Read the comments.

Secretary Rollins: Roadless areas support wildlife, plant biodiversity, climate resilience, water quality, recreation, and provide a legacy for future generations! Roads fragment and damage habitats. In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.

Secretary Rollins: I live in Bend, and the roadless areas of Central Oregon aren't an abstraction to me — they're where I actually spend my time. Almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years, and I've relied on that land firsthand: exploring the backcountry in my overland-built rig, hiking with my dogs, and simply living somewhere that these forests define. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA'S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers' dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians like me who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. I'm writing it as someone whose everyday life in Bend depends on these forests staying whole. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections.

Secretary Rollins: In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely,

Secretary Rollins: I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Oregon, where I live, we have roughly 2 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land protected as designated Roadless Areas. To understand why these areas were protected by the Roadless Rule and should continue to be protected let’s look at the key reasons the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as enacted in the first place. Reducing Road Costs: The U.S. Forest Service manages hundreds of thousands of miles of roads that are expensive to maintain properly. Limiting new construction helps prioritize limited funds. Ending Litigation: Establish a clear, uniform national standard to cut down on costly legal battles over individual logging and road projects. Protecting Wildlife Habitat: Safeguard large, intact ecosystems where endangered species and other wildlife can live without human disruption. Preserving Clean Water: Shield vital municipal watersheds and headwaters from dirt road sediment that harms aquatic life and drinking water. Maintaining Recreation: Keep remote backcountry areas open for quiet outdoor activities like hiking, camping, and fishing. These key reasons for Roadless Areas are more valid today. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate over-story and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.

Secretary Rollins: I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Brian J. Bulemore Bend, OR

Secretary Rollins: In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland that have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule also makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience amid rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore our local forest managers' decision-making power. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Erik Horeis

Secretary Rollins: In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, William J. "Jim" Sterling

Secretary Rollins: In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Nature and leaving nature ALONE is a resource we have in short supply everywhere, please do not impact what we DO have. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Spencer W Bailey Bend, Oregon

Secretary Rollins: In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Matt O

Secretary Rollins: I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE USDA’S PROPOSAL to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule. For the reasons below, the agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not practical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. This is a concept that seem to be ignored. Tourism has replaced logging as the economic engine for Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless rule in this area threatens local economies because increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. In Central Oregon, we have almost 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is also dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. And, rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. The rescission of the Roadless Rule would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. The days of the timber industry have past, people have retrained, forests have burned; the proposed elimination of the Roadless Rulle is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. The USDA should recognize that timber industry has been replaced by tourism and the timber industry is no longer and can no longer be an economic engine in areas like Central Oregon. So, the USDA should take actions that support the economy not actions that will destroy it. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Lorie Hancock

The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.

Secretary Rollins, I live in Bend, Oregon. Every year I follow and photograph people who work with trees: sustainable logging families, scientists looking at how climate, elevation, and soil impact trees and plants, and those replanting burned forests. Trees, animals, insects, plants and water are all necessary for a sustainable future. There are few places left in the US where all these are allowed to coexist without intrusive roads. I understand how we maintain or leave alone forests is a complicated issue, however, opening roads is not the answer. Once the roads are opened, the problems will only get worse. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Nancy

Secretary Rollins, As a resident of Central Oregon, I enjoy recreation in our surrounding National Forests on a daily basis. I spend a lot of my hard earned money on supporting local businesses and our local economy when participating in Mountain Biking, Hiking, Kayaking and Skiing in these National Forests. My local sporting good shops all know me on a first name basis. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. The number of jobs in the outdoor recreation industry and the revenue associated with it are as much as 4x the short term, one time value of resource extraction and the outdoor industry is reoccurring and not limited to the amount of time it takes trees to regrow. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.

Secretary Rollins, I am a lifelong Oregonian and have spent much of my time in the places protected by the current Roadless Rule. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Skye Kimel

To whom it may concern: Below are strong rational, well researched and important reasons to maintain the roadless rule. More critically it is time to stop handing the wealthy and large corporations our natural resources to rape and pillage, destroying the very natural processes that keep humans alive. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. The DEIS expressly admits, rescinding the rule would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Ann Jamison Bend, Oregon

Secretary Rollins, I am a retired business executive that spent my career in the outdoor industry ,and I am a volunteer forest ranger in The Deschutes National Forest. In my 50+ year career I worked for companies that made all types of outdoor products from tents to canoes to rugged outdoor hunting, hiking and fishing apparel and footwear. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. The consumers that purchased the outdoor products that I sold recreated in national forests, and the roadless rule protected those lands. I currently live in Central Oregon and there are nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland that have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.

Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. Where I live, in Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities and to our wildlands. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Cierra Buer Powell Butte, OR

Secretary Rollins, I want to keep our roadless areas wild as they are. There’s already 100 million plus of acred wilderness that you can access with a vehicle, we do not need more. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Matt

I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, Matt

The Roadless Rule is so wrong for so many reasons and the approach in 2026 is absolute idiocy. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. The agency should select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for 25 years. From protecting recreational opportunities in Newberry Caldera, to safeguarding sweeping views atop Lookout Mountain in the Ochocos, to maintaining mule deer and elk migration corridors in the Metolius Basin, the Roadless Rule is vital to our local communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. The USFS already has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance on its existing 370,000+ miles of roads, and this rule rescission will only compound the problem by adding expensive, infrequently used backcountry roads on the taxpayers’ dime. Worse still, in areas like Central Oregon, where the timber industry has been in decline for decades, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and play in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Fighting those fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. National Forests and Grasslands are the single most important source of municipal water supply in the United States, and Roadless Areas filter drinking water for over 2 million Oregonians. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Logging these roadless forests would also directly eliminate overstory and understory habitats, harm First Foods, and reduce the carbon storage we need to combat climate change. This rescission would not, as the DEIS claims, restore the decision-making power of our local forest managers. Instead, as the DEIS expressly admits, it would further the misguided goal of ramping up timber production on public lands while disempowering the Forest Service staff and Central Oregonians who care for these roadless areas. Sacrificing our local values for short-term logging profits is not sound policy; it is a net loss for communities, economies, and future generations. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country, but once roads and clearcuts fragment our landscapes, the damage is permanent. Despite the clear consequences of rescission and the vocal majority opposing the Proposed Rule, the USDA continues this rollback through an abridged and inadequate public comment process. The original Roadless Rule resulted from the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking, with over 95% of commenters supporting strong protections. Now, the agency is attempting to dismantle these protections with zero public meetings, shortened comment periods, and a disregard for the public input received during scoping. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for decisions of such sweeping consequence. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 will have severe consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, clean water sources, climate resilience, cultural resources, local economies, outdoor recreation, and the health of our nation's wildest forests. The USDA should abandon this damaging effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity that roadless forests provide. I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely,