Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Forester, wildlife ecologist, writer, and conservationist Aldo Leopold belonged to the first generation of American foresters and helped build the U.S. Forest Service into the effective agency it became. In 1924 he worked to establish the world's first wilderness area on the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. He ALWAYS worked to reconcile our need for sustainably managed forests with our need for protected wild landscapes. The roadless rule is the living legacy of Aldo Leopold and those who worked beside him to safeguard all the values of our national forest lands. In 1937, Leopold wrote: To build a road is so much simpler than to think of what the country really needs." Our country needs much more than the illusory "benefits" that would come from curtailing the roadless rule. It badly needs renewed respect for land as "a community to which we belong"--and respect for one another and for future generations who will value wildlands even more than we do. Leopold also wrote, in 1928: "The wilderness idea is a small but significant outgrowth of the idea of National Forests. Its importance is that of a test case. The decision, in my opinion, will indicate whether the U.S. Forest Service is tending to become a federal bureau which executes the laws, or a national enterprise which makes history." Do the right thing. Keep the roadless rule intact. And keep the respect of your fellow citizens. Sincerely, Curt Meine Sauk City, WI 53583-9694 curtmeine@gmail.com

Wilderness areas, including the roadless areas, mean a lot to me. As someone who regularly recreates in these spaces, like in Gila National Forest, the Cloud Peak Wilderness, or in the many national forests, these areas are essential parts of the US. For the people who recreate and the flora and fauna as well. I urge you to continue to conserve the roadless areas. T

I strongly oppose USDA rescinding, repealing or removing, of modifying the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I’ve backpacked in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico several times. It’s life changing and life affirming. It is the most incredibly beautiful, naturally magical places I’ve ever had the pleasure to enjoy. One time my boyfriend and I backpacked for 5 nights and 6 days, and we never saw nor heard another person, vehicle or anything else manmade. Instead we saw skies so lit up with stars we almost didn’t need headlamps to cook. We were woken up at night by a large herd of elk thundering past. We followed a trail that crossed the Gila River over 50 times. We spent hours at a pond and stream watching ducks, beavers, a bear and tons of other animals using the water. I’d say I enjoyed the quiet solitude but nature is actually quite loud when it’s not drowned out by humans and our trucks, cars, heavy machinery, utility infrastructure constantly buzzing. Repealing, rescinding or removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would end the nationwide prohibition on new road construction and timber harvesting and other human activities across approximately 730,000 acres of the Gila National Forest. That’s a quarter of the Gila directly and much more in the vicinity. It would destroy the Gila and millions of acres National Forest System lands. The 2001 Roadless Rule is essential to retain the promise and the integrity of the National Forest System. The 2001 Roadless Rule i not redundant. It is not regulatory overreach. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the associated land management planning processes and plans are not appropriate and effective mechanisms. Policies, processes and plans are not Regulations. They are not Rules. The National Forest System requires the 2001 Roadless Rule to maintain and sustain the Gila and other National Forests I know and love, and the dozens of National Forests don’t know yet. I dream of the Gila and hope I have the privilege to trek through its quiet loud nature again.

WILDFIRES ARE 5 TIMES MORE LIKELY IN AREAS WITH ROADS THAN IN ROADLESS AREAS. KEEP THE ROADLESS RULE IN PLACE! We live in Silver City, close to the Gila National Forest and the wilderness area. We are trying hard to diversify our economy from cattle and mining. Tourism is a big part of that. People will not come here if our forests are given over to extractive industries. Rescinding the roadless rule will harm our local economy while enriching corporations that care nothing for local conditions. PLEASE! LEAVE THE ROADLESS RULE ALONE!

