Read the 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

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.

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 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

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.

Carmel by the Sea CA. is in the process of cutting down 100 trees...the reason given is to plant new ones...isn't this an issue that the public should have a voice in deciding? Alternatives must be available. 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.

I have grown up hiking on the trails and seeing the beauty of Western North Carolina for 17 years. Honestly, nothing has made me more angry than having to continually fight to protect the wilderness surrounding me over the past several years from our own government, which was created to protect the interests of the people of the United States of America. The Roadless Rule exists to protect these areas of wilderness that support a stable environment, and the continuous attempts to degrade them endanger livelihoods and our fundamental rights to life and liberty. The Roadless Rule protects not only ecosystems, but the endangered species like Hellbenders that live in them as well. There is no reason to repeal the Roadless Rule to encourage economic greed. It would be different if this were solely to prevent wildfires in wilderness areas that are difficult to reach, but the public understands that it would be more for corporate greed than for our common good. Thank you for your time. 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.

I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please retain its protections for inventoried roadless areas. Freshwater matters to me because it is a vital source of life that I care about protecting. Not only because I visit nature often, I love fishing and protecting wildlife, and I also care about the community’s water supply. But I also care about the memories that water holds. I care about the life it gives to others, not only people but the plants and animals we need to survive. 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.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. 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, Janine Pierce California

My name is Ian Kose, and I oppose the proposal to fully and or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live within 10 miles of national forest land in California. I work as a photographer and am consistently visiting these public lands for both work and recreation. I am originally from Portland Oregon where I also spent a lot of my early career and free time enjoying the outdoors. I am urging you to keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in tact, as it has never been more important to keep our wildlands wild, our ecosystems healthy, and our public lands intact and undeveloped so that current and future generations are able to learn and grow from all the benefits these areas have to offer. Removing this rule would increase fire risk as well as endanger critical water supply. The National Forest road system as it stands already has a nearly 7 billion dollar maintenance backlog, the Forest Service lacks the resources needed to maintain whats already in place. Adding more complexity to this situation would be a costly mistake. Thank you for your time.

We must protect our public lands from exploitation by extractive processes. We need to keep 30% of our land natural to benefit nature. 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.