Read the comments.

I'm writing as a frequent visitor to the public lands of Central Oregon, and I strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep full Roadless Rule protections for the nearly 45 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas nationwide. Central Oregon has close to 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. For nearly 25 years these areas have protected wildlife habitat, supported local economies, and kept drinking water clean. I care about three things in particular. Mountain biking and backcountry recreation. Mountain bikes aren't allowed in designated Wilderness, so roadless areas are some of the only places left where riders can find a remote, backcountry experience. New logging roads, clearcuts, and truck traffic would break up trail corridors, close routes during operations, and replace a backcountry ride with a ride through an industrial zone. Once a road goes in, that experience doesn't come back. Clean water and snow. Roads are one of the biggest sources of sediment in forest streams. The Bend Municipal Watershed starts in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest, and it supplies drinking water to more than 100,000 people. It also supports fish populations downstream. The snowpack in these high-elevation forests is our water supply and the base of our winter recreation. Road building and logging remove the canopy and disturb soils, which changes how snow builds up and melts and puts more sediment and pollutants into the water. Protecting roadless areas is the cheapest way to keep that water clean. Paying to treat it later costs far more. The economic cost. Opening Central Oregon's roadless areas to logging won't produce a meaningful economic return. These areas are often remote and steep, so roads are expensive to build and to maintain, and the timber value is low. The real economic engine here is outdoor recreation and the quality of life that draws people and businesses to the region. Riders, skiers, hikers, anglers, and hunters support local shops, guides, restaurants, and lodging year-round. Damaging the landscapes that bring people here would trade a lasting, renewable economy for a short-term, marginal timber harvest. Rescinding the Rule would also make our forests less resilient. Research shows wildfires are about four times more likely to ignite near roads. Roads also spread invasive species, break up wildlife corridors, and weaken forests that are already dealing with rapidly changing fire regimes. Please abandon the effort to repeal the Roadless Rule. Instead, strengthen protections for America's roadless forests and the clean water, recreation, climate resilience, and wildlife habitat they provide. Chris Niggel Bend, OR

I am an Oregon resident writing to oppose the USDA's proposal to rescind or weaken the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to CHOOSE THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE and keep full Roadless Rule protections in place. Central Oregon has close to 200,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. For nearly 25 years, these lands have protected clean drinking water, provided cold streams for fish and connected habitat for wildlife, and supported the outdoor recreation and quality of life that sustain local economies. Oregon's roadless areas are where I go for peace and quiet, to get away from civilization and see what this state looked like before roads reached everywhere. As a wildlife photographer, I depend on these places, because animals gather where there is no traffic and leave when roads move in. Once a road is built, that solitude and that wildlife are gone, and no amount of restoration brings them back the same way. Building roads into these areas would do lasting harm. Bend's drinking water begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest, which serve more than 100,000 people. Roads bring erosion and sediment into streams like these, threatening both fish and drinking water. Research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Roads also spread invasive species and break up wildlife corridors, making forests less resilient as wildfire patterns change. Rescinding the rule also makes little economic sense. Logging these areas would bring little return to Central Oregon while damaging the scenery, recreation, and habitat that draw people to live and visit here. And the Forest Service already has a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog on its existing roads. Adding new roads it cannot afford to maintain is not responsible management. PLEASE ABANDON THIS EFFORT and KEEP THE ROADLESS RULE FULLY IN PLACE to protect clean water, wildlife, recreation, and resilient forests for future generations. Meagan Lapworth North Bend, OR