I would like to express my disagreement and disappointment with the U.S. Forest Service proposed rule to rescind in its entirety the National 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My family and I are avid nature lovers. We would rather be outside than inside. We prefer to experience the wonders of our nation's outdoors in their natural surroundings. We walk, hike, backpack and camp using Leave No Trace ethics. We admire the changes in nature during the 4 seasons: the new life of Spring, the active growth of Summer, the preparations of Fall, the resting time of Winter. I remember seeing more than 2 dozen varieties of wildflowers blooming during the last week of March on a Spring Break camping trip in Hoosier National Forest, IN. During a Summer backpacking trip in Superior National Forest, MN, I watched the emergence of a dragonfly crawling out from its final stage and making its way to a rock, where it rested and dried itself in the sunshine, gaining strength to fly away. Having grown up in the Chicago Metro area, my first trip to Shawnee National Forest in downstate IL was a wonderful awakening to the fact that Illinois is not made up of just farmland and cities...Downstate IL is Forest! My family has traveled throughout all 50 United States. From White Mountain National Forest, NH, across to Sequoia National Forest, CA, up to Chugach National Forest, AK, over to the Forest Reserves of Hawaii, and many forests in between, our National Forests provide us with un-surpassing beauty, solitude, diversity, and peace. The busy National Parks are crowded with tourists visiting the wonders of our country. Many National Forests border these Parks, providing undisturbed habitat and access to the land. Our children, grandchildren, and future generations deserve the opportunity to seek out the amazing wonders of our unique natural spaces in solitude and peace. My husband and I recently spent time camping and hiking in our nation's first National Forest, Gila NF, NM. The strip mining area outside Silver City, NM, is an ugly example of what happens when the forest and land are destroyed. Opening up NF land to the possibility of new roads being built and private business taking over is not in our nation's best interest. We have an unknown number of species that have not yet been discovered and cataloged. Their survival depends on unique characteristics and habitats found only in the small amount of pristine, untouched, old growth forests we have left. When their habitats are destroyed, species we have never observed will be gone from Earth forever. We can't get them back. Please do not rescind the National 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Thank you

I strongly oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would directly degrade one of the most fundamental and unique expressions of American freedom: our privilege to explore some of the few remaining wild areas in our country. I am an avid climber, trail runner, and backpacker on public lands throughout the US. Although I live in Colorado, which is fortunate enough to have state protections, I recreate around Millcreek Canyon and the Wasatch Range in Utah, the Bridger-Teton National forest is an extremely special place for me and my family, I've hiked extensively throughout the North and Central Cascades in Washington, and just this spring I spent a week camping and climbing throughout the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. Sometimes freedom comes through restraint. Areas without modern development allow for a unique, key human experience. Preserving the wild backcountry for today's Americans and future generations is critical for our spirit and well-being. An area without modern development allows us to be free. It is the truest expression of liberty. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would needlessly impinge upon this freedom that has been preserved for so many Americans. The science does not show that more roads would lessen wildfire danger. In fact, studies suggest that roads directly increase the threat. And land managers already face a massive, costly backlog (over $6 billion) in maintaining the roads they already have. In the meantime, it would put additional negative pressure on wildlife already facing threats from climate change and development, threaten water quality for animals and humans alike, and more. The fact that the US still has these wild, untouched areas is extremely unique. Most countries do not. We are so lucky, and it's truly part of what makes America great. It just takes restraint to keep it that way. So for these reasons, I oppose fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule. I support the No Action Alternative.

I live in the Gila National Forest. This Forest generates thousands if not millions of dollars a tourist income. Continental divide trail goes through this forest many other Forest generate first income, by hikers, hunters, fishing, camping, etc. and thisincome would be lost it throws go through these national Forest. These are treasures that we need to hand down to our grandchildren and their children. They should not be used for profit. These national treasures were created to preserve these treasures.

