as the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests—directly border massive urban populations, human-caused ignitions are the state’s primary wildfire threat to communities. By limiting road construction, the Rule isolates rugged terrain from vehicles, campfires, and equipment sparks. Moreover, when fires do burn through roadless areas, they often burn at lower, more natural intensities which keeps the underlying soil healthy and minimizes post-burn soil erosion impacts. The State of California currently spends billions of dollars each year toward wildfire mitigation and suppression, so removing this rule will result in even more fires and will unnecessarily cost California taxpayers more to support the State’s wildfire response efforts.
Roadless areas are also essential to maintaining and supporting our state’s outdoor recreation economy that draws people from around the world. California’s national forests host 33 million visitors per year, shifting hundreds of millions of dollars from urban centers directly into rural gateway communities through hotel taxes and local sales taxes. This tax revenue directly funds essential rural municipal services that many counties in California otherwise could not afford. The Roadless Rule also protects thousands of miles of hiking and mountain biking trails and hundreds of miles of whitewater paddling runs across the country, which allow outfitters and other small businesses to thrive. The strength of our outdoor economy is intrinsically tied to these roadless areas remaining protected from industrial development.
Finally, as you will undoubtedly find during this comment period, the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule is deeply unpopular among our constituents. At the time of its adoption, the Rule received over 600 public hearings and over 1.6 million comments more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history. Despite the significant amount of public consultation that went into the 2001 Roadless Rule, this Administration only gave our constituents 21 days to comment on the initial announcement for the Roadless Rule repeal—during which more than 600,000 comments were submitted and 99% of which supported retaining the Rule. Now, the Administration is only allowing a 47-day comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Beyond all that, any new roads that are built would leave taxpayers on the hook for road maintenance, all while the U.S. Forest Service already has a $7-8 billion road maintenance backlog.
For these reasons and more, we strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule. We urge you to leave the Rule intact so that it can continue to provide its time-tested benefits to our state and nation. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,