Here’s a strong, tailored comment you can submit in response to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Your firsthand experience as a former Forest Service employee adds critical credibility, and the comment incorporates specific concerns, sources, and a call to action to maximize its impact.
Subject: Strong Opposition to Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Comment:
I am writing as a former Forest Service employee with eight seasons of experience across multiple national forests, including roles as a Visitor Information Assistant at Mount St. Helens National Monument, a Field Range Technician in the Deschutes National Forest, and a Recreation Specialist on the Inyo, Tahoe, and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests. In these positions, I witnessed firsthand how roadless areas serve as critical ecological refuges, recreational havens, and sources of clean water and air for millions of Americans.
The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is a dangerous step backward that would undermine decades of progress in protecting these irreplaceable lands. This rule has been upheld by courts, supported by science, and cherished by the public—and it must not be weakened.
Key Concerns
Loss of Protections for Roadless Areas
The 2001 Roadless Rule currently protects 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas from road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to industrial exploitation, fragmenting habitats, degrading water quality, and diminishing recreational opportunities.
Source: USDA Forest Service: Proposed Rule to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (2026)
Local Decision-Making ≠ Better Outcomes
The proposal claims that returning decisionmaking to local Forest Service officials will improve management. However, local priorities are often driven by short-term economic interests (e.g., logging, mining, or development) rather than long-term ecological sustainability. The 2001 Roadless Rule ensured consistency across all national forests, preventing a patchwork of protections.
Source: Western Priorities: “The Forest Service’s own review finds repealing the Roadless Rule could increase wildfire risk and harm communities” (Aug 21, 2026)
Public Lands Are a Public Trust
National forests belong to all Americans, not just local interests. The 2001 Roadless Rule was developed through extensive public input and has been upheld by courts (e.g., California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009)). Rescinding it silences the voices of millions of outdoor enthusiasts, scientists, and communities who value these lands for their recreational, ecological, and cultural significance.
Source: Selc.org: “U.S. Forest Service seeks to slash public input on public lands” (Feb 11, 2026)
Increased Wildfire Risk
The Forest Service’s own review acknowledges that repealing the Roadless Rule could increase wildfire risk by allowing more road construction and logging in sensitive areas. Roadless areas act as natural firebreaks and carbon sinks, and their degradation would exacerbate climate change impacts.
Source: Western Priorities: “The Forest Service’s own review finds repealing the Roadless Rule could increase wildfire risk and harm communities” (Aug 21, 2026)
Erosion of Public Trust in the Forest Service
As a former employee, I saw how public trust in the Forest Service is built on transparency, science, and accountability. This proposal abandons those principles in favor of regulatory rollbacks that prioritize industry over people and the planet. The Forest Service must listen to the public, not corporate interests.
Request to the USDA and Forest Service
Withdraw the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Extend the public comment period beyond September 21, 2026, to allow for meaningful engagement from scientists, Tribes, outdoor enthusiasts, and communities.
Reaffirm the agency’s commitment to protecting roadless areas as critical components of our national forest system.
Conduct a new environmental impact statement that fully evaluates the ecological, recreational, and economic costs of rescinding the rule.
The 2001 Roadless Rule is a cornerstone of conservation in the United States. Rescinding it would set a dangerous precedent and weaken protections for some of our most pristine landscapes. I urge the USDA and Forest Service to reject this proposal and instead strengthen protections for roadless areas.
Sincerely,
Former Forest Service Employee