1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.
Own letter
The comment
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule as proposed in the Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, 91 Fed. Reg 53827 (Aug. 20, 2026). See Attachment.
1. Preservation of Habitat and Ecosystem for Survival of Species
Building roads in wilderness areas significantly impairs the ability of endangered and threatened species to survive by destroying the trees (logging), plants and habitat upon which so many species depend for sheltering, breeding or feeding. Habitat loss and degradation is the number one threat to survival of species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its regulations have recognized this reality for over five decades.
The Forest Service’s own analysis found that Alternative 2 would “adversely affect” 327 threatened and endangered species and 71 designated critical habitats.
2. Preservation of water supplies
Rescission of the Roadless Rule could harm the water supply for 25 million people (according to a University of Washington study that examined 2500 roadless areas). Logging roads threaten the ability of the watershed to provide clean, reliable water.
3. Increased Fire Risk and Lack of Funding & Staff to Maintain
Backcountry forests are at 4 times greater risk of forest fires when roads and logging are introduced.
4. Preservation of wilderness for future generations
Don’t tear up everything in one administration. Save some land and resources for the future!