Read the comments.

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the removal of protections under 36 CFR part 294, subpart B. As a San Diego resident who values hiking, wildlife, and public lands, I want our national forests protected for future generations. The Trump administration’s push to eliminate these safeguards puts irreplaceable public resources at risk. Describing conservation protections as a “regulatory burden” fails to recognize their public value. USDA should fully evaluate the potential consequences of expanded road construction and timber harvesting, including habitat fragmentation, erosion, water quality degradation, loss of carbon storage, and damage to outdoor recreation. The analysis should also account for the long-term taxpayer costs of maintaining additional roads and restoring disturbed landscapes. I support effective wildfire prevention and responsible forest management. However, USDA should demonstrate why existing management tools and exceptions are insufficient before eliminating nationwide protections. Claims of greater flexibility should be supported by evidence showing that rescission would improve public safety without sacrificing conservation. National forests belong to the American people. Their future should reflect long-term stewardship, meaningful Tribal consultation, and public participation. I urge USDA to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Once intact forests are fragmented, the damage can last far beyond any administration.

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge USDA to withdraw the proposal and leave 36 CFR part 294, subpart B, in place. The rule protects irreplaceable public lands. It covers about 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas. These are among the last large, unfragmented forests in the country. They supply clean drinking water to downstream communities, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and offer hunting, fishing, and backcountry recreation. Once roads and logging come in, those qualities cannot be restored. The wildfire argument does not justify repeal. The existing rule already allows timber cutting to reduce fire risk, as well as actions to protect public health and safety. Repeal is not needed for fuels work. New roads also bring more people, and more human-caused ignitions. The Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. The agency faces a large maintenance backlog on its existing road system. Adding roads in remote areas would deepen that liability and send sediment into the streams these areas protect. Repeal would discard a national consensus. The 2001 rule was adopted after hundreds of public meetings and more than a million comments. Replacing one national standard with forest-by-forest decisions invites inconsistency and constant pressure to open these areas one at a time. Our national forests belong to all Americans, including future generations. Please keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. Respectfully, Lorenz Henric Jentz Seattle, Washington

Date: October 6, 2026 To: Ecosystem Management Coordination, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 – Comments Opposing the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, 91 FR 53827) I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Forest Service’s proposed rulemaking titled Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, which seeks to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294). I urge the agency to select Alternative 1 (No Action) and retain full protections for all ~58.5 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) across the National Forest System. The 2001 Roadless Rule provides critical safeguards for intact, undeveloped backcountry habitats, water quality, and public recreation while allowing appropriate management flexibility. Removing or diluting these protections will produce severe, irreversible consequences for our public lands: * Ecosystem Integrity and Biodiversity: Inventoried roadless areas serve as essential strongholds for thousands of fish and wildlife species, including endangered and threatened species requiring undisturbed habitat connectivity. Introducing new industrial road construction, timber harvesting, and resource extraction fragments these corridors and invites invasive species. * Watershed and Drinking Water Protection: Unroaded watersheds supply clean, filtered drinking water to millions of Americans and downstream communities. Developing roads in steep or fragile terrain dramatically increases soil erosion, runoff, and sediment loading in streams, raising municipal water treatment costs and degrading aquatic habitats. * Fiscal Responsibility and Infrastructure Backlog: The Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar backlog in deferred maintenance on its existing ~370,000-mile road network. Adding new roads in remote backcountry terrain creates long-term financial liabilities for taxpayers and diverts scarce agency funding away from maintaining existing infrastructure. * Wildfire Management Flexibility: Contrary to claims that the Roadless Rule hinders forest management, the 2001 rule explicitly contains exceptions allowing emergency response, hazardous fuels reduction, public safety measures, and thin-and-burn operations near communities. Expanding permanent road networks into deep backcountry areas increases human-caused ignition risks without improving community safety. * Economic Value of Outdoor Recreation: Intact roadless areas support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy, sustaining local small businesses, outfitters, and rural economies that rely on world-class hunting, fishing, hiking, and backcountry experiences. Dismantling the Roadless Rule ignores decades of public consensus, Tribal consultation, and sound conservation science. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department withdraw the proposed rescission and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety. Thank you for considering these comments.

