Read the comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a UW Madison student who frequently visits Devil's Lake State Park, a roadless area, I strongly oppose the repealing of the Roadless rule. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas protect the drinking water supplies that millions of Americans depend on. Inventoried Roadless Areas protect roughly 131,000 kilometers of rivers nationwide, and they are the single strongest protection mechanism for more than 100,000 kilometers of river (Olden et al., 2026). An estimated 25 million Americans get their public drinking water from watersheds influenced by Inventoried Roadless Areas, with five states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, and North Carolina) each having more than a million public water system customers relying on these watersheds (Olden et al., 2026). The USDA has highlighted in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement, (2026) that nearly 5 million people in the Pacific Southwest Region draw drinking water directly from watersheds containing inventoried roadless areas, with more than 1 million more served in the Intermountain Region and 4 million more across the Northern Rockies, Rocky Mountain, and Intermountain Regions combined. Repealing the Roadless Rule puts these drinking water sources, and the millions of people who rely on them, at risk from increased sedimentation and erosion tied to new road construction and logging. Protecting forested watersheds instead of building new treatment infrastructure also has cost-saving implications. Seven U.S. cities avoided hundreds of millions of dollars in annual water-treatment costs by protecting source watersheds, and a separate study found that every 10% increase in watershed forest cover cut water treatment and chemical costs by about 20% (Olden et al., 2026). The Roadless rule protects wildlife and protects habitats of endangered species. It also supports job creation and local economies. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a Stanford student, being close to the abundant nature in the Bay Area provides immense support to my mental and emotional health. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The USDA claims repeal of the Roadless Rule will decrease wildfire risk and improve wildfire maintenance. However, a study by Kilbride et al. (2021) showed that roadless areas burn at essentially the same annual rate as roaded and developed National Forest land. A different study also found that roaded land accounted for 74% of all fire ignitions in western U.S. national forests, consistent with the well-documented pattern that human-caused ignitions cluster near roads (Johnston et al., 2021). The Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) acknowledges that road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and that as road density increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions. A 1992-2024 analysis of wildfire ignitions found the lowest ignition density in designated Wilderness, nearly as low in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the highest ignition density within 50 meters of roads (Olden et al., 2026). It has also been found that clear-cut logging can have more severe impacts on forest loss. In a 20-year study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, fire accounted for only 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging accounted for 94% (Heilman et al., 2002). And whether land was roadless or roaded explained only about 1% of the variation in fire severity in western U.S. national forests, while vegetation type and climate explained 17% indicating that management regime has little bearing on how severely a fire burns (Johnston et al., 2021). Roadless rule helps protect our biodiversity and ensures we can thrive along with our communities. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Johnston, J. D., Kilbride, J. B., Meigs, G. W., Dunn, C. J., & Kennedy, R. E. (2021). Does conserving roadless wildland increase wildfire activity in western US national forests? Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), Article 084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6306221 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas are important to me because it represents an important aspect of national parks and preservation efforts at large. The construction efforts involved are not only disruptive during the process of creation but stand to permanently affect animal behaviors after their completion. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The USDA claims repeal of the Roadless Rule will decrease wildfire risk and improve wildfire maintenance. However, a study by Kilbride et al. (2021) showed that roadless areas burn at essentially the same annual rate as roaded and developed National Forest land. A different study also found that roaded land accounted for 74% of all fire ignitions in western U.S. national forests, consistent with the well-documented pattern that human-caused ignitions cluster near roads (Johnston et al., 2021). The Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) acknowledges that road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and that as road density increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions. A 1992-2024 analysis of wildfire ignitions found the lowest ignition density in designated Wilderness, nearly as low in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the highest ignition density within 50 meters of roads (Olden et al., 2026). It has also been found that clear-cut logging can have more severe impacts on forest loss. In a 20-year study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, fire accounted for only 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging accounted for 94% (Heilman et al., 2002). And whether land was roadless or roaded explained only about 1% of the variation in fire severity in western U.S. national forests, while vegetation type and climate explained 17% indicating that management regime has little bearing on how severely a fire burns (Johnston et al., 2021). The USDA should take this comment into consideration because there are a plethora of reasons for maintaining the roadless rule. Besides the less economic considerations outlined above, you will find many many explanations from members that highlight the importance of keeping land unspoiled. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Johnston, J. D., Kilbride, J. B., Meigs, G. W., Dunn, C. J., & Kennedy, R. E. (2021). Does conserving roadless wildland increase wildfire activity in western US national forests? Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), Article 084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6306221 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid fisherman and outdoorsman, I strongly oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule to keep natural resources like the Tuolumne River Roadless Area in optimal condition for generating future economic and cultural value. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The recreational use of roadless areas by people who value them specifically for their lack of agricultural or industrial development generates significant sustainable economic and cultural value, which should not be discounted for short-term resource extraction plans for the land. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid hiker, I value roadless areas for the many benefits they provide for my own activities, communities, and ecosystems. I am against the repeal of the roadless rule. I am concerned about the preservation of roadless areas like those in Hiawatha National Forest in my state of Michigan for future generations. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas protect the drinking water supplies that millions of Americans depend on. Inventoried Roadless Areas protect roughly 131,000 kilometers of rivers nationwide, and they are the single strongest protection mechanism for more than 100,000 kilometers of river (Olden et al., 2026). An estimated 25 million Americans get their public drinking water from watersheds influenced by Inventoried Roadless Areas, with five states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, and North Carolina) each having more than a million public water system customers relying on these watersheds (Olden et al., 2026). The USDA has highlighted in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement, (2026) that nearly 5 million people in the Pacific Southwest Region draw drinking water directly from watersheds containing inventoried roadless areas, with more than 1 million more served in the Intermountain Region and 4 million more across the Northern Rockies, Rocky Mountain, and Intermountain Regions combined. Repealing the Roadless Rule puts these drinking water sources, and the millions of people who rely on them, at risk from increased sedimentation and erosion tied to new road construction and logging. Protecting forested watersheds instead of building new treatment infrastructure also has cost-saving implications. Seven U.S. cities avoided hundreds of millions of dollars in annual water-treatment costs by protecting source watersheds, and a separate study found that every 10% increase in watershed forest cover cut water treatment and chemical costs by about 20% (Olden et al., 2026). In summary, the impact of the roadless rule on the environment, people and local communities is significant. These areas provide benefits which should not be overlooked, including clean waterways, local economic and job opportunities, not to mention the ecosystem. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a young professional in NYC who cherishes the roadless areas that this great country has preserved. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The USDA claims repeal of the Roadless Rule will decrease wildfire risk and improve wildfire maintenance. However, a study by Kilbride et al. (2021) showed that roadless areas burn at essentially the same annual rate as roaded and developed National Forest land. A different study also found that roaded land accounted for 74% of all fire ignitions in western U.S. national forests, consistent with the well-documented pattern that human-caused ignitions cluster near roads (Johnston et al., 2021). The Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) acknowledges that road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and that as road density increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions. A 1992-2024 analysis of wildfire ignitions found the lowest ignition density in designated Wilderness, nearly as low in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the highest ignition density within 50 meters of roads (Olden et al., 2026). It has also been found that clear-cut logging can have more severe impacts on forest loss. In a 20-year study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, fire accounted for only 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging accounted for 94% (Heilman et al., 2002). And whether land was roadless or roaded explained only about 1% of the variation in fire severity in western U.S. national forests, while vegetation type and climate explained 17% indicating that management regime has little bearing on how severely a fire burns (Johnston et al., 2021). The roadless rule is a critical part of our nation’s heritage. Please don’t take it away, especially given all of the science. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Johnston, J. D., Kilbride, J. B., Meigs, G. W., Dunn, C. J., & Kennedy, R. E. (2021). Does conserving roadless wildland increase wildfire activity in western US national forests? Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), Article 084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6306221 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I love and often visit national parks and national forests across the country, and thus appreciate the benefits of conserving roadless areas. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. USDA should enhance the Roadless Area Conservation Rule by identifying and strengthening the provisions that work well while revising or eliminating only the provisions that have serious issues, instead simply repealing the whole rule. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a student at UC Berkeley originally from out of state, something that drew me to California was its abundance of diverse natural beauty. Maintaining this beauty through a more hands off approach is really important to me as someone who finds serenity in the untouched. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. By supporting the roadless rule, the USDA would help maintain and protect diverse wildlife and plant communities while also giving people a space for outdoor recreation. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a U.S. citizen who enjoys going on hikes in nature, I would like to state that I am against the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless rules support recreational activities to people who enjoy the outdoors. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Seattle and almost everyone I know has spent countless hours in roadless areas across the North Cascades, Mt. Baker Snoqualmie, and other forests. Losing these would be devastating to the culture and happiness of the people here. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). The removal of roadless areas would cause the carrying capacity of our wild lands will fall dramatically. Further impacting already struggling communities. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a graduate from Stanford’s Sustainable Design and Construction masters program. I am passionate about finding sustainable approaches to designing cities. Roadless areas are vital blueprints for a climate-resilient future, demonstrating how ecosystems stabilize and biodiversity thrives when free from car-centric infrastructure. Preserving wild spaces—while actively redesigning our cities to be less car-dependent—is essential for reconnecting humans with nature and mitigating the worst impacts of climate change at this critical environmental turning point. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). This is an important time in history where the decisions made have a big impact on the environment and people as an effect. Climate change has already shown proof of humans’ direct impact on the Earth and it is up to us to work towards reverting the damage. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Hi, I’m a recent graduate from the Sustainable Design and Construction program at Stanford University. During my studies I had the opportunity to better understand the impacts on our environment. I don’t believe that creating more roads through protected areas would be beneficial as wildfires are a natural occurrence and a way to restore nutrients back to the earth. If anything, continous human interference has led wildfires to reach scales we now see. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The USDA claims repeal of the Roadless Rule will decrease wildfire risk and improve wildfire maintenance. However, a study by Kilbride et al. (2021) showed that roadless areas burn at essentially the same annual rate as roaded and developed National Forest land. A different study also found that roaded land accounted for 74% of all fire ignitions in western U.S. national forests, consistent with the well-documented pattern that human-caused ignitions cluster near roads (Johnston et al., 2021). The Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) acknowledges that road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and that as road density increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions. A 1992-2024 analysis of wildfire ignitions found the lowest ignition density in designated Wilderness, nearly as low in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the highest ignition density within 50 meters of roads (Olden et al., 2026). It has also been found that clear-cut logging can have more severe impacts on forest loss. In a 20-year study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, fire accounted for only 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging accounted for 94% (Heilman et al., 2002). And whether land was roadless or roaded explained only about 1% of the variation in fire severity in western U.S. national forests, while vegetation type and climate explained 17% indicating that management regime has little bearing on how severely a fire burns (Johnston et al., 2021). In summary, the roadless rule continues to protect wildlife environments. Wildfires can be addressed through other less invasive methods. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Johnston, J. D., Kilbride, J. B., Meigs, G. W., Dunn, C. J., & Kennedy, R. E. (2021). Does conserving roadless wildland increase wildfire activity in western US national forests? Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), Article 084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6306221 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I deeply care about natural preservation like the Sierra National Forest. Roadless areas allow for wildlife to exist outside of the human made world. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Its important that roadless areas exist to preserve the natural habitat that we exist in. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a student in California, I feel strongly about our roadless areas in the west. I have spent time camping in roadless areas in Utah and I believe roadless areas protect the identity of the Western United States. