Read the comments.

To Whom it May Concern: I live in Seattle, WA 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 National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, living in or near a National Forest community, and Trail runner. Natural places, untouched by roads and development, are critical for the health of our environment and for our own enjoyment and appreciation of the world. Lake Ann Trail is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Mount Baker North Inventoried Roadless Area in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. We hiked to Lake Ann this past weekend, and were blown away by the natural scenery! The trail meanders through a basin surrounded by rocky peaks and golden meadows. The lake itself was a gorgeous jade, surrounded by golden larches just reaching their peak. These places need to be preserved for future generations! I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Large areas without road access provide more protection for the habits of diverse species of plants and wildlife. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Roads disrupt natural vegetation and waterways that protect our water sources. They also create pollution, which risks the health of our watersheds and the plants and wildlife sustained by them. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. Being able to visit these incredibly special places is a privilege, and one that we are uniquely honored to have in our country. I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. Roads are associated with increased fire risk through the increased opportunity for wildfire ignition. The data shows that a majority of human caused wildfires ignite near areas with road access. I am concerned about increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas. The importance of a healthy tree canopy cannot be overstated, particularly at a time when we are facing increasing stresses on the climate. I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. The US is special BECAUSE of the vast areas of undeveloped nature. Unlike Europe and other more densely populated countries we have the opportunity to preserve these spaces and should not be short-sight about this. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? 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.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I'm writing today to express the absolute importance of keeping the roadless rule in place in Montana. There are numerous reasons for this conservation rule to remain and all of them are essential. I have trouble listing only a few, but if I must, I will emphasize wildlife habitat; protection of migration corridors & game habitat; and the recreation economy. As a livelong outdoor enthusiast, conservationist & wildlife lover, nothing is more important to me than preserving Montana's ability to recreate, hunt, fish, and otherwise protect our heritage and way of life in the lands and waters that are protected from roads as outlined in the roadless rule. If we lose any more of those protected areas, we will be in serious jeopardy: habitat loss, loss of Montana recreation jobs, and fragmented corridors for games speciesall these areas in my backyard must be kept in tact for future generations of people and animals. I have sent these comments via postcard. In case the postcard failed to deliver, I am also sending these comments digitally for the record. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Sincerely, Larissa Berry Montana

Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a hiker, PNW resident and climate action-driven citizen and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a hiker and animal/nature enthusiast, myself and so many citizens benefit hugely from Inventoried Roadless Area conservation, like the areas near Bellingham and in the Methow Valley. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.

Please protect our wild places. Rescinding the roadless rule will cause detriment to our drinking water, speed the endangerment and extinction of our wild species, and increase the chances of forest fires. The Forest Service already has a backlog of roads that they are unable to maintain, and an insufficient budget to do so. Most human-caused forest fires are from roads, and we already have unprecedented wildfire seasons, only getting worse with drought and climate change. Opening up these fragile areas to more human destruction has no positive effect, only negative, for us, our futures, and the future generations. Please help preserve these wild places for our children’s children, and stop making rash decisions that continue to destroy the planet. As a trail runner, avid hiker, and fisherwoman, I personally love and rely on these spaces for a chance to get out in nature. I cannot be the last generation that gets to enjoy them. Thank you for your consideration.