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. I'm an Oregonian and frequently spend time hiking, backpacking, hunting, and exploring many of the Roadless areas in Oregon, Washington and throughout the West. Repealing or weakening the Roadless Rule is reckless and unnecessary. It will waste taxpayer resources, devastate public lands, and degrade watersheds (and our clean drinking water), disrupt wildlife areas, and destroy fragile and intact ecosystems. Just last month I went on an annual backpacking trip with my two sons and my sister to Bobby Lake in the Maiden Peak roadless area in the Deschutes National Forest. This was one of the few areas in Oregon last summer (2026) not impacted by wildfires. There were so many folks out enjoying many of the backcountry campsites - adventuring into the wilderness to experience a weekend without the noise and pollution of vehicles, to fish in the lake, to enjoy being "out in nature". This is not the same experience with a road running through it. The Deschutes National Forest, and the Willamette National Forest it borders, are unique and special recreation areas that folks from all over the US come to enjoy. We should be doing more to protect these areas, not stripping them of the few protections they currently have. A few days ago, I took friends visiting the coast to explore the Oregon Sand Dunes near Tahkenitch Creek in the Siuslaw National Forest-- another area currently protected by the Roadless Rule. We love this area because of the miles of contiguous sand dunes-specifically because there are not roads running through the Dunes. This fall, I will go elk hunting with neighbors in another Roadless Area in the Siuslaw, near Drift Creek. This area is great for hunting in part because there are not roads cutting through it, which limits traffic, vehicle noise, and human access. Wildlife, Elk included, avoid roads, vehicle noise, and human noise. Wildlife rely on these contiguous wilderness/forested regions--these are places they can live and thrive without constant threat of human impact. These are also areas that hunters in our region rely on to be able to fill tags each year. Again, this is a place we should be doing more, not less to protect our forests. We should keep the roadless rule intact Roadless forests include some of the most resilient ecosystems in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as carbon sinks mitigating the worst impacts of climate change. Americans love these forests: we hike, hunt, forage,fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and destroy ecosystems. More roads in the backcountry also lead to more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads--most fires are caused by humans. More access leads to more fires started. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule is a mistake. I strongly oppose any actions that weaken the Roadless Rule. Please abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen America's commitment to protecting our forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950

I was born and raised in Central Oregon where I enjoyed my share of nearly 200,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas in the Central Oregon area in the Deschutes National Forest. I still enjoy these lands today as an avid hiker and mountain biker. And as such I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. While I do believe in sustainable logging practices as a practical means for forest fire prevention, I simply do not trust this administration to have mine or my fellow Oregonians' best interests in mind in the altercation of this rule. There is no doubt in my mind that any alteration to this rule will directly and monetarily benefit President Trump, his family, one of his business partners, or be used as a quid pro quo bargaining chip for a benefit he has already received or wishes to receive in the future. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Jordan Baxter Bend, OR

Do not rescind the roadless rule. As a former Forest Service employee in Oregon, and National Park Service employee in Montana, I have had the privileged experience of not only enjoying the natural areas for my own recreational benefit, but also as someone working for a federal land management agency. My concerns with rescinding the roadless rule include, but are not limited to: 1) An increase in human-caused wildfires, 2) destruction of habitat for sensitive plants and animals, 3) DECREASED recreational opportunities for locals and tourists in Oregon, 4) lack of resources to support the current roads and infrastructure. I have spent the last 3 years working for the forest service in Central Oregon, a nationally recognized area not only for its natural beauty, but for the wildland urban interface. Last year a large wildfire threatened the town of Sunriver, and this year the town of Sisters was threatened by a wildfire. Each year, approximately 85% of fires are started by humans. I have former coworkers who’s main job duties are to patrol roads and look for fire starts caused by humans. Tourists, locals, and houseless people alike flock to the forest service roads in Oregon. Adding in new roadways will increase the work needed to patrol these areas for fire starts, in an area already prone to extreme fires. Increasing roadways will destroy habitat for sensitive plants and animals. This is already a concern with mandated logging operations, but will worsen the issue if the roadless rule is repealed. Animals in Oregon already suffer from habitat fragmentation, leading to disrupted migration corridors, and animal deaths. Protecting plants and animals is a non-partisan issue, and is essential for the wellbeing of our nation. Recreation is THE industry in Central Oregon. Year-round, Central Oregon is a world-wide tourist destination. While working at the Lava Lands Visitor Center in Newberry National Volcanic Monument, we would create a list on a whiteboard of the destinations visitors have traveled from. We would quickly fill the whiteboard up with different states, and countries such as Germany, France, UK, India, Australia, and many more. Tourists and locals alike are visiting to see the unique, untouched landscapes of volcanoes, lava flows, pristine lakes, lush forests, and fields of wildflowers. While working in a fee booth at Newberry Caldera, I visited with locals who were excited to camp, fish, hike, and tourists excited to hike the largest obsidian flow! The majority of Newberry Caldera is protected under the roadless rule, alongside being a National Monument. Without the roadless rule, recreation, tourism, small businesses, and cultural resources would be under fire. My last point is the current lack of support, both in employees and money, to support the 265,000 miles of current forest service roads. There are roads that are designated for passenger vehicles that I’ve never been able to drive on because of how rough the roads are. Popular roads in the Deschutes National Forest are heavily traveled, and the road crews are unable to keep up. If the concern is truly for the public’s safety, wildfire, and recreation, the current roads should be improved FIRST. The 370 road heading up to Broken Top Trailhead is barely passable in a 4x4 vehicle with high clearance. Can you imagine having to ride in an ambulance, in critical condition down that road? The forest service needs support maintaining its current roads and infrastructure before considering adding new roads in. Thank you for reading my comments in support of NOT rescinding the roadless rule. Hannah Croxton