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas support local businesses through recreational use. They protect more than 11,000 climbing and bouldering routes, over 1,000 whitewater paddling runs, and more than 70,000 kilometers of trails, which were estimated in 2017 to have a value of over $500 million (Olden et al., 2026). The Forest Service has identified in their own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) that the proposed rescission would result in local economic losses equal to $9 million per year from reduced trail-based, dispersed, and wildlife-related recreation. That figure uses the agency's conservative assumption of just a 1% loss in visits (USDA Forest Service, 2026). I think you should consider my comment because the most impactful fires in my home state of California are started by corporations (PGNE). Opening more wilderness land to corporate intervention makes no sense because the logic states that it will only lead to more destruction. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. From, Paul Hulme Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a resident of San Francisco, I frequently visit national parks and forests, including Mendocino national forest, and would be upset at further fragmentation of these rare untouched wilderness areas. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. I care about leaving as many wildlife areas untouched as possible. Furthermore, the USDA's arguments don't hold up under scrutiny - increasing roads in the forest increases wildfire occurences! Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I'm a researcher at a biosecurity firm who has been researching civilizational risks, including wildfires. I was excited at the prospect that repealing the roadless rule reduced wildfire risk, but looking into it, the reality seems much less clear - there are already exceptions for fire management, and the money spent on building roads would likely take away from precious funds and crew time spent on WUI treatment and home hardening, which would better reduce catastrophic fire risk. The USDA claims repeal of the Roadless Rule will decrease wildfire risk and improve wildfire maintenance. However, a study by Kilbride et al. (2021) showed that roadless areas burn at essentially the same annual rate as roaded and developed National Forest land. A different study also found that roaded land accounted for 74% of all fire ignitions in western U.S. national forests, consistent with the well-documented pattern that human-caused ignitions cluster near roads (Johnston et al., 2021). The Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) acknowledges that road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and that as road density increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions. A 1992-2024 analysis of wildfire ignitions found the lowest ignition density in designated Wilderness, nearly as low in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the highest ignition density within 50 meters of roads (Olden et al., 2026). It has also been found that clear-cut logging can have more severe impacts on forest loss. In a 20-year study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, fire accounted for only 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging accounted for 94% (Heilman et al., 2002). And whether land was roadless or roaded explained only about 1% of the variation in fire severity in western U.S. national forests, while vegetation type and climate explained 17% indicating that management regime has little bearing on how severely a fire burns (Johnston et al., 2021). Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. It seems likely that repealing the rule would actually increase wildfire risk and decrease national road quality. The crew time needed to build additional roads would take away from valuable time spent repairing our enormous national road maintenance backlog and more valuable wildfire interventions like wildland urban interface treatment. The increased roads would also increase human ignition risk, with the net effect that the public would see a decline in road quality and more wildfires - not a good look for the country. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Johnston, J. D., Kilbride, J. B., Meigs, G. W., Dunn, C. J., & Kennedy, R. E. (2021). Does conserving roadless wildland increase wildfire activity in western US national forests? Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), Article 084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6306221 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an environmental science undergraduate student who has learned about the value of roadless areas and also uses roadless areas, such as the one in Mark Twain National Forest, I oppose the repealing of the roadless rule. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The USDA claims repeal of the Roadless Rule will decrease wildfire risk and improve wildfire maintenance. However, a study by Kilbride et al. (2021) showed that roadless areas burn at essentially the same annual rate as roaded and developed National Forest land. A different study also found that roaded land accounted for 74% of all fire ignitions in western U.S. national forests, consistent with the well-documented pattern that human-caused ignitions cluster near roads (Johnston et al., 2021). The Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) acknowledges that road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and that as road density increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions. A 1992-2024 analysis of wildfire ignitions found the lowest ignition density in designated Wilderness, nearly as low in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the highest ignition density within 50 meters of roads (Olden et al., 2026). It has also been found that clear-cut logging can have more severe impacts on forest loss. In a 20-year study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, fire accounted for only 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging accounted for 94% (Heilman et al., 2002). And whether land was roadless or roaded explained only about 1% of the variation in fire severity in western U.S. national forests, while vegetation type and climate explained 17% indicating that management regime has little bearing on how severely a fire burns (Johnston et al., 2021). It is important to consider all of the benefits the roadless rule offers to not only important biodiversity but also local economies and the echoing effects of both. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Johnston, J. D., Kilbride, J. B., Meigs, G. W., Dunn, C. J., & Kennedy, R. E. (2021). Does conserving roadless wildland increase wildfire activity in western US national forests? Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), Article 084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6306221 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Despite not visiting any roadless areas on a regular basis, I think it is important to maintain areas as nature preserves. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The roadless rule helps protect our environment, and these areas provide income to the communities around them. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a resident of Bend, Oregon. The roadless areas near me cover about 137,000 acres in the Deschutes National Forest. This area is deemed with reverence here in Central Oregon. I am an avid outdoors person. The Sister Wilderness is a gem for those of us that find our peace in the wilderness. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The USDA claims repeal of the Roadless Rule will decrease wildfire risk and improve wildfire maintenance. However, a study by Kilbride et al. (2021) showed that roadless areas burn at essentially the same annual rate as areas with roads, and developed National Forest land. A different study also found that land with roads accounted for 74% of all fire ignitions in western U.S. national forests, consistent with the well-documented pattern that human-caused ignitions cluster near roads (Johnston et al., 2021). The Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2026) acknowledges that road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and that as road density increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions. A 1992-2024 analysis of wildfire ignitions found the lowest ignition density in designated Wilderness, nearly as low in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the highest ignition density within 50 meters of roads (Olden et al., 2026). It has also been found that clear-cut logging can have more severe impacts on forest loss. In a 20-year study of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, fire accounted for only 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging accounted for 94% (Heilman et al., 2002). And whether land was roadless or roaded explained only about 1% of the variation in fire severity in western U.S. national forests, while vegetation type and climate explained 17% indicating that management regime has little bearing on how severely a fire burns (Johnston et al., 2021). The USDA should consider that this roadless area serves as a natural defense system that secures the city's drinking water, preserves vital wildlife corridors and reduces the risk of severe human-caused wildfires. Revoking this act and constructing roads into this wilderness would be foolhardy. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Johnston, J. D., Kilbride, J. B., Meigs, G. W., Dunn, C. J., & Kennedy, R. E. (2021). Does conserving roadless wildland increase wildfire activity in western US national forests? Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), Article 084040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee Kilbride, J. B., Johnston, J. D., Kennedy, R. E., Meigs, G. W., & Francis, E. M. (2026). Roadless status under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6306221 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a resident of New Hampshire, and a person who hikes and camps in the White Mountains, I want to protect these lands from the development of roads. It is especially important, as 77% of these lands that are roadless overlap with areas where endangered species are living. Roadless areas protect the drinking water supplies that millions of Americans depend on. Inventoried Roadless Areas protect roughly 131,000 kilometers of rivers nationwide, and they are the single strongest protection mechanism for more than 100,000 kilometers of river (Olden et al., 2026). An estimated 25 million Americans get their public drinking water from watersheds influenced by Inventoried Roadless Areas, with five states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, and North Carolina) each having more than a million public water system customers relying on these watersheds (Olden et al., 2026). The USDA has highlighted in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement, (2026) that nearly 5 million people in the Pacific Southwest Region draw drinking water directly from watersheds containing inventoried roadless areas, with more than 1 million more served in the Intermountain Region and 4 million more across the Northern Rockies, Rocky Mountain, and Intermountain Regions combined. Repealing the Roadless Rule puts these drinking water sources, and the millions of people who rely on them, at risk from increased sedimentation and erosion tied to new road construction and logging. Protecting forested watersheds instead of building new treatment infrastructure also has cost-saving implications. Seven U.S. cities avoided hundreds of millions of dollars in annual water-treatment costs by protecting source watersheds, and a separate study found that every 10% increase in watershed forest cover cut water treatment and chemical costs by about 20% (Olden et al., 2026). Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. In summary, the USDA should consider the importance of upholding the roadless rule, so that New Hampshire continues to have to have clean drinking water, a thriving recreational economy, and a healthy habitat for endangered species. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001.