“roadless rule does allow exceptions to construct new roads to fight and manage fires”
“roads themselves increase human access further into nature which creates more opportunities for human caused fire ignition”
“How would USDA weigh the potential for roads to provide management access against the additional opportunities for human-caused wildfire ignitions”
What it names
Works cited
10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538
The comment
Roadless rule comment
I live in Camino, California and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to US National Forest lands includes living near a National Forest (El Dorado being the nearest), being a traditional climber, hiker, and wildlife fan and advocate.
Lands without roads are important personally because they connect me directly to the wild, without the barrier of motorized vehicles. Lands like this are calmer, more beautiful, and preserve wildlife and their habitat better than lands crossed by roads.
As importantly, roadless forests and lands protect watersheds and natural environments.
As you know, the 2001 S. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) established Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) to protect watersheds, soil, plants, and wildlife habitats. This rule should be upheld. A 2026 paper by Olden JD, Postel SL, Dombeck MP, Kesting H, Freeman P, et al., discusses the importance of the Roadless rule to this end. Per the authors, “IRA-influenced watersheds supply drinking water to at least 25 million Americans.”
In this 2026 paper, Olden, JD, et al, also found through their research that IRAs overlap with many hunting and fishing areas. Rescinding the rule would likely disrupt these valuable environments that hunters and fisherman wish to continue to enjoy. IRAs protect rivers, forests, deserts, and inhabitants of these lands.
Apart from watershed impact, I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Large land areas void of roads provide safer and more natural landscapes for animals. Habitats broken up by roads impact wildlife behavior. Roads through wild habitat also expose animals (including humans) to greater risk of injury and death from drivers.
Roadless areas are important to me for recreation and communing with nature. When roads are far away, people are able to experience nature in a special and primitive way that is more and more difficult to do now, given increased development.
I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. The roadless rule does allow exceptions to construct new roads to fight and manage fires. Recision is not necessary. Additionally, roads themselves increase human access further into nature which creates more opportunities for human caused fire ignition.
Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: How would USDA weigh the potential for roads to provide management access against the additional opportunities for human-caused wildfire ignitions that can accompany increased access?
For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Sources
Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature
Olden JD, Postel SL, Dombeck MP, Kesting H, Freeman P, et al. (2026) Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water 5(7): e0000538.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538