Read the comments.

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

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I grew up recreating in these areas and continue to frequent them today. They mean so much to me and I don’t know what I would do if they were striped and turned into roads. strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule For the following reasons: Environmental Impacts • The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. • Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. • The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. • The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Fire • Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. • Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. • New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. • The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary for fire safety. • Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Clean Water • National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. • Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. • Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Intact Landscapes • With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. • Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. Economic Considerations • The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. • The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. • On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. • The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision- making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. • Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. : a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. • USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. For all these reasons I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule and instead urge the USDA to move forward in a way that reflects the opinions and considers the best interests of the American peoples.

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests. Our Forests are owned by the citizens of the United States not by politiicians. Then briefly state your position. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless rule because of the damage it will do to our forests and wildlife and our environment. Environmental Impacts • Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. • The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. • The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Fire • Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. • Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. • New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. • The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary for fire safety. • Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks !!!! Clean Water • National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. CLEAN WATER IS A RIGHT ! • Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. • Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Intact Landscapes • With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. • Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. Economic Considerations • The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. Thank you for your attention to my rights as an United States Citizen. These are our lands Elaine den Hoed

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

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because we need to preserve watershed integrity for clean drinking water and to escape the constant cacophony of motorized vehicles. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental, economic, and aesthetic impacts. Environmental Impacts •The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. •Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. •The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. •The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Clean Water •National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans. •Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. •Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Intact Landscapes •With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. •Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: •Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; •Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; •Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; •And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Douglas Towne 8272 E. Sonoran Way Gold Canyon, AZ 85118-6951

Dear Forest Service I am an avid trout angler in the mountains of North and South Carolina. I oppose removing the protections of our forests. Here are a few of my concerns: The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Please do not let this happen. Sincerely Mark Olig

Hello, I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests, which are a national treasure that should be cared for and passed along to future generations. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule for the following reasons •With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. •Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. •The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. •Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. •The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. •The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. •Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. •Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. •New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. •The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. •Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. I call on USDA to take concerted action to uphold the Roadless Rule. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Rebecca Haas rebecca@revolutionportland.com 503-380-8292

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because they provide all Americans recreational possibilities, beautiful intact landscapes, clean water, habitat protection and protection of old growth forests. Having grown up on the west coast I have seen firsthand what happens when national forests are not protected. Thus, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts, impacts to wildlife and recreation, and the fact that the current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk. Thus, a full rescission is unnecessary. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. For example, roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. It’s worth noting that forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. There are simply not enough areas to accommodate current needs let alone those of future generations. With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. Moreover, a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. Clearly, rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. For all these reasons, public will, economic responsibility, ecological health, fire safety, and clean water, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.

To whom it may concern: I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I spend a lot of time there recreating, and the wilderness is crucial for the preservation of our environment and survival. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule for many reasons, some of which are listed below: - The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. - Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. - The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. - Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. - The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. On the local level, Mt. Hood’s 2015 Travel Analysis Report called for decommissioning, not building, roads, citing risks to water quality and aging, unsafe infrastructure. For all these reasons and more, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Thank you for considering this comment, James Holland

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I recreate in many roadless areas across Oregon, where I live. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts, impacts to wildlife and recreation, and potential to fundamentally change the character of both my home state and the West more broadly. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. These roadless areas belong to all of us as Americans, not to a few rich corporations who will use them to extract resources.

I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts, impacts to wildlife and recreation, and more. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Thank you.

The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. I care deeply about our national forests because they keep my community in Twisp WA safe and economically viable. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. This summer we are facing one of the worst fire seasons in history. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Rural communities are suffering. We beg you, across party lines.

Roadless Rule My name is Sean Behrens I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because my wife and I have travelled and enjoyed them in their current state. We hope to travel to our national parks with our children when they grow up. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts. I have never commented in the past however the carelessness of this administration has compelled me to participate. Environmental Impacts • The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. • Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. • The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. • Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. • New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. • The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary for fire safety. • Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. • The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. • The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. • The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60%, and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission—addressing wildfire risk and giving states more decision-making power—rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. • Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion • The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. • Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. • USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. I’m calling on USDA to take concerted action to uphold the Roadless Rule. For example: For all these reasons e.g. public will, economic responsibility, ecological health, fire safety, and clean water]—I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: • Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; • Guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; • Develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; • And commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because I regularly recreate in Mt. Hood National Forest and rely on forest watersheds for clean drinking water. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts and the impacts to wildlife and recreation. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. That remains true today. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Contradicts Public Opinion The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. Elected officials and Tribes, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, whose ceded lands include Mt. Hood National Forest and whose reservation still borders that forest, have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. For all these reasons—ecological health, fire safety, and clean water—I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that the agency leave the rule in place as is. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Will Fett

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests because we need our forests to draw down carbon from the atmosphere. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule because of its environmental and economic impacts. The Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. The Forest Service itself stated in the text of the Roadless Rule that conserving roadless areas was critical because road construction and logging were the activities “most likely to harm” the characteristics and values the agency is tasked with protecting. The science is clear: road building fragments habitat, disrupting wildlife and watersheds; increases pollution; facilitates damaging extractive industries; and worsens the spread of invasive species. Contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. Nearly 85% of wildfires are human-caused, and most ignite within a few hundred feet of roads. New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. The current rule already allows road-building and logging of smaller trees to reduce fire risk and protect public safety. A full rescission is therefore unnecessary. Given that the FY26 budget eliminates funding for wildfire suppression and management, USDA cannot claim this rule change is genuinely about mitigating fire risks. National forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, including more than 1 million Oregonians who rely on Mt. Hood National Forest. Forested watersheds filter and store water more effectively than developed lands, reducing sediment and pollutants. Road building undermines these natural filtration systems and threatens millions of Americans’ access to safe drinking water. With climate change and development already fragmenting ecosystems, rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize some of the last large, undeveloped tracts of land in the U.S. Only 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. We can’t afford to abuse what little remains. The Forest Service manages more roads than any other federal agency, yet already struggles to maintain them. The national forest system currently carries a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog. The text of the Roadless Rule itself acknowledges that the Forest Service could not maintain its existing road system to safety and environmental standards. That reality has only worsened as budgets continue to shrink. The Forest Service’s FY26 budget slashes agency funding by more than 60% and zeroes out funding for Wildland Fire Management, the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. USDA’s stated rationale for rescission rings hollow when no funding is allocated to meet those goals. Forest revenues today come primarily from recreation, not logging. More roads would degrade recreation opportunities, undercutting the agency’s bottom line. The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. Elected officials and Tribes have voiced strong support for the Roadless Rule. The Tribes emphasized that protecting unroaded areas is essential to the health of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and native plants. Polling confirms this support endures: a Pew Charitable Trusts survey found 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, while only 16% oppose it. USDA calls itself “The People’s Department,” but rescinding the Roadless Rule directly ignores the will of the majority of Americans. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I ask that before moving forward, the agency: Conduct a thorough environmental analysis of roadless areas to assess the impacts of additional road building; guarantee that no watersheds will be negatively affected by rescission; develop and share a detailed plan for addressing its existing backlog in road maintenance and repairs; and commit to moving forward with transparency, including a full account of how public comments were considered and concerns addressed. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations.