Story by Connor Foote
Over 172,000 acres of unsullied North Carolina backcountry could soon lose a vital protection
keeping them undeveloped. After the public comment period closed Oct. 6, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture will make its decision on whether to repeal a Clinton-era protection that covers
almost 45 million acres of forest and grassland nationally, including 38 roadless areas in North
Carolina.
A landmark piece of land management legislation, the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
places about a third of the land managed by the Forest Service under significant restrictions to
development. The Clinton administration’s intent was to provide “lasting protection” for
inventoried roadless areas within the forest system.
That protection is now in danger. On Aug. 18, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said that
the U.S. Forest Service had formally filed to repeal the Roadless Rule. Rollins said lifting the rule
would improve forest health and wildfire prevention efforts, but environmental groups and
concerned individuals are sounding the alarm.
“You imagine western North Carolina is this beautiful, mostly untouched place,” said
environmental advocate Nick Holshouser, who lives in Brevard, N.C. “There’s really only a few
areas that are completely closed off, and for those areas to be gone, it seems like a very significant
impact.”
Holshouser got his start as an environmental advocate in the early 2010s speaking out against a
timber project near his home along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Due in part to his efforts, the project
was cut down to a third of the original size.
Now a board member of environmental nonprofit Mountain True and relatively seasoned
environmentalist, Holshouser has set his sights on advocacy for roadless areas across the country.
After the initial comment period for the USDA’s proposal last September, he noticed that the
format for public comment lacked structure. In response, he launched Roadless.org, a website
dedicated to building public support for the rule.
A spatial data scientist by trade, Holshouser has built an impressive website — alongside a guide to
writing your own comment, you can contact Congress, browse a research library and special
reports, explore fact sheets for each of the 568 individual roadless areas and much, much more. As
of Oct. 6, the website notes 351,885 comments, of which 99.3% support keeping the rule in place.
The Forest Service has a duty to manage its land such that it is preserved for the different interests
of the public — in North Carolina’s forests, this means activities like hiking, hunting, biking and
photography can coexist.
Holshouser cites overwhelming support for the rule as an endorsement of the land’s multi-use
designation. While not a hunter himself, he said he recognizes the rights of others to use public
land how they may want to use it.
“When I meet hunters in the woods, a lot of times we’re probably different politically,” Holshouser
said. “But both of us like to be in the woods. We like to see wildlife. We like to experience what’s
out here. There’s common ground you can find with people.”
That common ground is at odds with the Trump administration’s intentions.
According to the USDA, voiding the Roadless Rule would help combat wildfires, an increasingly
common occurrence as the world warms and forests get drier. North Carolina’s Forest Service said
it would allow for localized management practices, in line with the administration’s goal to return a
level of autonomy in the Forest Service to states.
“The intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule is to return to local decision making as part of
individual national forest and grassland plans, which include robust public involvement and focus
on land management decisions at the right scale,” the North Carolina Forest Service in an email
statement. “Rescinding the rule allows managers to address local watershed, economic, and
wildfire-risk conditions within the same planning framework that guides the rest of the National
Forest System and can respond to changing conditions over the 10-15-year lifespan of a forest
plan.”
Yet the Roadless Rule isn’t as hard and fast as it’s portrayed by the USDA. Section 294.12 of the
regulation states that the Forest Service can authorize the building of roads when there is an evident
“threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event,” alongside six other exemptions.
And in North Carolina, preventive wildfire work has been ongoing.
After Hurricane Helene, grant money was handed out for salvage logging — removing fallen, or
blowdown, trees — across western North Carolina, where 32 out of the state’s 38 roadless areas are
located. Dead blowdowns invite some of the greatest fire risk since they retain significantly less
water than living trees do.
“Everybody knows how fast dried wood burns,” North Carolina logger Mason Thompson said.
“Let’s just say if you were to go camping, you’re not going to take wet wood with you to try to start
a fire.”
Holshouser said that under Chief of the United States Forest Service Tom Schultz — who has a
background in timber lobbying — the agency has seen a change in personnel and policy that seems
to contradict best practices. He believes that by putting logging and wildfire management profits
over the environment, the administration is taking a partisan stance toward the backcountry.
Yet the public is hardly divided on the issue.
Analysis from Pew Research found that 77% of likely voters believe conserving roadless areas is
important, compared to only 11% that would like to see them opened up to timber harvesting and
mining.
“It’s a perfectly useful and needed service, which someone can provide to landowners and can
provide in the forest,” Holshouser said of logging. “Forests are multiple use, sustained purpose. It’s
just there’s places for it, and maybe there’s places that are not for it.”
David Reid, a leader in North Carolina’s Sierra Club chapter, said the administration’s intent to
repeal the Roadless Rule would damage that multi-use designation by freeing up land for
development.
“There are some folks that make the case that this action is needed to help reduce the risk of
wildfire, which we don’t think is true,” Reid said. “We think just the opposite will be the effect.
Your hunters and your fishers that enjoy the backcountry and the unspoiled streams are primarily
in support of the Roadless Rule because it protects those unique backcountry experiences.”
That’s a stance that is shared by many of North Carolina’s wilderness activity organizations.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) is one such group in a coalition seeking to protect
roadless areas. They recognize that repealing the rule would mean the loss of more than just an
8-point buck.
“We may be there for different purposes,” said Ryan Frenia, a BHA representative. “However, we
are both here because of the same reason: this is a protected natural space. We both understand the
value and appreciate what it is that we are able to experience here, and the fact that it lends itself to
so many different types of activities — I think that’s what makes it really special, is that it creates a
very personal thing for everybody.”
As the public comment period has closed, the USDA will begin to address all substantive comments
it has received. Once it has responded, it will make a decision on whether or not to repeal the
Roadless Rule. Holshouser expects the agency to “blunder forward” and open up roadless areas to
activity no matter the quality and quantity of comment.
But that’s not the end for America’s roadless backcountry. Alongside widespread public opposition
to removing protections, Reid said environmental groups like Sierra Club expect to take legal
action if the rule is repealed.
Land management is a long-term game. The U.S. is unique in its tradition of land preservation, a
tradition that dates far before the advent of the Roadless Rule. Frenia said keeping that tradition
alive is what motivates him to be an advocate despite the pressures of daily life.
“I don’t do it for me,” Frenia said. “I do it for my future grandkids, I do it for your future
grandkids — I do it for everybody. I want that opportunity for those people. I want people to be
able to experience it in the future. It feels like such a shame that it would be something that we
could lose. I know we would regret it.”
