Read the comments.

I'm writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests. Mt. Hood National Forest has been one of many places I have been able to connect with the natural world, and is also an area I rely on staying protected to have clean drinking water. These lands are home to countless wildlife, and are sacred to many communities, including local Indigenous communities. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental impacts, including impacts to wildlife and recreation. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. I urge you to take action to uphold the Roadless Rule. Please protect the United State’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Thank you -Jahnavi Hastings

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I recreate in Mt. Hood National Forest, rely on forest watersheds for clean drinking water. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of Environmental Impacts * The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. * Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. * The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. * The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Fire * Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. * Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. * New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. * The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. * Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Clean Water * National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. * Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectivelythan developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. * Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Intact Landscapes * With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. * Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. Economic Considerations * The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. * The text of the Roadless Ruleitself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. * On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Reportcalled for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. * The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. * Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion * The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. * Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. * Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. * USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans.

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. As a lifelong enjoyer of forests and all our nation’s beautiful natural areas, and as someone who has worked in local conservation and restoration for over a dozen years, I care deeply about our national forests and am intimately familiar with their benefits for recreation, the economy, wildlife habitat, and maintaining clean air and water. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule for many reasons, among them because: • The Forest Service itself was founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. We have scientific proof that roads fragment the landscape, causing myriad issues that taken all together are even more harmful than clearcuts • Road building disrupts wildlife, impair watersheds and makes adjacent stands much more vulnerable to fire. In fact, wildfires are four times as likely start in areas with roads. Roads also accelerate the spread of disease and highly damaging invasive pests that kill trees • Roadless areas protect habitat for over 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests that are hundreds of years old • The current rule in place now already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore completely unnecessary. • Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. • The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. • Here in my local region, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. • The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission— supposedly addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings as hollow and absurd when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. • Forest revenues today come mostly from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. • The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. These comments were over 95% in support of keeping roadless protections. • Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. • Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. For all these reasons above, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Before the agency moves forward, I ask that the agency: • Conduct a complete and thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; • Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; • Develop and share out a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; • Commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. • Commit also to acting in accordance with the will of the public the agency works with and for. If the public opposes the rescission of the Roadless Rule, it should do the same. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We need to protect our wild, public, and National Forest lands. I live in Oregon and this would affect 2 million acres here including the Mount Hold National Forest that has seen devastating wild fires this fire season. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would put already strained areas under more pressure and risk that would affect our beautiful state lands, our resources, and our people. We have seen enough unprecedented wildfire seasons and the trauma they cause in the last few years, and the chances would increase 4 times over as studies show due to roads and logging. We need to be mitigating these risks as our climate changes, not increasing them. Not to mention increasing funding to keep up these roads. The National Forest road system maintenance is backlogged in deferments close to $7 billion, with a B. And we would only be increasing that burden on taxpayers and the Forest Service workers who have been targeted by cuts. This administration ran on saving the people money and would only be putting more pressure on taxpayers that are already seeing tension build as prices for everyday necessities rise. This will create financial anxiety on top of the anxiety of increased fire risk, resource safety with changes to watershed protection for over 2 million Oregonians (that's one Oregonian at risk for every acre, just in case you weren't counting), and the fear of losing or changing recreational areas that many Oregonians enjoy and many tourists come here to enjoy, boosting our local economies. This is also threatening Indigenous cultural values. Many of the proposed areas affected are next to reservation land like the Grande Ronde, Warm Springs, Siletz, and Umatilla reservations. Much of this land is culturally important for traditional ways, for food sovereignty, and native plant restoration (which has been crucial for habitat repair after big fire seasons like the one this year). And majority sentiment among tribal governments is opposed to the Roadless Rule change. And these are just the human considerations, this is not considering the loss of habitat and the destruction of ecosystems among our most intact forests that are home to many important species of flora and fauna native to our area, many that are threatened including the marbled murrelet that require old growth coastal forests, such as the Siuslaw National Forest lands that would be targeted. And this is just for Oregon, each state has its own lands and resources that this would devastate and it would cause repercussions for all of us as a whole, both environmentally and economically. For all of these reasons, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a detrimental mistake for all of us. I wholeheartedly oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1 which is the no action rule. We must protect what makes America great and that is our people and our wild, public, and National Forest lands.

