I am writing to oppose the proposal to partially or fully rescind the Roadless Rule. This rule offers important protections for our National Forests and should be kept in place.
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule helps protect our National Forest lands and I have benefited from the recreation opportunities on many of these lands, including trips in Olympic National Forest, the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, and the White Mountain National Forest. As someone who values time outdoors, the recreational opportunities afforded in these preserved forests are extremely meaningful to me. Rescinding the Roadless Rule puts these rare areas at risk and reduces the recreational opportunities, as well as the associated economic benefits provided by these recreational opportunities. This is particularly harmful to small communities who border these areas and benefit from the tourism dollars spent there.
In addition to recreation, the Roadless Rule protects our National Forests from development, logging, and potentially negative human impacts. Multiple studies, for example Aplet, Hartger & Dietz, 2026, have shown that wildfires are less prevalent in roadless areas, and the incidence of human caused fires generally increases with proximity to roads. Removing the Roadless Rule protections opens up more areas to road development and heightens the wildfire risk in these areas. Therefore, our forests are safer when there are less roads and less human impacts.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also likely to negatively impact the environment by increasing the likelihood of landslides and debris in timber harvest areas, contributing to reduced water quality for many reliant communities, and increasing emissions due to trucks and mechanical equipment used for logging. In addition, roadless areas overlap with the range of more than 300 species of threatened, endangered, or proposed species and almost 100 habitats listed under the Endangered Species Act. As a trained wildlife biologist, I recognize the importance of protecting the species, habitats, and biodiversity found in our National Forests. Opening these areas to timber harvest or other development will negatively impact these areas and the animals that rely on the protected habitats.
Ultimately, we should be protecting the limited undeveloped areas we have left in our country. Our natural lands offer us clean water, recreational opportunities, and economic benefits. Repealing the Roadless Rule does more potential harm than good. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.
Sincerely,
Mackenzie Pearson