I live one mile away from the Gila National Forest in southwest New Mexico. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the following reasons. New Mexico has the fourth highest native plant diversity in the country, due in part to the fact that we have 1.6 million acres of roadless areas. Because unroaded areas are difficult to access, they very often are free of invasive plant species. This is because roads are the main vector for invasive plants, which come in on tire treads and boot soles. Roads facilitate the establishment of invasive plants by creating soil disturbance, the perfect opening for weeds. The farther an area is from a road, the fewer invasive plants there are, and the more effective the area is as a refuge for rare plants. Why are nonnative plants so harmful? Because invasive plants lack the predators and diseases that kept them in check where they originated, they often can outcompete native plants. Invasive plants do not provide the food that wildlife need for survival. Native flora and fauna have coevolved over millennia, creating healthy, functioning ecosystems. This delicate balance is disturbed when nonnative species invade. While the Gila National Forest has no plants that are federally listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, it does have 21 plant Species of Conservation Concern. These rare plants will become much more vulnerable if roads are built into plant habitats that are currently roadless. The Gila National Forest has 10 areas that have been designated by the state of New Mexico as Important Plant Areas where rare plants are known to occur. Some of these areas are currently roadless. That prime plant habitat will be seriously degraded if roads are built into it. Roads facilitate logging, which cuts down the biggest, oldest trees, the very ones that are most resilient to wildfire. Logging does much more than just remove trees. It also destroys understory vegetation that wildlife need for food, cover, and nesting sites. Older, larger trees absorb and store more carbon than younger, smaller trees, which is an important consideration as we try to minimize the impacts of climate change. Non-native species invasions are a consequence of building roads needed for logging. It takes hundreds of years to replace old growth trees and for ecosystems to recover after clearcutting. In addition to the deleterious impacts of road building and logging in our forests, roaded areas fundamentally change the character of recreation. People from all over the world visit the Gila National Forest as a way to recharge their spirits from the stresses of urban living and modernity. Noise and lack of solitude inevitably follow road-building. Countless scientific studies corroborate the deadly effects of noise on human and animal health. We already have too much noise in the world. Most wildfires are ignited by people. More roads = more people = more wildfires. On the occasions that wildfires start in a roadless area, the Roadless Rule already has provisions for emergency access into roadless areas to fight fires. Duping the uninformed public into believing that roads are needed to fight fires is a travesty and a lie. Who will benefit from building roads into areas that are currently roadless? It's a sure bet that it will be wealthy and well-connected individuals and corporations. The average person will lose access to the only areas we can visit to experience peace, solitude, and quiet, and to observe wildlife. Rich people already have beautiful places in nature that they own or can pay huge sums to visit. The overwhelming majority of Americans cannot afford large tracts of land. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic. DO NOT RESCIND THE ROADLESS RULE. ONCE AN AREA IS RUINED BY ROAD-BUILDING, LOGGING, MINING, AND OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION, IT'S RUINED FOREVER.

I strongly oppose rolling back the Roadless Rule. For the past 25+ years I have lived within a couple miles of the Gila Wilderness. My hikes and backpacking trips in the wilderness and the broader Gila National Forest are precious to me, as is what I might call a sacred sense of that untrammeled wild space. I have also been repeatedly impacted by enormous wildfires in the national forest. In 2025, I measured only 8 inches of rain for the entire calendar year. There’s no getting around the fact that with climate change the risk of extreme drought only increases, and with that, wildfire. Roads dramatically increase that risk. Vehicles spark fires, and careless drivers toss cigarettes and take other high-risk behaviors deeper into the tinder-dry forest. We are in a time when greater caution, not less, is needed. Roadless areas must be kept roadless.