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I recreate in national forests and rely on rely on forest watersheds for clean drinking water. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts, well as impacts to wildlife and recreation. Environmental Impacts & Clean Water * The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. * Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. * Like more than 1 million Oregonians, I rely on Mt. Hood National Forest for drinking water. Road building undermines natural forested watershed filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. * The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to lose what little remains. Fire * Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. * Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. * New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. * The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. * Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Economic Considerations * The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. * The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. * On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. * The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. * Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion * The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. * Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. * Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. * USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. Closing 
 For all the reasons listed above I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: * Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; * Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; * Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; * And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of infinite environmental and economic impacts. Environmental Impacts • The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. • Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. • The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging are the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. • The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Fire • Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. • Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. • New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. • The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary for fire safety. • Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Clean Water • National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. • Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. • Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Intact Landscapes • With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. • Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. Economic Considerations • The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. • The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. • For example, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. • The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision- making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. • Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion • The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. • Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. • Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. • USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. I call on the USDA to take concerted action to uphold the Roadless Rule. For all these reasons stated above. Don't let that be your legacy.

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I have personally maintained miles of wilderness trails throughout the Mt. Hood National Forest, such as the timberline trail and parts of the PCT, that have awed me in their beauty time and time again. Working with the Parkdale Forest Service trail crew helped me understand the importance of motor-less maintaince of those beautiful wilderness areas, and how much appreciation recreationers have for our efforts to clear their favorite trails. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of the negative impacts it will have on the lands diversity and resilience, wildlife habitat, water quality, and recreational hiking and camping areas. Environmental Impacts • Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Fire Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. • New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. • The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. • Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Clean Water • National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. • Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. • Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Economic Considerations • The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. • The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. • On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. • The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion • The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. • Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. • Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. Closing The awe that comes from exploring untouched natural areas will always baffle me. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to backpack through the Mt. Hood wilderness and experience these marvels first hand. Based on the reasons listed above and my personal connection to these protected natural areas, —I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: • Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; • Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; • Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; • And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Kim Lewis

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I recreate in national forests and rely on rely on forest watersheds for clean drinking water. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts, well as impacts to wildlife and recreation. Environmental Impacts & Clean Water * The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. * Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. * Like more than 1 million Oregonians, I rely on Mt. Hood National Forest for drinking water. Road building undermines natural forested watershed filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. * The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to lose what little remains. Fire * Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. * Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. * New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. * The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. * Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Economic Considerations * The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. * The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. * On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. * The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. * Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion * The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. * Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. * Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. * USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. Closing 
 For all the reasons listed above I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: * Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; * Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; * Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; * And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.

I'm a hiker, trail runner and mountain biker. I appreciate the presence of Wilderness and understand and accept and applaud that mountain biking is not allowed in Wilderness. Because of that, the closest thing to a wilderness experience on a mountain bike are roadless areas. Some I've ridden and appreciate include the Warm Springs complex of trails off of Lost Trail Pass, Mill Creek and Carlton Ridge outside of Lolo, Alpine 7 in the Swans. I have treasured and loved these experiences to get into the backcountry and have a sense of a landscape (relatively) untouched by man. Having just returned from 3 weeks hiking and biking in the European Alps, I can personally attest that while the huts and restaurants along the trails are cute and convenient and a must-do, you definitely don't get the sense of being out in it. And the biggest difference was the utter lack of wildlife. We have lots of roads that lead to lots of places and to plenty of harvestable timber. Lets keep the roadless areas - roadless. And give us mechanized folks a place to have the next closest thing to a Wilderness experience. Our public lands truly are the envy of the world and rightly so.

Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, hunter, and President of the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists, I am writing as an individual to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative and retain the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. I have spent many years exploring, riding, hunting, and helping maintain trails throughout the Bitterroot National Forest. Many of the trails and landscapes that I value most are located within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). These areas provide opportunities for primitive recreation, protect intact watersheds and wildlife habitat, and preserve large, relatively undeveloped landscapes for future generations. In the Bitterroot Valley where I live, many of the backcountry trails that I know and value are located within IRAs. Examples include trails in the Alan Mountain, Sleeping Child, Stony Mountain, Sapphire, Blue Joint, and Selway-Bitterroot Roadless Areas. These include trails such as Warm Springs Creek, Fire Creek, Porcupine Creek, Sleeping Child, Bald Top, Willow Creek, Bitterroot-Rock Creek Divide, Blue Joint, Razorback Ridge, Bare Cone, and Blodgett Canyon. These are not simply areas on a map to me. I have personally explored and helped maintain many of these trails, and I have seen firsthand the value of maintaining their relatively undeveloped character. The combination of dispersed recreation, intact landscapes, wildlife habitat, and a network of primitive trails provides an experience that cannot be recreated once roads and associated development fragment these areas. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would remove an important national baseline protecting these characteristics. I understand that rescission would not automatically authorize road construction or timber harvest in every roadless area; rather, management decisions would increasingly be governed by individual forest plans and other applicable authorities. Nevertheless, removing the national protections would create greater opportunity for future decisions that could introduce roads, timber harvest, and other development into areas that have remained largely intact. Road construction is particularly consequential because a road is not simply another type of forest management activity. Roads can fragment habitat, alter drainage and watersheds, facilitate additional development and motorized access, and change the character of surrounding trail systems and recreational experiences. Once an intact roadless landscape is fragmented by roads, its primitive character is difficult or impossible to restore. I also believe the value of these lands extends well beyond the communities immediately surrounding them. When I travel to other parts of the country, I actively seek out the primitive and relatively undeveloped landscapes protected by the Roadless Rule. These areas are part of a national system of public lands that provides opportunities for recreation, solitude, hunting, wildlife viewing, and other experiences that are increasingly difficult to find. I have focused on the roadless areas near my home because these are the places I know best. However, my concern is broader. I believe the remaining Inventoried Roadless Areas throughout the National Forest System represent an important national resource and should continue to receive consistent protection. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for considering my comments and for your stewardship of these important public lands.

My name is Hana Francis, I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because it is a natural resource of natural ecosystem restoration and balance. We rely on forest watersheds for clean drinking water, and we and all other life rely on keeping some lands without building roads into them. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts, impacts to wildlife and recreation, and because we depend on the earth to remain in balance. It will not remain in balance if we continue to extract all we can from it. Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. For all these reasons; public will, economic responsibility, ecological health, fire safety, and clean water, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations, Hana Francis

I am opposed to the proposed changes to roadless areas. As a mountain biker, I value opportunities to recreate on trails that are not used by motorists. Motorcycles and dirt bikes quickly deteriorate the quality of the trail, disrupt wildlife, and cause noise pollution, prohibiting me from seeing wildlife of my own. It also disrupts the hunting I do in these areas. Some of my favorite trails that fall into this category in Northwest Montana include the following: - Warm Springs Complex at Lost Trail Pass: Warm Springs Ridge, Colter Creek, Porcupine, Fire Creek, Warm Springs Creek - Palisades/Willow Creek - All of Rock Creek outside of Welcome Cr W - Carlton Ridge and Mill Creek - Petty Mountain and Albert Creek Rescinding the roadless rule in place would ruin the experience of the thousands of people currently accessing and maintaining these areas. Thank you for your consideration.