I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). In my home state of Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of inventoried roadless lands are at stake—about 137,000 acres in the Deschutes National Forest and another 61,000 acres in the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grasslands. Across the country, the rollback could put more than 58 million acres of undeveloped National Forest land at risk. These are not just empty acres on a map. The areas in Oregon are areas that I have personally recreated in during the 50+ years I have lived in the state. Roadless forests provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, owls, wolves, and other imperiled species. They protect migration corridors for elk, mule deer, and other wildlife. They safeguard the headwaters that provide clean drinking water to communities like Bend—and nationally, National Forests and Grasslands provide drinking water for more than 60 million people. They also support hunting, fishing, gathering, hiking, camping, paddling, mountain biking, skiing, and the solitude that makes Oregon such a special place to live. Places like the Metolius River, Paulina Lake, East Lake, and the Pacific Crest Trail are part of our region's natural heritage. And rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a solution to wildfire. The rule already allows roads to be constructed when necessary to respond to fires and other emergencies. Meanwhile, research has found that wildfires are far more likely to start near roads. More roads and more industrial activity in these forests could mean more fragmentation, more habitat loss, and more opportunities for human-caused wildfire. We should be protecting the forests, clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities that future generations will depend on—not opening some of our last remaining wild places to more roads and industrial development. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place and protect these irreplaceable public lands. They are too beautiful to destroy and leave unprotected! Regards, Tracy

I am submitting my comment to vehemently oppose partially or fully rescinding the Roadless Rule. To reverse this rule would throw decades of peer-reviewed research in the trash, to favor short term financial gain for very few and without benefit to the American public. To allow such a change would be a dereliction of the Agriculture Department's duties to protect public health, conserve natural resources, and responsibly manage agricultural production. In 2025, approximately 99% of public comments opposed changing the Roadless Rule. Despite this, the federal administration is once again attempting to force this through without appropriately addressing the public's substantial opposition to partially or fully rescinding this rule. Roadless areas are some of the last intact landscapes in America, providing clean water, critical wildlife habitat, and world-class recreation opportunities. As a resident of Oregon, my health, safety, and enjoyment of public lands include Roadless areas like Larch Mountain, Lost Lake, and the Salmon River Trail (Mount Hood National Forest), Iron Mountain and Hardesty Mountain (Willamette National Forest), Oregon Dunes (Siuslaw National Forest), Lookout Mountain (Ochoco National Forest), Joseph Canyon (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest), and Tumalo Mountain (Deschutes National Forest). In the summer of 2026, Oregon saw some of the worst wildfires in our country's history, and unsustainable forestry, deforestation, fragmented habitat, and irresponsible recreation were largely to blame. Not a lack of roads. The proposed changes to the Roadless Rule fail to consider the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that habitat fragmentation increases wildfire risk and negatively impacts protected species. Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Draft EIS are wholly unacceptable. Therefore, I support Alternative 1 - No Action.

I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. I write this comment as an Oregonian. My home state has 211 roadless areas encompassing 1.9 million acres. I regularly recreate in and near roadless areas on the Deschutes National Forest. My spouse and I paddle our kayaks on lakes that are bounded by or sit within roadless areas, including Elk Lake, Hosmer Lake, Sparks Lake, and Little Lava Lake. We also enjoy visiting roadless areas across the state. Wildflower hikes near Iron Mountain on the Willamette National Forest and visits to Drift Creek roadless area on the Siuslaw National Forest are cherished experiences. Rescinding the Roadless Rule may well destroy the unparalleled plant diversity of Iron Mountain and Cone Peak. It would certainly affect the bird watching on the Cascade Lakes. In addition to affecting my personal enjoyment of my local forest, this would decimate the tourism economy in Central Oregon. As many Oregonians will tell anyone who will listen, we greatly value our quiet outdoor experiences. Many of us, myself included, have a need to recreate without having to listen to noisy vehicles or the sort of loud and inconsiderate people who only go where they can drive. People need places they can go, under their own power, that are quiet and remote—areas that promote solitary enjoyment of nature. I’m very concerned that the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule has been made without due consideration of the impact of climate change as well as the repercussions on the climate. So much of Oregon has burned in the last 10 years, in part because of changes in the climate, that more people (i.e. Oregonians who need their solitude in untrammeled natural surroundings) are recreating in a decreased area. Opening up roadless areas would further degrade the remaining back-country areas by making them vulnerable to potential development. In addition, destruction of old-growth temperate rainforests and sub-alpine forests would release massive amounts of currently sequestered carbon, thus accelerating global temperature rises and increasing drought. This in turn would lead to more intense wildfires. The result is a destructive cycle that worsens the climate catastrophe worldwide, with negative impacts on recreation and natural splendor, degradation of water quality for humans and habitat for many protected species. This also means that communities like mine in Central Oregon will be increasingly threatened with total destruction by wildfire. Not everyone living on or near the urban/wildland divide can afford to fire-harden their residences. In fact, many can only afford to rent, and landlords are not investing in hardening rental properties against wildfires. That leaves belongings at risk when evacuations happen. The average American cannot pay for private fire protection services in the case of threat by wildfire. The increasing frequency of evacuations in these communities greatly impacts work availability and ranchers’ ability to care for livestock. Evacuations are becoming much more frequent, and they use up vast amounts of financial resources and time that working Americans do not have to spare. Proponents of rescinding the Roadless Rule have argued that they are motivated to improve wildfire management. They argue that roadless areas hinder firefighting efforts. This argument is specious and disingenuous. Roadless areas are much less likely to start burning in the first place. Analysis shows that areas with roads have increased instances of fire starts compared to roadless areas. The vast majority of fires are human-caused. Furthermore, if they were serious about limiting wildfires, they would realize that the increased timber harvests that would undoubtedly follow the opening of roadless areas will release currently sequestered carbon, which in turn would worsen climate change and promote more frequent and more intense fires. My drinking water comes from a watershed in an inventoried Roadless Area. Opening the area to roads would threaten the quality and safety of my drinking water. Please do what is right for Americans and do not fully or partially rescind the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

In Central Oregon, there are thousands of acres of Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest and Ochoco National Forest. These areas have protected wildlife habitat, boosted the economies through outdoor recreation and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. As a frequent visitor to these public lands, I oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly millions of acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical and dangerous. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule also makes our forests far less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Please abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide. Robin Smith Bend, OR

My name is Sara Mansfield and I live just a few miles away from the Deschutes National Forest, home to many designated wilderness areas and roadless areas. These areas are important to the quality life and economic health of our region. In addition, many roadless areas around the Western U.S. along with the very IDEA of a roadless area, are among my top values and concerns as a U.S. citizen. I have concerns regarding the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. While the stated intent is to give each individual National Forest area easier management of the lands within their jurisdiction, I believe, thanks to many examples set so far by the current administration, that there is high potential for mismanagement, speculation, undue corporate stakeholder pressure, and inappropriate actions which will have long term ecological, social, and financial consequences. Look at the current state of the backyard of the White House. Look at the swath of habitat bulldozed in Big Bend National Park. That is not what I want my National Forests to look like. That is not what I want my tax money supporting. What is the reason for proposing this change to the USDA rule? The idea that the need for roads to allow active management for wildfire risk, spread of insects and diseases, and community protection is nonsensical as increased vehicle access creates a higher risk for these issues. In my opinion, the Executive Orders 14225 and 14154 are a thoughtless, greedy, and simplistic approach to draining America’s timber resources. The so-called ‘heavy-handed Federal policies’ are the reasons there are still timber stands left today. Who has weighed in on the pros and cons of removing the 2001 Roadless Rule? What do those in favor stand to gain from opening some of our public lands up to . Why are the many voices speaking up against this, including those in the supporting documents presented here, being ignored or minimized? If the argument is that individual units of National Forest have changing needs, why not let the roadless rule stand and allow States and areas continue to use the legal system to sort out management exceptions or additions? Why not provide the National Forest Service with budget increases to allow more effective management that operates within the Roadless Rule? Staff and equipment Reading the supporting documents reveals many arguments against rescinding the roadless rule, including “lost economic benefits” and “increased user conflicts” I’m also concerned by the argument in favor of removing the rule that removing it doesn’t guarantee changes will be made, but that “other situations like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act may do so.” It feels like a ruse, telling the American one thing, knowing a majority of citizens and residents would be against it, while clearly planning another. Finally, thanks to the Constitution, government is for the people, by the people, not for the profit. I need my government to remember that. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

