Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. We do not need or want more roads. Thank you for your time.

Dear Secretary Rollins- I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Where I live, in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. The stated justification that new roads are necessary for wildfire mitigation is fundamentally flawed and ignores the best available science. In fact, roads increase the number and frequency of wildfires. A comprehensive three-decade study by Aplet et. al (2026) revealed that wildfire-ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness (1.75 fires/1,000 hectares) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1,000 hectares), but is highest in lands within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires/1,000 hectares). Because humans are responsible for 84% of unplanned wildfire ignitions, building new roads into pristine areas will only introduce more human access and exponentially increase the risk of fire. Rather than protecting us, rescinding the rule would force firefighters into high-exposure suppression assignments in rugged terrain, pulling scarce resources away from where they are most needed: protecting our at-risk homes and communities. Furthermore, the Roadless Rule has never prohibited fuels treatment projects or wildfire suppression. Here in the Wasatch, we have already proven that we can safely manage dense fuel loads and protect the Wildland Urban Interface without commercial logging. Through Shared Stewardship Projects in Parley's, Millcreek, Big Cottonwood, and American Fork Canyons, land managers successfully utilize science-based treatments like prescribed burns, slash-piles, and lop-and-scatter to manage fuels within Inventoried Roadless Areas. This holistic, inter-agency approach is the way forward. We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. ​ By rescinding this rule, our forests would be vulnerable to large-scale commercial logging and road-building that would permanently damage our fragile watersheds, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation economy. These are the places where Utahns hike, ski, hunt, and seek solitude, from Millcreek Canyon, Mount Aire, and Grandeur Peak, to the pristine backcountry ski terrain in Beartrap Fork, Willow Heights, and White Pine Gulch. Preservation of these lands from roadbuilding is of utmost importance to our economy, watershed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The stated justification that new roads are necessary for wildfire mitigation is fundamentally flawed and ignores the best available science. In fact, roads increase the number and frequency of wildfires. A comprehensive three-decade study by Aplet et. al (2026) revealed that wildfire-ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness (1.75 fires/1,000 hectares) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1,000 hectares), but is highest in lands within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires/1,000 hectares). Because humans are responsible for 84% of unplanned wildfire ignitions, building new roads into pristine areas will only introduce more human access and exponentially increase the risk of fire. Rather than protecting us, rescinding the rule would force firefighters into high-exposure suppression assignments in rugged terrain, pulling scarce resources away from where they are most needed: protecting our at-risk homes and communities. ​ Furthermore, the Roadless Rule has never prohibited fuels treatment projects or wildfire suppression. Here in the Wasatch, we have already proven that we can safely manage dense fuel loads and protect the Wildland Urban Interface without commercial logging. Through Shared Stewardship Projects in Parley's, Millcreek, Big Cottonwood, and American Fork Canyons, land managers successfully utilize science-based treatments like prescribed burns, slash-piles, and lop-and-scatter to manage fuels within Inventoried Roadless Areas. This holistic, inter-agency approach is the way forward. ​ We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. ​ Sincerely, Elle Robinson A Concerned Resident and Outdoor Enthusiast

Dear Secretary Rollins, I respectfully and strongly urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please be a strong advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. As someone who recreates our national forests, particularly in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. ​ By rescinding this rule, our forests would be vulnerable to large-scale commercial logging and road-building that would permanently damage our fragile watersheds, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation economy. These are the places where Utahns hike, ski, hunt, and seek solitude. Preservation of these lands from roadbuilding is of utmost importance to Utah's economy, watershed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The stated justification that new roads are necessary for wildfire mitigation is fundamentally flawed and ignores the best available science. In fact, roads increase the number and frequency of wildfires. A comprehensive three-decade study by Aplet et. al (2026) revealed that wildfire-ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness (1.75 fires/1,000 hectares) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1,000 hectares), but is highest in lands within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires/1,000 hectares). Because humans are responsible for 84% of unplanned wildfire ignitions, building new roads into pristine areas will only introduce more human access and exponentially increase the risk of fire. Rather than protecting us, rescinding the rule would force firefighters into high-exposure suppression assignments in rugged terrain, pulling scarce resources away from where they are most needed: protecting our at-risk homes and communities. Furthermore, the Roadless Rule has never prohibited fuels treatment projects or wildfire suppression. Here in the Wasatch, we have already proven that we can safely manage dense fuel loads and protect the Wildland Urban Interface without commercial logging. Through Shared Stewardship Projects in Parley's, Millcreek, Big Cottonwood, and American Fork Canyons, land managers successfully utilize science-based treatments like prescribed burns, slash-piles, and lop-and-scatter to manage fuels within Inventoried Roadless Areas. This holistic, inter-agency approach is the way forward. We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. Sincerely, Eric Skytte

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. ​ By rescinding this rule, our forests would be vulnerable to large-scale commercial logging and road-building that would permanently damage our fragile watersheds, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation economy. Preservation of these lands from roadbuilding is of utmost importance to our economy, watershed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The stated justification that new roads are necessary for wildfire mitigation is fundamentally flawed and ignores the best available science. In fact, roads increase the number and frequency of wildfires. A comprehensive three-decade study by Aplet et. al (2026) revealed that wildfire-ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness (1.75 fires/1,000 hectares) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1,000 hectares), but is highest in lands within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires/1,000 hectares). Because humans are responsible for 84% of unplanned wildfire ignitions, building new roads into pristine areas will only introduce more human access and exponentially increase the risk of fire. Rather than protecting us, rescinding the rule would force firefighters into high-exposure suppression assignments in rugged terrain, pulling scarce resources away from where they are most needed: protecting our at-risk homes and communities. ​ We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. ​ Sincerely, P. K.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. ​ We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. When natural lands are taken away, they are gone forever. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. ​ Sincerely, Adam Bahna

