FS-2025-0001-613510

10/6/2026 I’m writing to express my opposition to the USDA’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). Removing this protective conservation rule will open sensitive land to extractive industries that will destroy wildlife habitat. Sensitive ecosystems will be lost and, at best, negatively impacted. Allowing the logging and mining industries increase the destructive clear cutting of diverse forest and replacing it with farmed monoculture of fast growing single species of tree. Recent reporting by the press that lumber industries have been spraying glyphosate on the land in preparation of replanting that mono crop is now a great concern to me, because we do not know the long term impact that has on our environment and health. This practice has an almost certain chance of continuing onto these protected lands and if it does, will threaten the watershed supply for millions of people across the country. Allowing roads to be cut into currently protected land increases the incidence of man made wildfires, litter, stress and disruptions and conflict with wildlife and migratory habits and habitat. Current national parks and recreational trails can arguably be a testament to this fact. We have to spend millions on wildlife corridors, and other extreme conservation measures to mitigate the impacts from human activity. It always starts with a single road. Some places on this planet just need to be left alone and kept wild for wildlife to move freely — humans can observe from afar, or on foot at one’s own risk. As a young child I grew up camping and fishing, learning to love and appreciate nature. Then life as an adult has me working and in survival mode until fifty years later I realize I need and want that activity back in my life. I recently started hiking and camping again, and this last month, at the age of 61, I went on my first backpacking trip in 45 years. Not since high school have I explored the wild, vast wilderness, miles and miles from the noisy roads and compacted campgrounds. It was glorious, quiet, and so beautiful. This trip covered the eastern Sierra, Inyo National Forest, John Muir wilderness that have some of the most pristine views and water quality. Please keep this and all the places protected under the Roadless Rule this way, do not rescind the Roadless Rule. The intent on the Department’s action says it will return decision making management to the individual national level and provide flexibility for management to plan and implement decisions, but I see the deregulation as weakening the conservation of land and what keeps America’s wilderness unique and beautiful. I worry that rescinding the Roadless Rule opens the opportunity for commercial companies to divide and apply greater pressure or influence over localized and decentralized national Forest management. We can manage national forests and provide flexibility based on that forest’ need. It’s a matter of implementing the interest of conservation for the land and not extraction of the land. It is , in my opinion, disingenuous to say the Department hasn’t been able to make planning decisions because of the Roadless Rule of 2001 since the primary purpose of cutting new roads through the forest is for private industry to have access to cut it down. Another problem of rescinding the Roadless Rule and allowing development of new roads is that will add to the backlog of roadway and infrastructure maintenance and management that already exist and is compounded by this current administration’s funding cuts to the Department. In summary, here are the reasons I am against rescinding the Rule It is bad for wildlife and habitats Increases the backlog of maintenance Potential threat of having a monoculture and glyphosate contamination on land and in water. Potential for mining waste contamination. Respectfully, Doris Bergman