FS-2025-0001-584664

I oppose the proposal to allow roads in our forests where they do not belong. Please see my attached PDF letter detailing my views. Also include below. October 5, 2026 Re: Opposed — Roadless Area Conservation Rule Docket No. FS-2025-0001 Dear Secretary Rollins: I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Forest Service to retain its protections for inventoried roadless areas. I live in southwest Oregon, where roadless lands are not an abstract concept. They are part of the landscape surrounding places such as the Kalmiopsis, Grassy Knob and Wild Rogue. These areas protect clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation and some of the last relatively intact landscapes in southwestern Oregon. I am particularly concerned with the suggestion that additional roads are needed to address wildfire risk. The Forest Service's own research deserves careful consideration before reaching that conclusion. In his 2020 peer-reviewed study, Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness, Forest Service scientist Sean Healey analyzed nearly 20 years of monitoring data and found that forests with and without roads had burned at similar rates following adoption of the Roadless Rule. He also found that fuel-management activities had not been prevented by the absence of roads. The study notes that higher human-caused ignition rates near roads may offset the firefighting advantage of increased road access. That finding is particularly relevant in western Oregon. A 2025 Forest Service analysis of more than 104,000 wildfire ignitions in Oregon and Washington from 1992–2018 found that 73 percent of ignitions west of the Cascades were human-caused. Recreation and open debris burning were the two largest identified sources. If human activity accounts for such a large proportion of wildfire ignitions in western Oregon, the assumption that more roads necessarily mean less wildfire deserves careful scrutiny. We should not increase human access into currently roadless forests without demonstrating that doing so will reduce—not increase—the risk of human-caused fire. The consequences of additional roads extend beyond fire. The Forest Service's research has documented road-related impacts on forest health, including the spread of invasive plants; Healey found non-native plants were twice as common within 500 feet of roads. The Forest Service also acknowledges that roads can contribute to sedimentation and habitat fragmentation, particularly where they cross steep slopes, sensitive soils, streams and wetlands. The Forest Service already manages more than 375,000 miles of roads. The existing Roadless Rule also contains limited exceptions for circumstances including threats to public health and safety from fire and other catastrophic events. Before permanently opening additional roadless areas, the agency should demonstrate why the existing road system and these existing provisions cannot meet legitimate access needs. The Roadless Rule has protected these landscapes for 25 years. I urge the Forest Service to fully address its own evidence concerning wildfire, human ignition, wildlife and habitat fragmentation, invasive species, water quality and the long-term costs of additional roads before rescinding this protection. Once an intact roadless landscape is fragmented by roads, we cannot simply put the landscape back the way it was. Sincerely, Bob Morrow Langlois, Oregon