Read the comments.

Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White, Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, and Members of Congress: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, wildlife observation and tracking, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. I frequently travel to enjoy these areas contributing to those local economies in doing so. With the national crisis in mental health, having access to roadless national forests is essential for physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Jennifer C., MA, I support conservation and I vote.

Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White Dear Mr. White: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native species that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national parks in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spent to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increases road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. Our national forests are a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Wayne B, Massachusetts

Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White, Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, and Members of Congress: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, wildlife observation and tracking, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Jennifer S, MA I support conservation and I vote.

To Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White, Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, and Members of Congress: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, wildlife observation and tracking, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. I frequently travel to enjoy these areas contributing to those local economies in doing so. With the national crisis in mental health, having access to roadless national forests is essential for physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, wildlife observation and tracking, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. I frequently travel to enjoy these areas contributing to those local economies in doing so. With the national crisis in mental health, having access to roadless national forests is essential for physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Robert K., NH, I support conservation and I vote.

Joshua White, Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Dear Director White and Members of Congress: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, wildlife observation and tracking, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. I frequently travel to enjoy these areas contributing to those local economies in doing so. With the national crisis in mental health, having access to roadless national forests is essential for physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Sincerely, Mary R. Jamieson

To Members of Congress and Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I travel to national park and forest areas for enjoyment and exercise and I wish to preserve the scope and beauty that exists. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Sincerely, Lynn Shippee, RI resident

I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spent to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. I frequently travel to enjoy these areas contributing to those local economies in doing so. With the national crisis in mental health, having access to roadless national forests is essential for physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Evan W., MA

I strongly oppose any action thar would rescind or alterthe 2001roadless conservation rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries.

To Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White, Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, and Members of Congress: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, wildlife observation and tracking, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. I frequently travel to enjoy these areas contributing to those local economies in doing so. With the national crisis in mental health, having access to roadless national forests is essential for physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. -RP MA, I support conservation and I vote.

Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White, Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, and Members of Congress: I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for native flora and fauna, that cannot be replaced. These areas provide migratory connections for big game and unaltered water resources for native fisheries. These areas provide free ecosystem services like groundwater supply protections, aquifer and drinking water protection, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, prevention of flooding and reduction of pollution. Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest. Millions of Americans and visitors from many nations regularly visit our national forests, providing important economic growth to those areas and providing recreational opportunities in unparalleled beautiful landscapes. The Roadless Rule protects vital drinking water resources, extensive landscape-scale wildlife habitat, and world-class recreational opportunities like hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, wildlife tracking and observation, photography, hunting and camping. For example, the Access Fund estimated that non-local rock climber tourists spent over $13.9 million annually and local climbers spent an additional $12.9 million visiting national park in North Carolina; and over $6.2 million has been spent annually in Colorado. This example shows millions of dollars spend to visit our national resources and that is only one type of recreation highlighted in only two US States. The US Forest Service’s own website posted an article about how recreation in these areas provides healthy economies with over $13.5 billion spent by visitors in 2020 in addition to providing “161,000 full and part time jobs, more than any other industry”. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would jeopardize public enjoyment of public lands and negatively impact local economies. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments were received supporting keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule already provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure and more crowded field conditions and increase road mortality and insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and is an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. I personally enjoy travelling to our national forests for hiking, camping, rock climbing, wildlife observation and tracking, photography and general enjoyment of the outdoors. I frequently travel to enjoy these areas contributing to those local economies in doing so. With the national crisis in mental health, having access to roadless national forests is essential for physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Jennifer C., MA, I support conservation and I vote.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE any action that would rescind or alter the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In 2001 over 1.5 million Americans said yes to supporting the Roadless Rule. And again in 2025 over 98% of the 600,000 comments that were received supported keeping the Rule. That commitment to land and natural resource protection has not wavered. In fact, Massachusetts has implemented a new Biodiversity Plan to preserving native flora and fauna and has committed to preserving 30% of Massachusetts by 2030 and 40% of MA by 2050. The 2001 Roadless Rule provides provisions for addressing hazard trees, and allows balanced forest management to prevent wildfires and invasive species controls. This Rule does not need to be rescinded to prevent wildfires as claimed by the US Forest Service. It has been documented that wildfires are 4x more likely to start in a roaded area (The Wilderness Society); that over 90% of wildfires started within a ½ mile of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute) and 84% of wildfires in the US are human cause (National Academy of Sciences); therefore, it is illogical to propose that more roads are needed to prevent wildfires. I would STRONGLY OPPOSE any measure that increases new roads through national forests that would make it easier to have trophy hunts of species like grizzly and wolf and cut down old growth forests. Unrestricted road access increases potential for poaching and leads to heavier hunting pressure, more crowded field conditions, increased road mortality and higher insurance costs for vehicle/wildlife collisions. Culturally important and indigenous cultural and spiritual practices sites would also be threatened and would be an unacceptable implication of this Rule being rescinded. Our national forests were created as and are currently a public resource, not places to be monetized by a few individuals or corporations. I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute. To be clear, I STRONGLY OPPOSE rescinding any portion of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the measure should be withdrawn immediately. Thank you for your consideration and for the continued protection of our vibrant and necessary natural resources. Eleah C, Massachusetts