Pertaining to the text on page 53828 (In Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, the President declared that ‘‘the United States has an abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs, but heavy-handed Federal policies have prevented full utilization of these resources.’’), I disagree whole heartedly that rescinding the roadless area conservation rule would have enough economic, social, and cultural impact to justify fragmenting the land that was set aside "to provide long-term protection for 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System." We already have enough Forest Service land that has been fragmented and opened to logging and other intensive activities that keeping these already protected lands off limits provides much more benefit than the potential destruction of it. Opening the already protected lands would not only harm the environment, increase the infestation of invasive species, increase erosion, increase human/animal encounters, but the economic impacts would be dwarfed by the loss of what exists there today. DO NOT ENACT THIS RULE CHANGE. I, and all those I have talked to, DO NOT SUPPORT THIS AT ALL.

Please find attached comments of the Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") et al. opposing rescission of the Roadless Rule. Enclosed with these comments is a List of Attachments as well as confirmations of previous submissions containing our attachments. Our previous submissions included the following text: Please refer to the 10/02/2026 letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center submitted with confirmation #mur-5suc-54st, for information regarding our attachments in support of our comments. The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) is submitting these and other documents as attachments to our forthcoming comments on the Proposed Rule, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Cost Benefit Analysis, and other rulemaking documents related to the Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (FS–2025–0001/RIN 0596–AD66; 91 Fed. Reg. 53,827 (Aug. 20, 2026); 91 Fed. Reg. 57,841 (Sept. 11, 2026)). Our comments will explain the relevance of these and all other attachments. Regarding our first documents, the Forest Service has failed to disclose and address its own prior factual findings and judgments regarding the Rule’s importance. These documents are relevant to those prior findings and judgments and form part of the record the agency should consider in evaluating its proposal and responding to public comments.

I write to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294, subpart B) and urge the Department to withdraw the proposal and keep the Rule in place. The Rule protects irreplaceable public resources. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected roughly 45 million acres of national forest land, outside the separate Idaho and Colorado rules, from new road construction and most commercial logging. These are some of the last large, intact forest landscapes in the country. They provide clean drinking water for downstream communities, habitat for fish and wildlife (including at-risk species), and hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreation that supports rural economies. Once roads are built, these values are effectively lost for good. The Rule does not prevent wildfire management. The 2001 Rule already allows the cutting of generally small-diameter timber to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. It also allows roads where needed to protect public health and safety from catastrophic events. Road construction tends to increase human-caused ignitions. Rescinding the Rule is not necessary for responsible fuels work, and the Department has not shown that it would improve fire outcomes. The Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. The agency already carries a large backlog of deferred road maintenance. Adding new roads in remote terrain would worsen that burden, increase erosion and sedimentation in streams, and divert limited funds from existing infrastructure the public relies on. The proposal ignores overwhelming public support. The original Rule drew more than 1.6 million comments, the vast majority in favor. The 2025 scoping period on this rescission drew more than 220,000 comment letters, overwhelmingly opposed. Reversing a long-standing national policy against such clear public sentiment is not a sound basis for rulemaking. The Department has not provided an adequate justification. An agency that changes course must acknowledge the change, give good reasons for it, and account for the serious reliance interests the prior policy created. Communities, tribes, outfitters, and state and local governments have relied on these protections for a quarter century. A general goal of "reducing regulatory burden" does not explain why case-by-case forest planning would better protect these areas. The shortened comment period on a rule of this scale and its Draft EIS has also limited meaningful public participation.

