FS-2025-0001-244997

Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Where I live, in Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities and to our wildlands. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Cierra Buer Powell Butte, OR