I am writing to oppose the proposed partial or full recission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which has protected our wild, roadless areas for a quarter of a century.
As a resident of Oregon, I hike, camp, bird, and find immeasurable refreshment in roadless areas that could be adversely affected by such a recission. These areas include Larch Mountain in the Columbia Gorge (where I have seen many Great Horned Owls and Common Nighthawks), the Salmon River Trail in the Mt. Hood National Forest (which I hike with friends at least half a dozen times a year), and Lookout Mountain (the highest peak in the Ochoco Mountains of central Oregon and a thrilling, wild hike. But while I am concerned about the future of roadless areas I know and love, that concern extends to the almost 45 million acres of public land nationwide that could be affected.
The actions proposed under this recission would, according to the Administration's DEIS, "adversely afffect" 327 endangered or threatened species and 71 critical habitats. But these wild areas are not just crucial habitat for the wildlife that is facing stressful conditions across the board. They also help to purify our water and air, and they provide first-class opportunities for recreation and relaxation in nature. Opening them to road-building, logging, and other forms of commercial development would damage them in ways that could not be repaired.
Opening these roadless areas to road-building does not make environmental sense. Nor does it make economic sense.
Road-building is costly and would add to the backlog of deferred maintenance, which is already nearly $7 billion. The public is being told that road-building is needed to combat the risk of wildfires. Not true. The Administation itself has said, "“Road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions.” An article on fire ecology published in January 2026 examined three decades of data and found that fires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless areas. The Administration's DEIS also stated that road-building and increased logging will “introduce and spread invasive plant species due to ground disturbance.” Invasive plants are another factor that contributes to wildfires.
“Road construction and native surface forest roads are the largest source of sediment related to timber harvest operations," says the Administration's DEIS, "and sediment delivered to surface waters is a major source of water quality degradation.” In addition to costing communities near roadless areas millions of dollars in lost revenue as recreational areas are degraded, rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would imperil the clean drinking water of communities such as LaGrande and Ashland here in my home state, and many other communities elsewhere.
I urge the Forest Service to keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full force.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Rebecca Stefoff, Portland, Oregon