To Whom It Concerns, I am writing to express my opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294, Subpart B). Personal Connection to These Lands As an outdoor enthusiast, I frequently recreate in our national forests. I deeply cherish the time I spend backpacking in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). These pristine spaces comprise less than 2% of the total U.S. land base, offering increasingly rare opportunities for primitive recreation, true solitude, and peace away from a hectic world. Experiencing these undisturbed landscapes provides me with a deep spiritual connection. Protecting this small fraction of our public lands from destructive road building, commercial logging, and industrial development is a modest but vital ask to ensure future generations can experience the same wild heritage. Why I Oppose the Rescission I have reviewed the agency’s purpose and need for this action, and I believe that eliminating these nationwide protections is a dangerous step backward for the following reasons: -Destruction of Clean Water and Wildlife Habitats: IRAs encompass the headwaters of countless rivers and streams, acting as natural filtration systems that provide clean drinking water to millions of Americans. Building roads and clear-cutting these areas will cause severe erosion and ruin water quality. It will also fragment vital wildlife corridors, destroying the intact habitats that native fish, birds, and game depend on for survival. -The Fallacy of “Active Management” and Increased Fire Risks: The proposal claims that eliminating the rule is necessary to allow for “active management” and wildfire mitigation. However, these remote backcountry areas are far removed from the communities that actually need protection. Furthermore, introducing heavy machinery and building new logging roads breaks up the forest canopy, dries out forest fuels, and introduces invasive weeds, ultimately increasing wildfire ignition risks. -Ignoring Former Forest Service Professionals: I am deeply concerned that the current administration is ignoring the expert consensus of former federal government experts and retired U.S. Forest Service professionals who previously managed these lands. These agency veterans have publicly stated that the proposal is structurally and operationally flawed, proving that a consistent, national shield is required to keep these forests healthy. -Fiscal and Economic Irresponsibility: The Forest Service currently faces a multi-billion-dollar deferred maintenance backlog on its existing road system. Allowing new road construction creates massive long-term financial liabilities for American taxpayers. Additionally, turning these wild places into industrial logging zones harms the sustainable, multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy that supports adjacent rural communities. Proposed Alternative: Keep the 2001 Rule Intact If the agency’s true goal is to address localized wildfire risks and public safety, complete rescission is an unnecessary and destructive overreach. The reasonable and effective Alternative is to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety. The existing 2001 framework already contains narrow, built-in exceptions that permit targeted timber removal and road construction in documented emergencies to protect public safety and critical infrastructure. Utilizing these existing safety exceptions achieves localized safety goals without opening millions of acres of rare wildlands to permanent ecological harm. Conclusion Nature does a fine job of managing itself in these few remaining roadless areas. I urge the USDA and the Forest Service to reject short-term resource extraction interests and uphold your agency’s core mission to sustain the long-term health and diversity of our forests. Please think about the important legacy you will leave for future generations and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Thank you for your review and consideration of my public testimony.

To: U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture Re: Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294) Dear Forest Service Officials, I am writing this comment/letter as an Undergraduate Student participating in an Introduction to Ecology and Behavior Class. Although I have taken the beauty of nature and the outdoors for granted, I will not idlily standby and strongly oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Cutting this vital protection threatens over 44 million acres of undisturbed National Forest lands, which risk irreplaceable headwaters, biodiversity, and outdoor recreation corridors across the nation. As someone who has visited protected National Parks such as Yosemite, I have experienced firsthand the beauty of wildlife, its mystifying atmosphere, and contiguous need to admire such natural product. From an ecological perspective, roadless, non-touched forests are extremely essential for landscape connectivity, species, preservation, and watershed protections that keep the environment strong. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to show how removing protection serves the long-term benefit of not only the public interest, but additionally our ecosystem. I urge the Forest Service to reconsider this rescission and maintain the the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Thank you for considering my public comment. Respectfully submitted, UC Undergraduate

The importance of forests cannot be underestimated. Not only are forests important for the nation's countless species, but through natural processes, forests also contribute to providing clean air and water for Americans. The trees and soils in forests also sequester carbon dioxide, a primary contributor to global warming which puts us all at risk. In my state, Florida is under siege by developers and it's "business as usual" when clearly change needs to happen, beginning with protecting what we already have. Firebreaks, established by prescribed fire professionals, will successfully manage our forests without establishing roads, which inevitably will lead to more development. With the construction of roads within the state's forests, begins the destruction of our forests. History speaks for itself on this matter. I respectfully urge you to protect our forests and reject the proposed rule that would rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) (66 FR 3244.