Technical Comments on the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Submitted by: Avalanche Risk Solutions, LLC Docket: FS-2025-0001 RIN: 0596-AD66 Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation Federal Register Citation: 91 FR 53827 Significant evidence exists that an increase in roads within forest lands is directly correlated to an increase in wildfire activity within those areas (Aplet et al., 2026) A known but often overlooked result of wildfire is a correlated increase in snow avalanche activity (Campbell et al., 2019). Mature forest acts as anchorage for snowpacks on steep hillsides in the western United States. Forests also have a slowing effect on avalanches that start above them and typically reduce the risk to people and structures at lower elevation. When this mature growth is eliminated through wildfire or cutting this anchoring effect is eliminated and new avalanche paths are created. This newly created avalanche terrain increases hazards to recreational users, infrastructure, and in some western communities urban areas. Urban infrastructure commonly exists below designated roadless areas. Prominent examples include the Wasatch Front of Utah; and Warm Springs Road in Ketchum, Idaho. This increase in hazard may result in the loss of life or property. An example of this increased hazard is Blaine County, Idaho. Wildfire activity in this area has fundamentally altered the avalanche hazard affecting the wildland/urban interface and thus greatly increased avalanche threats to roads, people and property. (Miller et al., 2023). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recognizes this threat and has gone as far as publishing it on USGS.gov (pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70249585). There is a known and correlated increase in avalanche activity as a result of wildfire. It is recognized that the number of wildland fire ignitions increase as humans gain road access, far outweighing the benefit of increased firefighting response time. Wildfire impacts will increase in the western United States as a direct result of rescinding the roadless rule, and thus the avalanche hazards shall also. We recommend that the US Congress uphold the roadless rule on USFS lands and avoid compounding the problems from wildland fire and avalanches. -Ownership and Senior Avalanche Consultants of Avalanche Risk Solutions LLC David Richards Donald Sharaf Kiira Antenucci AVALANCHE RISK SOLUTIONS, LLC (801) 556-5615 INFO@AVALANCHERISKSOLUTIONS.COM References: Aplet, G. H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M. S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology, 22(8) Campbell, C., Gould, B., & Thumlert, S. (2019). Post Wildfire Analysis of Avalanche Hazard. The Avalanche Journal, 121 (Summer 2019), 22–25. [1] Miller, Z., Sykes, J., Guinn, M., VandenBos, B., Savage, S., and Peitzsch, E.H., 2023, Spatial extent of forested avalanche terrain impacted by wildfire across the Sawtooth National Forest, in Proceedings, International Snow Science Workshop 2023, Bend, OR, October 8-13, 2023, p. 272- 279. AVALANCHE RISK SOLUTIONS, LLC (801) 556-5615 INFO@AVALANCHERISKSOLUTIONS.COM

I'm very concerned that a huge amount of mountain biking trails inlcuding the following at the bottom of this comment will be ruined or destroyed by this potential roadless change for these ares. Please keep the rule in place to not allow new roads, extraction or anything else that could destory these wonderful outdoor recreation areas. They offer solace to so many locals and also drive tourism dollars in each of these surrounding communities. If roads are allowed to run through these areas, it will be a big loss to all of us that enjoy them and economically to each of these small communities that depend on the tourism dollars. Warm Springs Complex at Lost Trail Pass: Warm Springs Ridge, Colter Creek, Porcupine, Fire Creek, Warm Springs Creek Palisades/Willow Creek All of Rock Creek outside of Welcome Cr W Carlton Ridge and Mill Creek Petty Mountain and Albert Creek Alpine 7 Thank you for listening,

I’m writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I frequently recreate in many national forests in the Pacific Northwest including Mt Hood, Willamette, Gifford Pinchot and Umpqua national forests. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental, economic and recreational impacts. Environmental Impacts * The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. * Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. * The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Fire * Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. * The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. * Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Clean Water * National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. * Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Economic Considerations * The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. * The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. * On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. * Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion * The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. * Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. * Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. * USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. For all these reasons I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that the agency not rescind the rule and before moving forward, the agency: * Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; * Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; * Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; * And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.

