I strongly oppose any effort to repeal or weaken the Roadless Rule. These protections have preserved 58 million acres of undeveloped national forest for more than 20 years and remain vital to the survival of hundreds of wild animal species. These forest areas are some of the last intact habitats left in the United States. They offer refuge for wild animals to raise their young, find food, and migrate safely. The success of this process contributes to the human world more than most of the public realizes. Logging and road-building destroys these critical spaces, displacing animals, and increasing the risk of fire, erosion, and pollution. Once lost, these ecosystems and the animals who rely on them may never recover. These unfragmented backcountry areas serve as critical, low-disturbance habitat and movement corridors for wide-ranging predators, including gray wolves and the Alexander Archipelago wolf, as well as many other species, both prey and predator alike. The roadless area conservation rule protects a vast majority of the unexplored as well as the explored wilderness and wooded areas. Local to me, it protects the alpine wilderness, which is a phenomenally beautiful and majestic area that is full of small lakes, biodiversity, wildlife, hiking/camping, and ultimately a place I personally have enjoyed with family. There are also other areas I have yet to journey to and discover. These roadless areas include numerous wilderness and forest areas in my home state, as well as my close neighbors, Idaho and Montana. I went on my first backpacking trip in the Cabinet mountains in MT. It was memorable in every way, and I fear that reversing the roadless rule, will easily diminish this hard to access and yet pristinely beautiful environment, that is shared by those who dare to hike there along with those who already live there (the animals). While the wilderness areas would remain protected, the inventoried roadless areas that surround them, are vital to maintain these natural habitats. I believe this to be a necessary buffer zone, separating out human impact on these vital areas. There are two ways this roadless rule continues to protect the natural habitats and biodiversity that impact me and have the most meaning to me personally. Maintaining and protecting clean drinking water as well as wild fire management.
Based on where I live, I am impacted by both of these risks greatly as the water always flows downstream, and is vital to nourish not just the wild life and the forests themselves, but to deliver downstream to the lakes and the rivers, influencing the habitat of the marine life within. While I am not from California, I did come across some data that speaks to this. California’s roadless areas specifically supply 50% of their drinking water. American Rivers reports that A scientific study done out of the University of Washington (July 15, 2026), has shown that these undisturbed forest lands safeguard clean drinking water for 25 million Americans by naturally filtering contaminants and preventing soil erosion into over 80,000 miles of streams. Also detailed in the study, there are other potential harms from rescinding the roadless rule, including to biodiversity and habitats for species like salmon that spawn in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest and other national forests in the Pacific Northwest. Hunting, fishing and other recreation activities could also be at risk from development of wilderness areas currently protected by the roadless rule. These inventoried roadless areas also act as fire barriers, allowing biodiversity and native plants to thrive. A 2026 study of three decades of National Forest System wildfire data found that wildfire ignition density within 50 meters of roads is roughly four times higher than in non-wilderness, non-roadless forest. Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas have the lowest ignition densities of any land category studied (Aplet et al. 2026). Most ignitions near roads are human-caused; lightning-caused fires are concentrated away from roads (Narayanaraj & Wimberly 2012). A century of aggressive fire suppression, made possible by road access, has degraded fire-dependent forests by removing the periodic low-intensity fire that longleaf pine, ponderosa pine, and similar systems evolved with (USDA Forest Service 2001). When this rule was formed, it was a slow, thought out process that included public comments and had support by around 90% of those commenting. There are many issues at hand to bring this to the table again, including worsening fires in the west. It is true that climate change and drought are playing a role larger than we think and forests certainly need to be managed. But rescinding this rule should not be industry motivated. The logging and other special interests groups should not have louder or more influential voices than that of the general public. I support the Roadless Rule as it is today and opposed the repeal or rescission of this.