Please refer to the 10/02/2026 letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center submitted with confirmation #mur-5suc-54st: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) is submitting these and other documents as attachments to our forthcoming comments on the Proposed Rule, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Cost Benefit Analysis, and other rulemaking documents related to the Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (FS–2025–0001/RIN 0596–AD66; 91 Fed. Reg. 53,827 (Aug. 20, 2026); 91 Fed. Reg. 57,841 (Sept. 11, 2026)). Our comments will explain the relevance of these and all other attachments.

Re: Public Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (91 FR 53827, Docket ID: FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule across National Forest System lands. My detailed substantive comments are set forth in full in the attached PDF document ("Comment on Proposed Rule Special Areas Roadless Area Conservation.pdf"). In summary, this is to respectfully say that the USDA Forest Service justification for proposed rule “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” August 20, 2026, 91 Fed. Reg. 53827, which would rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule, 36 CFR Part 294, is in direct conflict with the USDA Forest Service’s own research and it is also in conflict with InForm Fire Occurrence Data Records 1992 to 2024. The USDA Forest Service does not address these conflicts in its record. Accordingly, the proposed rule should be withdrawn.

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) comment letter in response to U.S. Forest Service/USDA notice of proposed rulemaking titled "Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation," RIN 0596-AD66, 91 Fed. Reg. 53827 (August 20, 2026), is attached.

Howdy Hey! Im a rural community memeber of Havanna, FL and I implore you not to pass 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66. We need trees to produce oxygen, I dont wanna live life likes its the Lorax and I have to buy air. The Roadless Rule helps maintain biodiversity in our industrial country which is critcal to the Earth's health. We as the apex predator have a duty to service all the other beings on this planet keeping them and their homes safe. Additionally, I love to travel and see how the trees, earth, and even the air are diffrent in diffrent states. It would be detrimental in revune for rurual areas as forsaking the Roadless Rule would destroy the hiking, camping, and outdoor wildreness industries. I dont want another oil spill in the middle of a forest to destroy thousands of acres of land. I am begging you to keep nature safe. I want kids to be able to look at it in awe of how old and tall these trees are. Wondering about all the things they've seen. I want people to be able to play in the woods across all of America pretending to be faires or sprites and ignore for just a minute that AI will destory it all. Our country already has bad enough enviormental, health, and finical issues due to AI. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule would just expidite our demise; I want to live a long and healthy life. I cannot do that if our country doesnt protect its natural wildlife. Please drop 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66 and protect the Roadless Rule. I want our public and protected lands to stay Public and Protected. Sincerely, 24 and not wanting to watch Earth die

36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66 Please keep the roadless rule in place! Please no more destroying the beautiful land our country has!

My name is Margaret Rahill, an outdoor enthusiast and environmentalist from Ohio. I am writing to oppose the proposed rule 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66. Our national forests are essential ecosystems to our country. They provide massive amounts of carbon sequestering, filter out clean breathing air, and provide homes for thousands of species which each serve a unique and helpful purpose for us. By allowing roads to be built this proposal endangers the national forests so many of us know and love. In order to continue to have our future generations best interest in mind, this proposal should be denied. Instead, we should be working to put more protections into place to help ensure our homes are livable for our kids. Invest in the earth, not against it.