I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless forests help safeguard wildlife habitats, protect clean water, prevent human-caused wildfires, and connect ecosystems. I am particularly concerned about how the loss of these protections will impact wildlife in Oregon and Washington, including the northwestern pond turtle, which depends on connected aquatic and upland habitat. Northwestern pond turtles are one of two turtle species native to the Pacific Northwest, and are listed as endangered in Washington and sensitive in Oregon. In addition to our native northwestern pond turtle, roadless areas protect habitats for 1,600 at-risk species. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would threaten wildlife in the Pacific Northwest and undermine decades of conservation wins. The Roadless Rule is essential to the preservation of old-growth forests that are hundreds of years old. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. As evidenced by Reed, Johnson-Barnard, and Baker (1996), roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. The 2001 Roadless Rule helps safeguard that clean drinking water. Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants; road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads (2000-2017 data based on Wildland Fire Management Information [WFMI] and U.S. Forest Service Research Data Archive). New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts (see Aplet, Hartger, and Dietz [2026]). Beyond this, the current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary for fire safety. The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. Polling confirms this support endures. According to the Pew Research Center's 2026 "Update on the ‘Roadless Rule,'" "95% of likely voters think [national forests] are important for protecting clean water sources for communities, and 96% think they are important for providing recreational opportunities such as hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing." A recent poll (conducted by Susquehanna Polling and Research, Inc.) found that, "When it comes to a choice between [the] preservation of national forests and other roadless lands (for outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat), or making roadless lands available for timber harvesting (Q3), 77% believe 'conserving national forests and other roadless lands for current/future generations' is paramount. Only 11% believe '…opening up more roadless lands for timber harvesting and/or mining' should be the priority. Support for conserving these national forests is broad-based and bipartisan, including 80% of self-identified Democrats, 71% of Republicans, and 80% of Independent and unaffiliated voters." Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to uphold these protections to our wildlife. Please choose Alternative 1, No Action, to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and its protections for inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for considering this comment.

The primary reasons I oppose the termination of the Roadless Rule are organized below by category: Wildfire Risk and Prevention • Increased human-caused ignitions: Roads invite vehicles, campstoves, chainsaws, and off-road vehicles into pristine backcountry areas. Statistics show that humans cause roughly 80% of forest fires, meaning more roads inherently mean a higher risk of destructive blazes. • Roadless areas burn less frequently: Federal data demonstrates that roadless areas historically have far lower frequencies of destructive wildfires than roaded forests. • Current rules already allow fire mitigation: The existing rule does not block wildfire prevention. It explicitly permits prescribed burns, hand-cutting of small fire-prone trees, and fuel-reduction work near communities. Fiscal and Infrastructure Concerns • Massive road maintenance backlog: The U.S. Forest Service already faces an enormous backlog to maintain existing infrastructure, estimated between $6 billion and $10 billion. Opponents argue it is financially irresponsible to build new roads when the government cannot afford to maintain its current network. • Economic value of outdoor recreation: Undisturbed roadless lands support thriving local economies through low-cost federal management of hunting, fishing, kayaking, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Ecological Health and Biodiversity • Threats to clean drinking water: Roadless forests act as natural fountainheads and buffers that supply clean, filtered drinking water to tens of millions of Americans. Logging and road construction generate heavy sediment that fouls downstream watersheds. • Habitat fragmentation and extinction risk: These areas cover roughly 58 million acres of the last remaining connected, undisturbed backcountry habitats in the U.S.. Constructing roads and introducing industrial logging would destroy spawning beds and fragment critical wildlife corridors for endangered and native species. Legal and Procedural Flaws • Ignoring overwhelming public and tribal consensus: Public comment analyses reveal that over 95% to 99% of citizens oppose repealing the rule. Major Indigenous groups, such as the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, have formally voiced opposition due to the threats posed to native ecosystems, plants, and fish. • Inadequate review processes: Legal experts point out that the termination attempts suffer from severe vulnerabilities, including rushed public comment periods, inadequate tribal consultations, and a failure to analyze the long-term impacts on water supplies and endangered species.