I am commenting on the USDA Forest Service's proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I want the Forest Service to keep the Roadless Rule intact in its entirety and to choose the No Action Alternative. I have hiked in the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon and the recreation quality would be greatly degraded if more roads are built. Protecting natural areas is something that makes me proud to be an American and it would be a shame to see that get taken away.

I am commenting on the USDA Forest Service's proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My name is Gabriel, and I live in Washington State. I am a budding environmental scientist working on restoration projects. I have spent lots of time backpacking in both the Okanagan-Wenatchee National Forest and Deschutes National Forest. If more roads are built, that would greatly detract from the experience. Also, Section 294.13 already permits tree thinning and emergency fire access.

Central Oregon contains nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas within the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. For nearly 25 years, these protections have preserved critical wildlife habitat, safeguarded drinking water, supported outdoor recreation, and contributed directly to the quality of life and economic vitality of communities throughout the region. As a frequent visitor to these public lands, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, weaken, or otherwise alter the Roadless Rule. Doing so would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service nationwide and would expose some of the country’s most intact forest landscapes to unnecessary and potentially irreversible damage. I urge the USDA to select the **No Action Alternative** and retain the Roadless Rule in full. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would be both short-sighted and dangerous. In Central Oregon, opening currently roadless areas to expanded logging and road construction is unlikely to produce meaningful long-term economic benefits. The costs, however, would be substantial. New roads would fragment wildlife habitat, degrade scenic landscapes, diminish recreation opportunities, and undermine many of the qualities that make Central Oregon an exceptional place to live, work, and visit. Expanded road networks also create serious wildfire risks. Research has shown that wildfires are significantly more likely to ignite near roads, where increased human access creates additional opportunities for accidental and intentional ignitions. At a time when Central Oregon is already confronting increasingly severe wildfire seasons, expanding roads into currently protected areas would introduce additional and unnecessary risk. The consequences for drinking water are equally concerning. The Bend Municipal Watershed originates in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek within the Deschutes National Forest. Road construction, logging, erosion, and sedimentation in sensitive watersheds can degrade water quality and aquatic habitat. Weakening Roadless Rule protections would therefore threaten not only fish and wildlife, but also the drinking water supply relied upon by more than 100,000 people in Bend. Similar risks would extend to communities and watersheds across the country. Roadless forests are also essential to the long-term resilience of our public lands. Roads facilitate the spread of invasive species, fragment wildlife corridors, increase erosion, alter hydrology, and reduce the ability of forests and watersheds to withstand changing wildfire conditions and other environmental pressures. These lands are among the most ecologically valuable and least fragmented areas remaining in the national forest system. Once roads are constructed and these landscapes are disturbed, many of their defining qualities cannot easily be restored. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort to repeal or weaken the Roadless Rule. Instead, the agency should maintain and strengthen protections for America’s remaining roadless forests and recognize the extraordinary public benefits they provide: clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, recreation, scenic landscapes, wildfire resilience, and healthy forests for future generations. Codey Christensen Bend, OR

In Central Oregon, there are close to 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. These areas have protected wildlife habitat, boosted the economies through both outdoor recreation and high quality of life, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. As a frequent visitor to these public lands, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests.It is critical to our society and it's individuals to protect wild spaces for our future children and grandchildren. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical and dangerous. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule also makes our forests far less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Please abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide. Matt Knox Redmond, OR