As a professional ecologist, I have worked in the forests of northeastern Washington State, and have expertise in forest ecology around the globe. I co-authored the State of the World’s Forests, recently published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The consequences of human activities on forests that modify ecological, social, and economic systems are a primary focus of my work. I write to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the federal 2001 Roadless Rule, which prohibits road construction and logging on 30 percent of United States Forest Service (USFS) land across 42 states. A justification of rescission is better management of wildfires due to more flexibility to take swift action to reduce wildfire risk (Secretary Rollins, press release). Multiple studies show that roads actually increase wildfire risk. Morrison (2007; Roads and Wildfires. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, WA) reported 88% of all wildfires nationwide are caused by humans and 95% of these occurred within 0.5 mile of a road. Over 90 percent of wildfires from all causes occurred within 0.5 mile of a road. Other evidence indicates that forest management can occur in roadless areas, and that absence of roads supports forest health. Healey (2020; Environmental Research Letters. 15: 104023) used long-term USFS forest management records to assess the impact of roadlessness on forest health. Absence of roads in USFS roadless areas has not hindered management activities and has not stopped fire prevention measures. Indeed, fuel management activities in roadless areas were more numerous on a per-area basis than elsewhere in the National Forest System. But, Healey’s analysis of 15,000 forest inventory plots shows that roads are detrimental to other aspects of forest health. Significantly, roads increase spread of invasive plant species. He concludes that “Speculation that eliminating road prohibitions would improve forest health is not supported by nearly 20 years of monitoring data.” Another justification is to boost resource extraction, usually timber harvest. Many areas are designated as roadless because the costs of road construction and resource extraction from remote areas were greater than the value of the timber. Moreover, operating in these areas increases soil erosion. Healthy forests support healthy populations of plants and animals. The 2000 Roadless Area Final EIS states: “Inventoried roadless areas provide large, relatively undisturbed blocks of habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and plants etc. Many inventoried roadless areas function as biological strongholds and refuges for a number of species, and they play a key role in maintaining native plant and animal communities and biological diversity.” This was considered an important role of roadless areas at the inception of the Roadless Rule and is even more important today. Roadless areas are important in providing clean water, critical for human health. The 2000 Roadless Area Conservation Final EIS by the USDA estimated that USFS lands provide 14% of the total water flow in the US and 33% of water flow in the West. Many of these watersheds occur on inventoried roadless areas, and are sources of drinking water for millions of Americans. The role of roadless areas in providing clean water was true in 2000 and is today. Roadless areas provide recreational activities and promote the physical and mental health of people who participate in these activities. Recreational activities have a direct economic impact on local communities. A Forbes report (Randall, September 17 2025) indicates that outdoor recreation generates $1.2 trillion and relies on intact landscapes. The cultural and spiritual significance to our national well-being is harder to measure, but equally important. The 2020 Final EIS for the 2021 Roadless Rule examined the socioeconomic and ecological ramifications of four alternatives for management of USFS roadless areas. The conclusion supporting Alternative 3: “Prohibit Road Construction, Reconstruction, and Timber Harvest Except for Stewardship Purposes Within Inventoried Roadless Area” was based on review of current data, following the guidelines/timelines of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). It is imperative that the EIS to evaluate the rescission of the 2021 Roadless Rule be equally rigorous and adhere to NEPA. This EIS must consider the data that the current Roadless Rule promotes forest health, enables resource extraction where economically feasible, protects clean water for millions of people, sustains viable populations of native plants and animals, and provides recreational activities that benefit physical/mental health and local economies. In sum, the reasons put forward by Secretary Rollins to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule are unsupported by data and there are many more compelling reasons to reject the rescission, ensuring that roadless areas are maintained for future generations.

For 25 years, this rule has successfully protected 58.5 million acres of pristine National Forest System lands. Repealing it will cause irreversible ecological fragmentation and fiscal irresponsibility. I urge the Forest Service to maintain the 2001 Rule based on the following critical points: 1. Flawed Wildfire Arguments: The USDA’s justification that a full repeal is necessary for wildfire mitigation is scientifically inaccurate. Peer-reviewed research demonstrates that roadless areas experience four times fewer human-caused wildfire ignitions than areas with roads. Furthermore, the 2001 Rule already contains explicit, narrow exceptions that allow for hazardous fuel reductions and emergency wildfire suppression. A total rescission is an overreach that ignores these existing flexibilities. 2. Fiscal Irresponsibility: The Forest Service currently faces a multi-billion-dollar backlog in existing road maintenance. Opening up 58.5 million acres to new road construction will drastically exacerbate this deficit, placing an undue financial burden on American taxpayers to subsidize private commercial logging infrastructure. 3. Economic and Ecological Value: Roadless areas protect the watersheds that provide clean drinking water to over 60 million Americans. They also serve as critical habitats for hundreds of threatened and endangered species. From an economic perspective, these intact ecosystems anchor America’s $45 billion outdoor recreation economy, which relies directly on unfragmented backcountry for hunting, fishing, and hiking. A national "one-size-fits-all" approach to protection is vital because ecosystems do not stop at state lines. Shifting authority to localized, state-by-state management threatens to dismantle a cohesive national conservation legacy. I respectfully request that the USDA withdraw this proposal and maintain the full protections of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

I strongly support the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask that it not be rescinded. Without the rule we would dismantle a national safeguard for some of the country’s largest remaining blocks of relatively undisturbed forest, threatening wildlife habitat, drinking water, recreation and an already strained Forest Service road system. Please protect our forests! Thank you.

I oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. I co-own a small photography business that photographs proposals and elopements in the backcountry. Our clients don't book us to stand beside a logging road. They come for quiet, intact wild places, and that landscape is the foundation of our livelihood. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has given businesses like mine something rare: predictability. We can plan seasons, invest in this work, and promise couples these places will still be here. Rescinding the rule trades that lasting value for short-term flexibility. The economics don't add up. Visitors to roadless areas spent $8.5 billion in nearby communities in 2024 (DEIS p. 212), while timber from these areas is projected to generate just $2.2 to $11.4 million a year (p. 220). The DEIS itself notes that outfitters and guides may face higher costs (p. 224). Small businesses like mine would pay for a harvest that earns far less than the recreation it displaces. The wildfire rationale is thin. Per the DEIS, human-caused fires are a much smaller share of fires in roadless areas than elsewhere on national forest land, and ignition density is about four times higher on other lands (pp. 86, 89). The document also acknowledges that timber projects are the primary motivation and funding source for new roads (p. 102). That makes this look more like a timber policy than a fire policy. We can't maintain the roads we have. The Forest Service reports a $7 billion maintenance backlog, and fewer than 30% of its roads are in good condition (pp. 40, 42). The DEIS concedes timber revenue wouldn't cover the cost of building and maintaining new roads (p. 45). Water and wildlife are at stake. About 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing roadless areas (p. 120), and landslides are 6 to 9 times more likely near forest roads (p. 111). These lands overlap the range of more than 300 threatened, endangered, and proposed species (p. 160). Tribal interests deserve more than a promise. The DEIS acknowledges possible reduced access to treaty-reserved resources and sacred sites (pp. 201-202). Please keep the rule in place, and give the public a comment period equal to a decision affecting tens of millions of acres. These untouched areas are also where I spend my own time: skiing, hiking, mountain biking, paddleboarding, river rafting, wildlife viewing, stargazing, and foraging. It's incredibly important to me and to anyone else who recreates in these areas that they remain wild wilderness.

I oppose any change to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Many agencies spent thousands of hours painstakingly collecting data before enacting the 2001 Rule, and there is no need to change it. It seems disingenuous to state that "the management direction for inventoried roadless areas would continue to be governed by the applicable land management plans for each unit of the National Forest System," when the Trump administration has fired 6000+ people from the Forest Service, and appointed a Timber Industry executive with no former forest service experience, to the position of Chief of the Forest Service, . The claim that building new roads and allowing new access into roadless areas is necessary for wildfire management, is contradicted by many wildland firefighting organizations, with a direct quote from FUSEE (Firefighters Unted for Safety, Ethics and Ecology); "Constructing new logging roads into roadless areas will increase human-caused wildfire ignitions by careless recreationists, criminal arsonists, or simple accidents," said Carson States, a 10-season veteran firefighter and Type 6 engine boss from Oregon. "More roads mean more fires, so the broadened access to a wildfire incident will be undermined by the increased number of wildfires that will need to be suppressed." With tens of thousands of scientists around the world agreeing that forest preservation is vital to the survival of all life on earth, the idea that more logging and more roads into pristine wilderness is somehow in anyone's best interest is ludicrous. I am in complete agreement with the Tribal assessment that " removing this layer of national protection shifts the unsustainable burden of project-level review onto their limited resources and exposes previously untouched areas to industrial activity, mining interests, and destructive recreational access, all of which threaten sacred sites, traditional gathering areas, water quality, and subsistence resources." Further the " Proposed alternatives that were frequently requested: "retaining the existing rule (“No Action”) or establishing new co-management structures, such as a “Strengthened Roadless Rule Alternative” or a “Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule” that integrates Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Tribal co-stewardship, and Tribal consent for major decisions, would be critical to any change. I absolutely object to rescinding any part of The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Even though I live in a state with it's own Roadless Rule, I am a property owner in Nevada, and spend much time in the wilds of our country, and it is plain to see the impact of human overuse already in our wide open spaces. We have to preserve what we have for the future of all life on earth to survive. With deepest concern for our vital roadless wilderness, Laralee Leavitt Idaho Resident

Dear Secretary Rollins, Destroying the ecosystem has cost us great before. Have you not read The Worst Hard Time? I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Sincerely, Kyle Sarhage Illinois

