I'm writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.
I care deeply about our national forests. Mt. Hood National Forest has been one of many places I have been able to connect with the natural world, and is also an area I rely on staying protected to have clean drinking water. These lands are home to countless wildlife, and are sacred to many communities, including local Indigenous communities.
I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental impacts, including impacts to wildlife and recreation.
The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts.
Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old.
The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today.
The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species.
Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires.
Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads.
New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts.
The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary.
Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks.
National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest.
Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants.
Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water.
With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S.
Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains.
The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals.
Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line.
The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections.
Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants.
For all these reasons, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency:
Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building;
Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission;
Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs;
And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed.
I urge you to take action to uphold the Roadless Rule. Please protect the United State’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.
Thank you
-Jahnavi Hastings