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Hunting in the woods with friends, breathing clean air in the campgrounds of Oregon and Washington, watching the recovery continue on the slopes of Mount St. Helens. These are the things I am asking you to protect when I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001. Being out in the woods is good for the soul. The beauty of wild places and the animals in them is unmatched. I also spend time in state and national campgrounds in Oregon and Washington for the clean air, the quiet, and the enjoyment of nature away from the noise of city life. It is affordable vacation for many people. I want my children and grandchildren to have wild places with old-growth trees to revere and experience. I do not think they should inherit fewer of these places than I did. The Siuslaw National Forest holds the Oregon coast range, the dunes, fresh water, and salmon. Salmon depend on cold water, and the agency's own record states that removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures beyond what suits cold-water species, and that warmer temperatures can reduce egg survival, rearing densities and growth of coho salmon, with the affected area including Essential Fish Habitat and critical habitats managed by NMFS. The Siuslaw's roadless areas amount to 52,000 acres of coast range forest that the agency would open to new road construction. I ask the agency to address what specific protections replace those lost for cold-water fish habitat in the Siuslaw if this rule is rescinded. The Deschutes National Forest is a high desert place of calderas and ancient formations, fantastic and unlike anywhere else. Bend and the surrounding area get their water from this forest, and this should not be threatened. Bridge Creek, running through old-growth forest on the Deschutes, supplies roughly 60 percent of Bend's municipal drinking water. Across the Pacific Northwest region, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The Deschutes holds 136,000 acres of inventoried roadless area, and the lower Deschutes holds one of only two national strongholds for federally threatened bull trout. I ask the agency to explain how rescinding federal roadless protections over these watersheds is consistent with its obligations to communities and to listed species whose strongholds sit inside them. The Olympic National Forest is magical. Having no roads through the middle of the peninsula is a true treasure. The 86,000 acres of roadless area there, with their old growth and pure water, must be maintained. The agency argues that new roads serve wildfire management, yet its own record states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." I ask that the agency reconcile this proposal with that finding and explain what ignition data now overrides it. The agency also argues that opening these areas generates economic benefit. Its own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million. The agency already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog on a road budget of about $73 million a year. No new roads. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest, with Mount St. Helens and its continuing recovery, holds 213,000 acres of roadless area I have visited since childhood. The agency now argues that state-specific management can replace the national rule, yet its own record shows: "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit already rejected the last attempt to substitute local approaches for a national rule, finding that piecemeal local decisions can erode nationally significant roadless values. Leave the little remaining old growth alone. Leave the natural water sources alone. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. That process failure alone demands a full answer before this rescission moves any further. Sincerely, Kristina Rheaume Portland, Oregon