•I oppose the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. •The Forest Service should strengthen the Roadless Rule, not eliminate it. The current rule provides essential protections but still permits damaging activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas. •Rescission would remove national protections from approximately 45 million acres of National Forest lands, exposing intact wildlife habitat and watersheds to additional logging, grazing-related roads, mining, and fragmentation. •Research examining 1,500 fires shows that protected (unroaded) forests burn at lower intensity and have lower rates of fire spread when controlled for weather conditions. Roads can increase human-caused fire ignitions and spread invasive plants. •The Forest Service should close loopholes that permit logging and the construction of so-called “temporary roads” in roadless areas. Temporary roads can cause lasting harm to wildlife habitat, soils, and watersheds. •The 2001 Roadless Rule does not address livestock-grazing impacts, and grazing has continued uninterrupted in Inventoried Roadless Areas. A mapping analysis estimates that between 10 million and 15 million acres of these lands are actively grazed by domestic livestock each year. Livestock can damage streams and springs, remove riparian vegetation, compact soils, spread invasive plants, and displace native wildlife. New road construction would enable harmful livestock grazing to expand. •The Forest Service should prioritize voluntary grazing-permit retirement within roadless areas and close vacant allotments and allotments where grazing conflicts with roadless-area values. •The existing rule does not prohibit hardrock mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872, and mineral leasing can continue. USDA should ask the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw Inventoried Roadless Areas from mineral entry under section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, subject to valid existing rights. The Forest Service should also prohibit new mineral leasing within these lands.More than 9,000 miles of mapped motorized trails cross roadless areas.. Motorized use can compact soils, spread invasive species, disturb wildlife, fragment secure habitat, and increase human-caused wildfire risk. Inventoried Roadless Areas should be nonmotorized by default, with narrow exceptions for valid existing rights, necessary administrative access, and emergencies. •The Forest Service should withdraw the proposed rescission and adopt a stronger national rule that protects roadless lands from commercial logging, unnecessary roads, damaging grazing, new mineral development, and harmful motorized use. Here are some helpful talking a points you can use. Keep the first and last and just focus one a few points from the middle. and TELL them about your self and why you care.

I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please retain its protections for inventoried roadless areas. Freshwater matters to me because of the wildlife that lives there and keeping their natural habitats and environments clean. I am concerned that removing restrictions on road construction and timber harvesting could increase erosion and sediment entering streams, harming water quality and the aquatic habitat for fish I care about. Please fully evaluate these effects on watersheds and downstream communities. I urge the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Rule and prioritize clean water in its decision. Thank you.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration's proposal to rescind the nation's landmark roadless rule. This misguided action would open nearly 45 million acres of pristine national forests to road construction, logging, and other destructive development. The consequences of this decision would be far-reaching and devastating for our environment, wildlife, and communities. The roadless rule has been instrumental in preserving biodiversity and protecting our water resources. These untouched forests provide critical habitat for over 500 imperiled species and serve as the headwaters for major rivers that supply drinking water to more than 60 million people across 33 states. By allowing road construction, we risk introducing significant water pollution to these vital water sources. Contrary to the administration's claims, rescinding the roadless rule would actually increase wildfire risk. Scientific studies have shown that wildfires are four times more likely in areas with roads compared to roadless forest tracts. This fact directly contradicts the justification being used to push this harmful proposal forward. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a notice of intent with only a 21-day public comment period on issues to be considered in the proposed rule. This short timeline is inadequate for such a consequential decision. I urge you to advocate for an extended public comment period and to oppose this proposal when it comes before you. The final decision on this matter is anticipated in fall 2026, but action is needed now to prevent irreversible damage to our national forests. These forests are not just ecological treasures; they are also economic assets, supporting outdoor recreation industries and providing natural buffers against the impacts of climate change. I implore you to stand against the rescission of the roadless rule. Protect our national forests, endangered species, clean water, and the interests of the millions of Americans who benefit from these pristine wilderness areas. The legacy of our public lands and the health of our environment depend on your action to preserve the roadless rule. My Regards, Jordan Wright

