Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below.
[Personalize: I spend time in and deeply value Roadless Areas, including [insert place]. I enjoy [insert activity] there. These places matter to me because [insert personal connection]. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.]
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It would rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below.
[Personalize: I spend time in and deeply value Roadless Areas, including [insert place]. I enjoy [insert activity] there. These places matter to me because [insert personal connection]. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.]
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It would rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below.
I spend time in and deeply value Roadless Areas, including the James River extension just 12 miles from me. These places matter to me because I bike and hike and take out of town guests there to enjoy the beauty of Virginia. I believe in supporting our ecosystem, which is struggling. These areas provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It would rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Best,
Heidi James
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below.
[Personalize: I spend time in and deeply value Roadless Areas, including [insert place]. I enjoy [insert activity] there. These places matter to me because [insert personal connection]. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.]
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It would rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz, Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 – Opposition to Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I deeply value the Inventoried Roadless Areas of the Bridger-Teton National Forest around Jackson Hole, Wyoming, including the Munger Mountain and Phillips Bench roadless areas and the Palisades country along the Snake River. I backcountry ski these mountains in the winter and hike them in the summer, and their unroaded character is exactly what makes them special. These lands sit at the heart of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. They provide clean water, habitat and migration routes for elk, mule deer, and moose, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests. Once roads are built through them, that character cannot be restored.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. The Bridger-Teton's own Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project carried out understory thinning and prescribed fire inside the Munger Mountain and Phillips Bench roadless areas while the Rule was in effect. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research showing that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times as likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule's nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule's protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Later reviews may evaluate individual projects, but they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale: landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species, interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, and regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It relies on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but USDA has not demonstrated that the earlier analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation also remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 – Opposition to Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area
Conservation Rule and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select
the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I spend time in
and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas, including Bridger Teton National Forest, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Targhee National Forest, Los Padres National Forecast, Tahoe National Forest, and many other forests across the US. I enjoy hiking, climbing, skiing, and soaking up the quiet, peaceful connection to our lands there. These places matter to me because they're beautiful, undisrupted areas filled with wildlife. I hope the tranquility of these spaces remain as I hope to show my 4m old daughter the benefit & importance of these lands in the future. They
provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact
forests.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and
other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the
DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection
measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than
four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and
address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional
environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres
of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address
the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate
individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from
landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or
inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where
national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at
greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and
drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest,
relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier
environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete.
USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and
wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably
foreseeable effects now.
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below
It would be highly detrimental to quality of life and human health in the U.S. to allow development in our national forests, including areas I regularly visit and enjoy such as the Appalachian Trail and the Green Mountain National Forest. Our forests provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and essential rare intact forests. The costs to human health and the survival of our ecosystems of the proposed rule far outweigh the benefits.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. It would be highly detrimental to quality of life and human health in the U.S. to allow development in our national forests, including areas I regularly visit and enjoy such as the Appalachian Trail and the Green Mountain National Forest. Our forests provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and essential rare intact forests. The costs to human health and the survival of our ecosystems of the proposed rule far outweigh the benefits.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
please see the attached letter below Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I spend time in and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas, including the Allegheny National Forest and the White Mountain National Forest. I am an avid hiker and birding enthusiast who has spent many summers visiting these intact forests with my family. They provide clean water and wildlife habitat that would be threatened by road construction.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I spend time in and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas, including Black Butte, Briscoe, Tuolumne River, Thatcher and Cherry Lake. I and my family enjoy being in nature, hiking, learning about the plants of the area. These places matter to me! I value time in nature and believe that our environment greatly impacts our quality of life in many ways. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. These places matter to me because they are some of the last dark lands in America. Any road would impact the current precious ecosystems They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke RollinsSeptember 16, 2026
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. [Personalize: I spend time in and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas, including [insert place]. I enjoy [insert activity] there. These places matter to me because [insert personal connection]. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.] Look up Roadless Areas near you, areas you’ve visited, or plan to visit on this link. Insert your zip code to locate areas: https://roadless.org/learning/connect/find-areas.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. My family and I have spent many days in both the Sierras of California and the White Cloud/Sawtooths of Idaho. We enjoy the untouched beauty, opportunity to see wildlife of all kinds, plants that grow in their natural state and the quiet and peace that comes from spending time in pristine forests.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If needed USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Tribal consultation remains incomplete and is imperative. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Thank you for considering my plea.
Stephanie Osborne
Woodside, CA
Secretary Brooke RollinsSeptember 14, 2026
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests. In my state, the Ocala National Forest is a critical area but there are so many others across the country.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protection of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Sincerely,
Lynn Filipski
2950 Polo Drive
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
Secretary Brooke Rollins
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I am writing to ask that USDA keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule intact, select
the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS. Every generation is responsible for protecting our lands for future generations.
The current Rule allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and
other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the
DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection
measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than
four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and
address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional
environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres
of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address
the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate
individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from
landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or
inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where
national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at
greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and
drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest,
relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier
environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete.
USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and
wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I ask that you please keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably
foreseeable effects now.
Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerSep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-359516
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 18 submissions in its group.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select
the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. [Personalize: I spend time in
and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas, including [insert place]. I enjoy [insert
activity] there. These places matter to me because [insert personal connection]. They
provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact
forests.] Look up Roadless Areas near you, areas you’ve visited, or plan to visit on this
link. Insert your zip code to locate areas: https://roadless.org/learning/connect/find-areas.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and
other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the
DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection
measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than
four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and
address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional
environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres
of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address
the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate
individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from
landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or
inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where
national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at
greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and
drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest,
relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier
environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete.
USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and
wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably
foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I spend time in and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas, including Rubicon in California]. I enjoy hiking there. These places matter to me because there are fewer and fewer places where I can enjoy the great outdoors. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Secretary Brooke Rollins
U.S. Department of Agriculture
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250
Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service
1400 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003
Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz:
I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. I spend time in and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas, including Rubicon in California]. I enjoy hiking there. These places matter to me because there are fewer and fewer places where I can enjoy the great outdoors. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests.
The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections.
USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources.
Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision.
I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.