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Dear U.S. Forest Service Officials, I respectfully urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and reject the proposed rescission. Roadless lands are not idle land. They supply clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation to communities nationwide, and rescission would do far more harm than good. WHAT IS AT STAKE (Forest Service roadless inventory) - Deschutes NF, central Oregon: about 137,000 acres protecting the headwaters of the Deschutes and Metolius rivers. Oregon's roadless lands protect drinking water for about 800,000 people, including Bend. - Wallowa-Whitman NF, northeast Oregon: about 515,000 acres. Its mountain streams supply Baker City, one of only two Oregon cities whose water is clean enough to go unfiltered. - Gifford Pinchot NF, southwest Washington: about 213,000 acres. Its streams supply drinking water to communities and support threatened Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and the northern spotted owl. - Superior NF, northeast Minnesota: about 62,000 acres bordering the Boundary Waters, home to moose and threatened Canada lynx. - White Mountain NF, New Hampshire and Maine: about 235,000 acres, including headwaters of the Pemigewasset River, which forms the Merrimack, a drinking water source for Manchester, Nashua, and Massachusetts towns. - Bridger-Teton NF, western Wyoming: about 1.4 million acres at the headwaters of the Snake and Green rivers, feeding the Columbia and Colorado systems, with grizzly bears, wolverines, lynx, and native cutthroat trout. Nationally, roadless watersheds supply drinking water to about 25 million Americans. THE FOREST SERVICE'S OWN SCIENCE The agency's report Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information (PNW-GTR-509) found that roads contribute more sediment to streams than any other land management activity, and that most sediment from timber harvest is tied to roads. Forest Service research on Washington's Clearwater River found fine sediment making up 15 to 25 percent of spawning gravels in heavily roaded basins, smothering salmon eggs. That matters: the Columbia Basin once produced 10 to 16 million salmon a year, and logging and road building were among the causes of its decline, alongside dams. The current DEIS itself acknowledges that new roads and logging could bring more human-caused fires, sedimentation, harm to threatened and endangered species, and recreation losses. WILDLIFE Roadless areas cover about 2 percent of U.S. land but support roughly 25 percent of threatened and endangered species. In Idaho, 75 percent of Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat is in roadless areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has called roads probably the most imminent threat to grizzly habitat. Roads also fragment migration routes and push elk out of secure cover: in Wyoming, hunters in mostly roadless country harvest about one bull elk per 2.4 square miles, versus one per 25 square miles in heavily developed areas. THE COST OF ROADS The proposed rule anticipates permanent roads could be built across 18.2 million acres now protected. Yet the Forest Service already manages over 370,000 miles of roads with a maintenance backlog the agency puts at about $6.9 billion, and fewer than one in five roads is fully maintained. Neglected roads wash out, plug culverts, and send sediment into streams, and deferred repairs grow costly. Former Chief Mike Dombeck noted that reconstructing five miles of one road cost $1.4 million when $100,000 in earlier upkeep would have preserved it. The DEIS projects just $5 to $11 million a year in new timber revenue and admits this would not cover the cost of building and maintaining new roads. Adding roads the agency cannot maintain shifts the bill to taxpayers and downstream communities. WILDFIRE The rule already allows thinning and road access to reduce fire risk, and areas near roads have recorded nearly four times as many human-caused ignitions as roadless areas. I ask the Forest Service to keep the Roadless Rule in place and pursue any needed changes through targeted reform with full public input. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Marguerite Nico Allen, Texas

I am urging you to keep the roadless rule in place. Removing the roadless rule will not help address wildfires. The roadless rule already has provisions that allow for construction of roads as needed to address fires, floods, or other catastrophic events. It even has provisions for non-emergencies such as the need to connect communities. As such, rescinding the roadless rule would not help address wildfires and in fact would likely cause more wildfires. A report by the Pacific Biodiversity Institute found that over 90% of wildfires occurred within half a mile of a road. Furthermore, rescinding the roadless rule could cause habitat fragmentation for imperiled species. Per the US Forest Service, roadless areas provide habitat for more than 200 threatened and endangered species, including California condors, brown bears, and lynx. In Central Oregon (my home state), roadless areas provide vital habitat and migration corridors for herds of elk and mule deer. Those elk and deer provide recreation opportunities for hunters across the state of Oregon. Finally, the creation of new roads in current roadless areas could lead to a decrease in water quality in streams and rivers that provide habitat for native trout and salmon, and clean drinking water for cities and rural communities. The city of Bend, Oregon's water is sourced from roadless areas in Deschutes National Forest and would likely be negatively impacted by the pollution caused by any construction of roads in those currently roadless areas. For all of these reasons I urge you to keep the roadless rule in place.

I oppose the effort to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an avid hiker, mountain biker, and cross country skier. I am out on trails in the Deschutes National Forest often and I value the wilderness for so many reasons: We own a home in Bend, Oregon and understand the threat of wildfires. Data shows that roadless areas have fewer human-caused wildfire ignitions than areas with roads. The Forest Service struggles to maintain the current FS roads in the Deschutes NF - it's not for lack of trying but rather it seems that lack of funds and staff are the cause of diminished road conditions. Adding roads will only further strain the FS. Wildlife needs areas without roads for their safety and for habitat. Please maintain the current protections and take "No Action". Thank you - Sue Gordhammer

