“indigenous people who vehemently oppose rescinding the roadless rule”
“extensive damage to sacred sites”
“culturally significant places where food and traditional medicines are gathered”
“treaty resources”
What it names
Works cited
10.1073/pnas.1617394114
Attachments
4 files. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
The comment
Dear Secretary Rollins:
Please keep the roadless areas roadless and do not rescind FS-2025-0001. More roads is not better for fire prevention - more roads actually means MORE human-caused fires, while roadless areas allow trees - especially old-growth trees, to store moisture and carbon. There is a great deal of documentation on this, including: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1617394114 and https://www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/Summary%20NFS%20roads%20fire%20paper%20-%202025.pdf. Many areas are dealing with the spread of non-native, invasive plants that overtake and kill/suppress native plants that the ecosystem depends on - everything from the insects to birds and mammals and people. For example, I have seen invasive knapweed overtake native vegetation at a very alarming rate in NW Montana just over the past 10 years. A USDA study showed that roads are strongly associated with the spread of invasive plant species in national forests. Non-native plants are twice as common within 152 meters (500 feet) of a road as farther away. Speculation that eliminating road prohibitions would improve forest health is not supported by nearly twenty years of monitoring data. Again, from USDA research/data.
Millions of people rely on clean water that has its source in these areas where moisture is stored and water is filtered naturally. Building new roads will be incredibly destructive to these water sources. The rule also protects sensitive streams and rivers from erosion caused by effects of road-building leading to more logging which leads to more soil blowing into streams and suffocating wildlife, killing eggs of endangered fish and amphibians, etc.
There are already so many roads and trails accessible to motorized vehicles, atv's etc. Roadless areas are still accessible by walking in - I've done that, and the experience is pretty incredible due to the great diversity of plants, trees, wildlife, birds. We don't need every acre of forest and public land to have roads.
There is a massive backlog of needed maintenance on roads and bridges already existing on on USFS land...we simply cannot afford to build more when so much work needs to be done to make the ones already in existence safe. It would be irresponsible to spend money to create any new roads while this backlog exists.
Hundreds of protected species that are in danger of becoming threatened or extinct rely on roadless areas to live and reproduce. There are entire, intact ecosystems in roadless areas - nature still existing the way it was designed to. Migration corridors - which we are still learning more about and about the effects of development and fragmentation on them - are preserved by roadless areas. We should be studying the lessons to be learned from these intact ecosystems rather than destroying them. Again, people can still access these areas on foot, causing far less disturbance.
Finally, many roadless areas are home to or used by indigenous people who vehemently oppose rescinding the roadless rule as it would lead to likely extensive damage to sacred sites, culturally significant places where food and traditional medicines are gathered, and treaty resources.
Roadless areas also actually attract tourism and are economically positive for nearby communities. Many people are drawn to these areas for the unique opportunity to recreate in an area without roads. There are roads everywhere, so these few areas where there are no roads and the subsequent opportunities to view wildlife, hike in peace, etc. are unique.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation requires that the government conduct environmental impact assessments - this takes time and has not been done. This rule was created with documented, bipartisan support after over 600 public meetings and over 1.6 million comments submitted. See this study documenting that 76% of the US population supports keeping the roadless rule: https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/02/18/an-update-on-the-roadless-rule. For the sake of future generations and everyone who benefits from and/or stands to possibly face harm from a full rescission, please leave the roadless rule intact. Thank you.