Hello! I am writing to urge the USDA to uphold strong protections for all roadless areas. Reversing the 25-year-old roadless rule opens up the most protected areas of our national forest land to logging, mining, and other drilling in what little undominated natural spaces we have left. I understand the benefits of utilizing natural resources but those short-term economic gains (to a few) are far outweighed the short- and long-term benefits (to everyone) of keeping that land protected. Wildfire is a significant issue in our country, particularly prevalent in the western states where the majority of roadless area are located. However, this is not generally where wildfires are starting. 84% of wildfires are caused directly by human activity. I am concerned that the analysis in this proposal does not accurately account for the increased risk. It also does not address the fact that logging and other land-use practices create an abundance of dry fuels that can lead to larger fires. Congruent, uninterrupted spaces are essential for wildlife. These roadless areas, while only 2% of land in the continental 48, provide habitat for more than 50% of vulnerable terrestrial species. Not only threatened and endangered animals but all sorts of wildlife make these roadless areas home. Fracturing of these spaces threatens animal and plant communities. Noise affects birds and their animals, vehicles on roads directly kill and injure countless creatures and impact migration, runoff from vehicles pollutes soil and waterways, and increased traffic brings invasive and non-native species. The benefits of these intact ecosystems are almost impossible to fully quantify. For example, about 24 million Americans get their clean drinking water from roadless areas. What is the cost of immediately and safely replacing that? Many recreational activities are dependent on the peaceful, road-free environments of these protected areas. I do not want to see that opened up for extraction of coal, oil, wood, and other natural materials. It is so much more valuable to all of us as a living, breathing, active ecosystem. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Instead, I urge the USDA and US Forest Service to maintain full protection of roadless areas (alternative 1 - no action alternative). I encourage more listening to public comment, prioritizing Tribal perspectives, and following science. Thank you, ____

I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please retain its protections for inventoried roadless areas. Freshwater matters to me because it is essential to all living species on the planet I am concerned that removing restrictions on road construction and timber harvesting could increase erosion and sediment entering streams, harming water quality and the aquatic habitat for fish I care about. Please fully evaluate these effects on watersheds and downstream communities. I urge the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Rule and prioritize clean water in its decision. Thank you.

The roadless rule should not be rescinded. There is already a mis-management for the roads that exist as shown by the large backlog of maintenance which has not been funded. How will adding more roads solve that? Roads negatively impact the majority of USFS users experience, and the financial positive results are inadequate. If you want to make more roads at least take a significantly larger cut of the timber, coal, and other extractive industry revenues and not give the resources away for a pittance.

I am disappointed with the current administration’s proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Rescinding this rule will be detrimental for ecosystems. The construction to build these roads, removal of trees for roads, and the further removal of trees for timber eliminates crucial habitat for wildlife populations. It has also been shown that making roads will cause more wildfires, contradicting the claim by Secretary Rollins that building more roads can help with wildfire prevention. More roads mean more ignitions. Monoculture forestry can lead to an increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires, due to tightly packed, same aged trees, and lack of diversity. This is because of the fuel ladder created by the lack of old growth trees with canopies at tall heights. Overall, the rescission of the Roadless Area Rule would be negative for the environment.

Our old growth forests need to be protected, especially in the current climate crisis were in. Do not make the last of our mostly untouched lands vulnerable to corporate destruction. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.

The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for balanced forest management, including timber harvest, to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, as well as to restore habitat for sensitive fish and wildlife species. Importantly, hazardous fuels treatments in roadless areas are commonplace, helping protect at-risk communities and restoring forest health. If rescinded, new road construction and associated industrial-scale logging will fragment fish and wildlife habitat, degrade water quality and quantity, and reduce backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands. There are 370,000 miles of roads in the National Forest System with a maintenance backlog of $10.8 billion, 55% of which is due to dilapidated roads that cause sedimentation and erosion that reduce water quality, create barriers to fish migration, and create public safety hazards. We need to take care of the roads we already have, not add more roads that we don’t have the funding or personnel to maintain. Roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat and hunting and angling opportunities for Americans of all walks of life. I strongly support maintaining protections for all roadless areas and keeping these public lands a great place to hunt and fish. Please select Alternative 1 (No Action) to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact.

I, Emily Lindquist, am in support of the roadless rule for many reasons. First of all, I am in support of it because most of the current “roadless land” is unusable for timber and mining. Past politicians deemed this land “roadless” for good reason. Oftentimes, these areas are along mountainsides with slopes at a 30 degree incline or more. Only a few areas are appropriate for certain industries like logging and mining. Ultimately, this determination should be made locally, not by the federal government. Residents of these few areas that would be appropriate for logging and mining deserve a fair trade. The local taxpayer would be trading away public land usage and therefore, the corporations using that land should directly pay for some of the local taxpayers’ taxes if they are to use that land. Before we even consider rescinding the roadless rule: we need to be upgrading existing ones.There are thousands of miles of roads that are in need of repair or are no longer used. These roads and the 400 million acres of private land around them need to be re-evaluated for timber harvest and mining before stealing public land from public hands. I do support some level of fuel reduction near currently existing homes, but there is also an incredibly large amount that wildfire-prone homeowners can do to help protect their homes from wildfires. Fuel reduction on existing roads is ok as long as it’s up to local entities to decide how that’s done.