FS-2025-0001-343352

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. In Oregon, where I live, we have roughly 2 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land protected as designated Roadless Areas. To understand why these areas were protected by the Roadless Rule and should continue to be protected let’s look at the key reasons the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as enacted in the first place. Reducing Road Costs: The U.S. Forest Service manages hundreds of thousands of miles of roads that are expensive to maintain properly. Limiting new construction helps prioritize limited funds. Ending Litigation: Establish a clear, uniform national standard to cut down on costly legal battles over individual logging and road projects. Protecting Wildlife Habitat: Safeguard large, intact ecosystems where endangered species and other wildlife can live without human disruption. Preserving Clean Water: Shield vital municipal watersheds and headwaters from dirt road sediment that harms aquatic life and drinking water. Maintaining Recreation: Keep remote backcountry areas open for quiet outdoor activities like hiking, camping, and fishing. These key reasons for Roadless Areas are more valid today. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. 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 also 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. And, 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 over-story and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. 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.