I am writing to strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule in its entirety. I live in Portland and spend much of my year in the Clackamas River Ranger District of Mt. Hood National Forest, where I hunt and forage in the Roaring River Wilderness and the country around it. I also camp, backpack, and ski the backcountry, and I volunteer in habitat restoration and forest defense. I know this ground because I feed my family from it and depend on it for clean drinking water. The wilderness is only as intact as the land around it. The Salmon-Huckleberry inventoried roadless area borders the Roaring River Wilderness and holds headwaters of the upper Clackamas. These upper tributaries are among the last strongholds of wild fish in the lower Columbia, and the basin holds the last significant run of wild late-winter coho in the entire Columbia Basin. Above North Fork Dam, the river has been managed as a wild fish sanctuary since 1999. That work means little if the cold, clean water feeding it is degraded upstream. Roads deliver sediment to spawning gravel, warm streams by stripping shade, and fragment habitat. [Add the runs or places you know firsthand.] Designated wilderness can't protect a watershed if the land upstream and alongside it is opened to roads and logging. More than a million Oregonians, including me and my family, drink water that comes off Mt. Hood National Forest. As a hunter and forager, I've seen what roads do. Elk avoid road corridors, and new roads bring more traffic and less of the secure, quiet habitat that makes backcountry hunting worth doing. The same intact ground produces some of the best mushroom foraging I know, and those grounds are lost once roads and landings cut through them. The fire rationale doesn't hold up. USDA says rescission will reduce fire risk, but most wildfires are human-caused and most ignite near roads. Recent research finds fires are about four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded ones. The 2001 Rule already allows road building and small-tree cutting where needed to reduce fire risk and protect public safety, so full rescission isn't necessary for that. It's also hard to take the argument seriously when the FY26 budget zeroes out wildland fire management funding. The agency can't afford the roads it has. The national forest system carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog, and Mt. Hood's own 2015 Travel Analysis Report recommended decommissioning roads, not building them, citing water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. Forest revenue now comes mainly from recreation, and more roads would degrade what visitors come for. This is not what the public wants. The 2001 Rule drew 1.6 million comments, over 95% in favor of protection, and a 2019 Pew survey found 75% of Americans support it and only 16% oppose it. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest, have voiced strong support. Rescinding the most popular rule in USDA's history would ignore the people the agency says it serves. I ask that, before moving forward, the agency: * Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of road building's impacts on roadless areas, including the upper Clackamas headwaters; * Guarantee that no watershed or wild fish habitat, including upper Clackamas coho spawning and rearing streams, will be negatively affected by rescission; * Publish a detailed plan for addressing the existing road maintenance backlog; * Commit to transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered.