I completely and without exception oppose the proposal to rescind any part of the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have lived for the past decade near the Gila National Forest in southern New Mexico, and work as a pharmacist in a local critical access hospital. The economic benefit conferred by the existing Roadless Rule--Its protection of rare Sky Islands wildlife, the magnificent forests and pristine waterways of the Black Range, the cultural heritage of numerous Mogollon and Mimbres archaeological sites--is what sustains every community in my region of the Southwest. Ecological tourism is our lifeblood, and rescinding the Roadless Rule will gut so many areas of the West of our communities' most valuable asset. Will my critical access hospital remain open when those who have only remained here for our unmatched natural beauty choose to move away? Will new families move to our area when fire risk in the Gila is increased because we've opened the forests to a greater volume of vehicular traffic? Will a logged forest continue to draw birders and international tourists in droves, and will the businesses sustained by them close? Each of these questions represents a tangible, palpable fear in our community, and, as a seasoned healthcare professional with a doctorate in my field, it is impossible for me to not consider the social, health, and community implications of losing our forests' protections. If we rescind the Roadless Rule, we are inexorably destroying not just the recreational opportunity that intact, pristine wilderness allows, the camping, the fishing, the hiking, and the hunting, but the ability, in an increasingly expensive and stressful world, for families to bond at no cost in nature, for individuals to maintain mental and physical health walking and exploring, and for our increasingly pressured wildlife to take refuge from continued encroachment into their habitats. I, and so many of my healthcare colleagues, spend nearly every free day we have exploring our local National Forest land, and we ourselves will be completely gutted if the Roadless Rule is overturned, if our rare wildlife continues to vanish, if fire risk here increases, if our waterways are further degraded, if our forests are logged, and if our community's tourist numbers plummet. The West is already so strained, and rescinding the Roadless Rule will only hasten its ecological and economic downfall. Rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be a tragic misstep for our nation, and it is absolutely imperative we choose Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

Re: Docket FS-2025-0001, Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Forest Service to adopt the No Action alternative and keep the rule in full. I am a painter of the plants, birds, and animals of America's wild public lands, and I work from direct observation in the places themselves. I have attached examples of that work. On the Little Cherry Creek Trail in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico, I found a painted redstart, a small jewel of a warbler and one of many birds I saw for the first time in that forest. In Montana's Custer Gallatin National Forest, my husband caught a native Yellowstone cutthroat trout in a backcountry stream, and I painted it. I have also painted fish he caught on a daylong horseback trip into the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Native trout like these survive only where headwater streams stay cold, clear, and connected. New roads and logging send sediment into exactly those streams. Wilderness areas like the Bob Marshall also depend on the roadless lands around them, which serve as buffers and corridors that wildlife and clean water cross freely. In 1993, while my husband fished, I painted a backcountry stream in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. We hiked in to reach it, as we did to many places there. The Tongass has had its roadless protections removed and restored before, and the public spoke clearly then in favor of keeping them. On Mt. Blue Sky in Colorado, I drew a bristlecone pine more than 1,500 years old, which I call "Old Man of the Mountain." I have also stood before a 3,000-year-old bristlecone in Great Basin National Park and touched it. That tree has lived through the rise and fall of civilizations, through humanity's greatest achievements and greatest sorrows. It survives because the land around it has been protected. Standing in the presence of something that ancient is awe-inspiring, but it is also a heavy responsibility. These trees, fish, and birds will outlast every one of us only if we decide to let them. The Roadless Rule is that decision, already made, and it has worked for twenty-five years. The proposal argues that rescission will give local managers flexibility and improve forest health and wildfire response. The existing rule already allows fuel reduction and other necessary work, especially near communities. New roads into remote backcountry add human-caused fire ignitions, fragment habitat, and degrade the streams that supply clean drinking water and cold-water fisheries. Roads also cost money to build and maintain, and the Forest Service already has a large backlog of road maintenance it cannot afford. I ask that the final EIS explain how adding roads to remote areas reduces wildfire risk better than focusing fuel work near homes and towns. The draft EIS must also fully account for the permanent nature of these losses. A road can be built in a season and an old forest cut in a day, but what they destroy took centuries or millennia to grow. No later policy can restore it on any timescale that matters to us or to our grandchildren. These lands belong to all Americans, including the hunters, anglers, hikers, and artists who go to them to escape the noise of everyday life. I am one citizen, but these lands are mine as much as anyone's. Keep the Roadless Rule. Attachments: Field journal, May 5–7, 2023, including painted redstart and red-faced warbler, Little Cherry Creek Trail, Gila National Forest, NM Native Yellowstone cutthroat trout, Custer Gallatin National Forest, MT "Old Man of the Mountain," bristlecone pine, 1,500+ years, Mt. Blue Sky, CO Watercolor study, backcountry stream, Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska (likely Wrangell Island), 1993 Kelly Leahy Radding Connecticut