I am commenting on the proposed rescission of 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B Last summer I hiked a trail in Sequoia National Park where the only sound was water over granite and wind through ancient redwood trees. No roads. No trucks. No chainsaws. Just a forest that has been growing, undisturbed, for centuries. That kind of place is rare now, and it is beautiful in a way that no photograph or description can fully capture. Please keep the Roadless Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects 58.5 million acres of exactly that kind of place. I'm asking you to keep it. Beyond the beauty, the practical case is strong. Roads are the single greatest driver of habitat fragmentation in the West. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road, and over 90% of wildfires occur within half a mile of one. These roadless forests are the headwaters for municipal water supplies serving more than 60 million people across 3,400 communities. The outdoor recreation economy that depends on them is worth billions of dollars a year to rural towns that would feel the loss first. The rule already includes exceptions for fire management, insect control, and other stewardship needs. What it prevents is the kind of industrial logging and road-building that trades long-term, irreplaceable value for short-term gain. I don't ask for a new rule. I ask that you leave the one that works in place. Let these forests keep being what they are — wild, quiet, and worth the trouble of getting to. Thank you for considering this. Qwin White 20008 Sherman Way Apt A Winnetka, Ca, 91306. qwin.white@gmail.com

I am a Gen Z voter and middle class citizen of the United States. I politely request that you keep the roadless rule (36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66) in place. The habitat and natural wildlife communities found in roadless areas are extremely vulnerable to human activities such as road development. If roads are developed, habitats are segmented, pollution destroys sounding areas, wildlife populations decrease. These areas are in a delicate balance with nature and any substantial human impacts can cause catastrophic environmental damage. Long terms effects of environmental damage will cost the United States more money than what is gained from developing in these roadless areas. As a proud United States citizen, I urge the United States government to review this public comment and keep the roadless rule.

This deregulation will only lead to greater Federal overreach. The USDA's own site states that this rescission is meant to support Executive Orders, but they clearly intend to ransack the forests if given access to wilderness. E.O. 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," means they can use deregulation as an excuse to undo conservation protections in order to profit from destroying the land; E.O. 14225, "Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production," has obvious intentions; E.O. 14154, "Unleashing American Energy," means resource extraction at any cost to the land, whether drilling, mining, etc., they mean to gut it so they can line oil and gas billionaire's pockets; and E.O. 14153, "Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential," means they'll build roads in some of the most untouched wilderness areas to log and drill for oil. We don't need to develop more gas, oil, and timber sites. They're not going to lower gas and construction prices, nothing in this proposal will benefit the American people save for a few of the ultra-rich. Please, please, we cannot allow this action to move forward!

Dear Secretary Rollins, I am writing from Bozeman MT to oppose any change to the 2001 Roadless Rule, 66 FR 3244. People choose to live in Bozeman so they can experience the outdoors and get away in nature. Whether it be to hike, camp, climb, ski, and simply be there. In addition, wildlife need large expanses of unbroken wilderness to thrive. Any construction of roads can jeapordize this valuable resource we have and it would be shortsighted to not keep the original 2001 Roadless Rule, 66 FR 3244 in place. Thank you.

I write to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B). The rule protects roughly 58.5 million acres of the last unroaded, undeveloped National Forest lands, and I believe removing those protections is the wrong approach for the following reasons: 1. The rule is overwhelmingly popular and has broad, bipartisan support. Since 2001, public comments have run heavily in favor of protecting roadless areas, and the rule has been supported by a wide range of stakeholders including hunters, anglers, hikers, and many rural communities. Rescinding it would overturn protections the public has repeatedly asked to keep.2. Roadless areas provide irreplaceable public values. These lands supply headwater streams that feed drinking water for millions of Americans, habitat for fish and wildlife, and some of the best remaining opportunities for quiet recreation. Road construction and timber harvest in these areas would fragment habitat and degrade water quality in ways that are difficult or impossible to reverse. 3. A national floor is needed. Returning decisions entirely to individual forest plans removes the consistent, nationwide baseline that has protected these areas from piecemeal development. Local planning processes are valuable, but they should operate within a national framework that preserves the core values of roadless areas.I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and instead work within the existing Roadless Rule to address localized concerns such as wildfire risk and forest health. Thank you for your consideration.