FS-2025-0001-600994

I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Oregon, and I write as a concerned citizen and scientist who understands that human health is intertwined with the health of our environment. Our drinking water, wildlife, outdoor recreation, and livelihoods depend on healthy forests. Protecting safe drinking water begins upstream. Intact forests help stabilize soils, regulate water flow, and protect the streams that supply downstream communities. Road construction and associated disturbance can increase erosion and sediment entering waterways. The Forest Service recognized protection of public drinking-water sources as a central reason for adopting the Roadless Rule. Maintaining these protections is an investment in public health. In Oregon, healthy forests also support a substantial recreation economy. Hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, and wildlife watching sustain businesses and jobs, including in rural communities. A state-sponsored analysis estimated that outdoor recreation supported $16 billion in spending at Oregon businesses in 2022. Protecting the landscapes that draw people here protects an enduring economic resource. We see the pressures on wildlife around us, and the global evidence reinforces our concern. WWF’s 2024 Living Planet Report documents a 73% decline in the average size of monitored vertebrate wildlife populations between 1970 and 2020. This is an unmistakable warning. Roadless areas preserve large, connected habitats and refuges for vulnerable species. Fragmenting these remaining ecosystems risks destroying biodiversity that cannot easily be rebuilt. Oregonians have also experienced the devastation of wildfires and smoke. I am concerned that opening more roadless land to roads and associated human activity will increase wildfire ignitions. Forest Service research has already linked greater road density with increased human-caused ignitions and cross-boundary fire activity. The agency must fully assess these risks rather than assume that removing protections will make communities safer. The consequences extend far beyond burned acreage. Wildfire smoke aggravates respiratory disease and can trigger serious cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and worsening heart failure. These exposures can lead to emergency visits, hospitalizations, and premature death. Wildfire exposure and particulate matter both increase incidence of lung cancer and brain tumors. More smoke exposure means greater risks to health, added burdens on healthcare systems and family finances, and more human suffering. As a scientist, I understand that ecological damage can accumulate before its full consequences become visible. A forest can remain green on a map while losing healthy streams, connected habitat, and the biological relationships that sustain it. These systems are resilient, but their resilience has limits. I urge the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and reject the proposed rescission. Protect our drinking-water sources, wildlife habitat, recreation economy, and public health. Our children should inherit forests that continue to sustain both wild communities and human ones.