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Eight years on the Deschutes National Forest left marks on me that do not fade. I hiked it, camped in it, fought fire across it, canoed it, skied it, and spent years helping manage it. I know what the Roadless Rule means to that land, and I know what losing it would mean. That is why I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). The agency's own fire science should stop this proposal before it goes any further. The draft environmental impact statement contains the agency's finding that "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The Deschutes holds 11 inventoried roadless areas totaling 136,446 acres, home to bull trout, Oregon spotted frog, northern spotted owl, white-headed woodpecker, redband trout, and elk. Opening that landscape to new roads in the name of fuels management contradicts the agency's own ignition data. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the fire density data reported in DEIS Table 21. The economic case for rescission is equally hollow. The agency's own record shows that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency must reconcile that fact with its own cost-benefit analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how any action whose own numbers cannot demonstrate a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. My sister lives near Olympic National Forest and depends on the water, recreation, and resources that forest provides. She and the communities around her are precisely the people that figure disappears for in the ledger this proposal pretends is favorable. The Tongass National Forest alone exposes how far the agency is willing to go. It is the largest intact temperate rainforest left on Earth, holding 110 inventoried roadless areas totaling 9,339,575 acres, with over 12,930 miles of salmon-producing streams and roughly 44 percent of all the carbon stored by United States national forests. Under both action alternatives the Tongass keeps zero acres of roadless protection, a result the agency acknowledges is driven directly by Executive Order 14153. Nine municipal watersheds are named in DEIS Table 2. I will not accept the framing that opening this ecosystem to oil companies represents sound stewardship, and the agency must explain how that outcome serves the public interest it is charged to protect. This is not the first time the agency has tried to dismantle the national rule by substituting state-by-state approaches. The record reflects that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." That attempt failed, and courts found it wanting. Utah alone holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres, including the High Uintas country I have hiked, camped, photographed, and explored. Across the Intermountain region, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The State of Utah should not be permitted to destroy this wilderness, and a patchwork of state-level substitutes offers no assurance it will not. The agency must address how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the national rule was last dismantled this way. Finally, the agency cannot credibly claim the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The court upheld the agency's authority under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and found no de facto wilderness designation. The agency must explain, squarely and specifically, the legal basis for any position to the contrary. Don't let this happen! Sincerely, A couple from: Oregon, Utah, Colorado

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Forty years is a long time to depend on a place for your sanity and well-being, but that is exactly what the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness and the broader roadless country of Mt. Hood National Forest have been for me. Hiking, camping, exploring, just being in the wilderness: these are not recreational luxuries but something closer to a requirement. The sense of expansiveness and possibilities that roadless land offers, something that simply does not happen in human-built environments, is what I go looking for with a camera and with my own two feet. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I ask the agency to treat this comment as a statement of reliance on that rule across every one of the inventoried roadless areas I name here, including the 17,570 acres of Salmon-Huckleberry, the 13,061 acres of Mt. Hood Additions, the 16,841 acres of Eagle, and the 136,446 acres in Deschutes National Forest's 11 inventoried roadless areas, among others in Mt. Hood and Gifford Pinchot that I have come to know across more than four decades. I have used Bend's drinking water for more than 25 years. The City of Bend confirms that Bridge Creek, running through old-growth forest on the Deschutes, supplies roughly 60 percent of that municipal supply. Oregon holds 1,937,741 acres across 211 inventoried roadless areas, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Opening roadless lands to new road construction puts that water at risk. The Deschutes also holds one of only two national strongholds for federally threatened bull trout, and Big Marsh supports possibly the largest monitored population of federally threatened Oregon spotted frog anywhere in its range. These are not abstract values. They are part of a landscape I have returned to for more than 30 years precisely because it remains intact. I ask the agency to explain, with specificity, how rescinding the rule protects the watershed conditions and species populations its own records document in these forests. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a justification for rescission. The agency's own record states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." That finding belongs to the agency, not to its opponents. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economics underlying this proposal do not hold up either. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against that, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. No, that math does not work. That is just crazy. The agency must reconcile this proposal with an economic analysis that cannot establish a net benefit, and it must explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog serves the public interest when the agency's own road budget runs about $73 million a year. This comment is itself a reliance interest. More than four decades of returning to these landscapes, of depending on them for sanity-saving solitude and deep rejuvenation, constitutes exactly the kind of settled expectation the agency invited comment on and then declined to weigh. The agency must identify and assess those interests in its final analysis. Sincerely, Anonymous Bend OR