I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the Notice of Intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I live within a couple hundred yards of national forest land, recreate there year-round, rely on its watersheds for drinking water, and my community faces wildfire risk every year. I oppose this rescission for six reasons: environmental impacts, wildfire risk, clean water, habitat, economic impacts, and public opinion. 1. Environmental Impacts The Forest Service was founded to protect forests and watersheds from over-exploitation. Research shows roads fragment landscapes even more severely than clearcutting (Reed et al., 1996, Conservation Biology). Roadless areas protect habitat for over 1,600 at-risk species, provide clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests. The Roadless Rule itself identifies road construction and logging as the activities most likely to harm the values the agency must protect — still true today. Roads fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife and watersheds, increase pollution and wildfire ignition, enable over-extraction, and spread invasive species. 2. Wildfire Risk Despite USDA’s claim that rescission will reduce fire risk, the science says otherwise. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused (National Park Service), and most start within a few hundred feet of roads (Short, 2026, Forest Service Research Data Archive). New research finds wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than roadless ones (Aplet et al., 2026, Fire Ecology; Wilderness Society, 2025). The current rule already permits road-building and small-tree logging for fire mitigation, so full rescission isn’t necessary for safety — especially when the administration has simultaneously eliminated wildfire suppression funding. 3. Clean Water National forests supply drinking water to 60 million Americans, including over 1 million Oregonians like me who depend on Mt. Hood National Forest. Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed land (Caldwell et al., 2023, Science of the Total Environment). Roads undermine this natural filtration and threaten safe drinking water access. 4. Habitat Protection Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. Combined with climate change and development, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped lands in the U.S. — land we can’t afford to lose. 5. Economic Impacts The Forest Service manages more roads than any federal agency and already can’t maintain them, facing an $8.6 billion maintenance backlog as of 2023 (USFS). The Roadless Rule itself acknowledges this maintenance shortfall, which has worsened as budgets shrink — the FY26 budget cut agency funding over 60% and zeroed out Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale (wildfire risk, state control) rings hollow without funding to match. Meanwhile, forest revenue now comes primarily from recreation, not logging — more roads would degrade recreation and hurt revenue. 6. Public Opinion The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule in USDA history: it drew 1.6 million public comments in 2001, over 95% in support. Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (whose ceded lands and reservation border Mt. Hood, Deschutes, and Willamette National Forests), strongly support the rule as essential to ecosystem health and view rescission as a threat to Tribal sovereignty and cultural survival. A Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, with only 16% opposed (https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2019/03/13/americans-support-roadless-rule-to-protect-remarkable-forests) The USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” yet rescission would ignore the will of the American people. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask the agency to: 1. Guarantee no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission 2. Develop and share a detailed plan addressing the existing road maintenance backlog 3. Commit to full transparency, including how public comments were considered Please follow Alternative 1 (No Action), leave the Roadless Rule intact, and protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Thank you for considering these comments.

I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Living in the Pacific Northwest, I deeply value our public forests not only for their beauty, but for the opportunities they provide to hike, camp, find solitude, see wildlife, and experience places that have not been fragmented by roads and development. These lands are an extraordinary public resource, and once roadless areas are opened to road building and logging, we cannot simply recreate what has been lost. The argument that rescinding the rule is necessary to address wildfire risk is not convincing. Building more roads and increasing commercial logging are not substitutes for thoughtful, science-based wildfire management. It is especially difficult to accept wildfire prevention as a justification when adequate funding is not being provided to accomplish the wildfire mitigation and forest-management goals being cited. There is also an economic contradiction in building more roads into our national forests. Recreation is an increasingly important economic use of these lands, while the Forest Service already faces an enormous backlog of road maintenance. Adding roads means adding long-term maintenance costs while potentially degrading the very landscapes that draw hikers, campers, anglers, hunters, and other visitors to our national forests. I am also troubled by the disregard for overwhelming public support for roadless protections. The original Roadless Rule received approximately 1.6 million public comments, with more than 95% supporting roadless protections. Subsequent polling has continued to show broad public support. Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs here in the Pacific Northwest, have also emphasized the importance of unroaded areas to healthy ecosystems, fish, wildlife, native plants, and watersheds. Rescinding such a widely supported protection should require an extraordinarily compelling public-interest justification. I do not believe one has been provided. Roadless forests also protect clean water, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, carbon storage, and increasingly rare places where people can experience large, relatively intact natural landscapes. Their value extends far beyond the amount of timber that might be extracted from them. For these reasons—ecological health, clean water, responsible wildfire management, fiscal responsibility, recreation, Tribal concerns, and the clearly expressed will of the American public—I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Before taking any action that could weaken these protections, USDA should conduct a thorough environmental analysis of the consequences of additional road building, demonstrate that watersheds will not be harmed, provide a credible plan for addressing the Forest Service's existing road-maintenance backlog, and clearly explain how public comments and Tribal concerns were considered in its final decision. Please uphold the Roadless Rule and protect America's remaining roadless national forest lands for current and future generations.