I write to urge that the U. S. Forest Service preserve the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. It is vital that wildlife have habitat undisturbed by human activity, and that this habitat have corridors allowing wildlife to move freely throughout the National Forests. It is very important that areas of mature forest exist, and that diverse vegetation exist. In the Gila National Forest, it is noted that miles of hiking trails, and forest roads currently exist. Concerned that further incursions of human activity would be disruptive to birdlife in particular. Also important to ensure that the Gila River headwaters not be polluted.

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I am writing to express my concern about losing roadless forest and wildlands. These beautiful places exist because they are roadless. We lose national treasures in losing these protections. I grew up with the opportunities to hunt and fish in the Gila NF. I worked for a time in wildland fire in the Gila NF, Wallowa-Whitman NF, Salmon-Challis NF and wildernesses. As a result my life style and values came to revere these majestic places. I went hiking, fishing, bowhunting, and visiting these places; just being there is a gift we owe anyone who ever wants to visit breathtaking places. I look forward to many years of hiking, horseback riding, and appreciating these inspiring places. We have no more precious places than these protected lands. Please steward them with the care and courage, honoring those who have sacrificed much, some all, to keep and protect these irreplaceable wild places. Respectfully submitted, Lynae CommentID: RLC-20261004-52Y038

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule, which prevents new road construction on more than 43 million acres of public lands. This rule was established in 2001, following 600 public meetings and 1.6 million public comments! The people have already spoken loudly and clearly that they want to keep this rule. It is deeply troubling that the current administration is attempting to undo this long standing protection without meaningful public input. In the Gila National Forest (GNF) alone, approximately 730,000 acres of roadless areas safeguard habitat for more than 2,000 known plant and animal species, including over a dozen listed under the Endangered Species Act and nearly 60 additional species of conservation concern. These lands are a national treasure, forming a vital buffer around the Gila Wilderness — our country’s first designated wilderness — and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness. Opening these areas to logging and mineral extraction would negatively impact us and irreversibly damage ecosystems that have been protected for generations. The administration cites fears about wildfire as justification for rescinding the Rule, but that flies in the face of what the Rule allows and what science has clearly demonstrated. The Roadless Rule allows for fuel reduction, thinning, wildfire suppression and restoration activities. Scientific research has found that about 85% of fires are human-caused and most wildfires start near roads, not in roadless areas! More roads, very likely mean more fires. The GNF will be the hardest hit in my state, with 733,000 acres of roadless forests open for extraction industries. Much of our roadless forests surround our country’s first wilderness (Gila Wildnernes) and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness. These roadless areas help protect endangered species and species of conservation concern. They are part of our natural heritage and should not be open for exploitation. Roadless forests also safeguard clean drinking water and support healthy rural economies built on outdoor recreation, hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping. These benefits are long standing and irreplaceable. They are part of our natural heritage and should not be sacrificed for short term industrial gain. The public deserves to be consulted before any attempt is made to dismantle protections that Americans overwhelmingly support. To conclude: We value our roadless areas, and expect the U.S. Forest Service to uphold the protections that Americans overwhelmingly support. I strongly urge you not to rescind the Roadless Rule and not to ignore the voices of the people who depend on and cherish our natural heritage. Sincerely, Robert Robbins