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. By rescinding this rule, our forests would be vulnerable to large-scale commercial logging and road-building that would permanently damage our fragile watersheds, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation economy. These are the places where Utahns hike, ski, hunt, and seek solitude, from Millcreek Canyon, Mount Aire, and Grandeur Peak, to the pristine backcountry ski terrain in Beartrap Fork, Willow Heights, and White Pine Gulch. Preservation of these lands from roadbuilding is of utmost importance to our economy, watershed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The stated justification that new roads are necessary for wildfire mitigation is fundamentally flawed and ignores the best available science. In fact, roads increase the number and frequency of wildfires as half of our fires are human caused. Rather than protecting us, rescinding the rule would force firefighters into high-exposure suppression assignments in rugged terrain, pulling scarce resources away from where they are most needed: protecting our at-risk homes and communities. Furthermore, the Roadless Rule has never prohibited fuels treatment projects or wildfire suppression. Here in the Wasatch, we have already proven that we can safely manage dense fuel loads and protect the Wildland Urban Interface without commercial logging. Through Shared Stewardship Projects in Parley's, Millcreek, Big Cottonwood, and American Fork Canyons, land managers successfully utilize science-based treatments like prescribed burns, slash-piles, and lop-and-scatter to manage fuels within Inventoried Roadless Areas. This holistic, inter-agency approach is the way forward. We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. Sincerely, Ian Wade & Ginger McKenna

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. ​ By rescinding this rule, our forests would be vulnerable to large-scale commercial logging and road-building that would permanently damage our fragile watersheds, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation economy. These are the places where Utahns hike, ski, hunt, and seek solitude, from Millcreek Canyon, Mount Aire, and Grandeur Peak, to the pristine backcountry ski terrain in Beartrap Fork, Willow Heights, and White Pine Gulch. Preservation of these lands from roadbuilding is of utmost importance to our economy, watershed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The stated justification that new roads are necessary for wildfire mitigation is fundamentally flawed and ignores the best available science. In fact, roads increase the number and frequency of wildfires. A comprehensive three-decade study by Aplet et. al (2026) revealed that wildfire-ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness (1.75 fires/1,000 hectares) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1,000 hectares), but is highest in lands within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires/1,000 hectares). Because humans are responsible for 84% of unplanned wildfire ignitions, building new roads into pristine areas will only introduce more human access and exponentially increase the risk of fire. Rather than protecting us, rescinding the rule would force firefighters into high-exposure suppression assignments in rugged terrain, pulling scarce resources away from where they are most needed: protecting our at-risk homes and communities. ​ Furthermore, the Roadless Rule has never prohibited fuels treatment projects or wildfire suppression. Here in the Wasatch, we have already proven that we can safely manage dense fuel loads and protect the Wildland Urban Interface without commercial logging. Through Shared Stewardship Projects in Parley's, Millcreek, Big Cottonwood, and American Fork Canyons, land managers successfully utilize science-based treatments like prescribed burns, slash-piles, and lop-and-scatter to manage fuels within Inventoried Roadless Areas. This holistic, inter-agency approach is the way forward. ​ We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. ​ Peg Kramer

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. Thank you, A Utah Citizen

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. ​ We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. When natural lands are taken away, they are gone forever. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come. ​ Sincerely, Adam Bahna

Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly advocate for the "No Action Alternative" in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Roadless Rule is an extremely successful and popular management tool that ensures nearly 45 million acres of our most pristine national forests remain wild. Here in Utah, it protects over 323,000 acres of the Wasatch Mountains from unnecessary development, preserving the ecosystems and multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy we rely upon. By rescinding this rule, our forests would be vulnerable to large-scale commercial logging and road-building that would permanently damage our fragile watersheds, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation economy. These are the places where Utahns hike, ski, hunt, and seek solitude, from Millcreek Canyon, Mount Aire, and Grandeur Peak, to the pristine backcountry ski terrain in Beartrap Fork, Willow Heights, and White Pine Gulch. Preservation of these lands from roadbuilding is of utmost importance to our economy, watershed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The stated justification that new roads are necessary for wildfire mitigation is fundamentally flawed and ignores the best available science. In fact, roads increase the number and frequency of wildfires. A comprehensive three-decade study by Aplet et. al (2026) revealed that wildfire-ignition density is lowest in designated wilderness (1.75 fires/1,000 hectares) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1,000 hectares), but is highest in lands within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires/1,000 hectares). Because humans are responsible for 84% of unplanned wildfire ignitions, building new roads into pristine areas will only introduce more human access and exponentially increase the risk of fire. Rather than protecting us, rescinding the rule would force firefighters into high-exposure suppression assignments in rugged terrain, pulling scarce resources away from where they are most needed: protecting our at-risk homes and communities. Furthermore, the Roadless Rule has never prohibited fuels treatment projects or wildfire suppression. Here in the Wasatch, we have already proven that we can safely manage dense fuel loads and protect the Wildland Urban Interface without commercial logging. Through Shared Stewardship Projects in Parley's, Millcreek, Big Cottonwood, and American Fork Canyons, land managers successfully utilize science-based treatments like prescribed burns, slash-piles, and lop-and-scatter to manage fuels within Inventoried Roadless Areas. This holistic, inter-agency approach is the way forward. We do not need new roads or commercial timber development to keep our communities safe; we need adequate resources for our local ranger districts to continue their successful stewardship work. Please uphold this effective conservation measure by selecting the No Action Alternative to protect America's last wild forests for generations to come.