I am writing to voice strong opposition to rescinding the Roadless Rule. Having lived for years at the doorstep of the Gila National Forest (GNF) in New Mexico (NM), I have hiked and camped throughout the GNF, as well as roadless forests throughout the west. As a rural American, I join the majority of Americans, in staunch opposition. In New Mexico, 1.6 million acres of inventoried roadless areas safeguard wildlife habitat, mature and old-growth forests (if logged, many forests will not regrow due to decreased precipitation and hotter temperatures), river headwaters supplying drinking water to southwest NM and tribal cultural resources. Outdoor recreation is major economic driver for our rural communities. Logging and mineral extraction in these areas will negatively impact us. Many trails in these areas provide access to our wilderness areas. Equally important, roadless areas provide hunting and fishing opportunities, drawing locals and people from around the country. Ignoring the will of the people, as evidenced by a lack of transparency and public engagement, shows a flagrant disregard for us and our natural heritage. The administration cites fears about wildfire as justification for rescinding the Rule but that flies in the face of what the Rule allows and what science shows. The Roadless Rule allows for fuel reduction, thinning, wildfire suppression and restoration activities. Scientific research has found that about 85% of fires are human-caused and most wildfires start near roads, not in roadless areas. More roads, very likely more fires. The GNF will be the hardest hit in my state, with 733,000 acres of roadless forests open for extraction industries. Much of our roadless forests surround our country’s first wilderness (Gila Wilderness) and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness.These roadless areas help protect endangered species and species of conservation concern.They are part of our natural heritage and should not be open for exploitation. Clean drinking water, healthy rural economies driven by outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking and camping are provided by our roadless forests. We, the people, should be consulted. We value our roadless areas. Please do not ignore us and destroy what our country has long chosen to protect.Do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kim McCreery

I oppose the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Forest Service should strengthen the Roadless Rule, not eliminate it. The current rule provides essential protections but still permits damaging activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas. Rescission would remove national protections from approximately 45 million acres of National Forest lands, including about 730,000 acres in the Gila National Forest, exposing intact wildlife habitat and watersheds to additional logging, grazing-related roads, mining, and fragmentation. Research examining 1,500 fires shows that protected (unroaded) forests burn at lower intensity and have lower rates of fire spread when controlled for weather conditions. Roads can increase human-caused fire ignitions and spread invasive plants. The Forest Service should close loopholes that permit logging and the construction of so-called “temporary roads” in roadless areas. Temporary roads can cause lasting harm to wildlife habitat, soils, and watersheds. The 2001 Roadless Rule does not address livestock-grazing impacts, and grazing has continued uninterrupted in Inventoried Roadless Areas. A mapping analysis estimates that between 10 million and 15 million acres of these lands are actively grazed by domestic livestock each year. Livestock can damage streams and springs, remove riparian vegetation, compact soils, spread invasive plants, and displace native wildlife. New road construction would enable harmful livestock grazing to expand. The Forest Service should prioritize voluntary grazing-permit retirement within roadless areas and close vacant allotments and allotments where grazing conflicts with roadless-area values. The existing rule does not prohibit hardrock mining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872, and mineral leasing can continue. USDA should ask the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw Inventoried Roadless Areas from mineral entry under section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, subject to valid existing rights. The Forest Service should also prohibit new mineral leasing within these lands.More than 9,000 miles of mapped motorized trails cross roadless areas.. Motorized use can compact soils, spread invasive species, disturb wildlife, fragment secure habitat, and increase human-caused wildfire risk. Inventoried Roadless Areas should be nonmotorized by default, with narrow exceptions for valid existing rights, necessary administrative access, and emergencies. The Forest Service should withdraw the proposed rescission and adopt a stronger national rule that protects roadless lands from commercial logging, unnecessary roads, damaging grazing, new mineral development, and harmful motorized use. Thank you Debra Butler 48 Bar 6 Dr Silver City NM 88061-9216

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz, As Members of Congress representing a broad range of communities, stakeholders, and outdoor interests, we write in strong support of the U.S. Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”) and in firm opposition to the Department of Agriculture’s proposal for rescission. We urge the Department to halt this effort and instead focus on effective implementation of this longstanding and successful policy. As a denizen of the state of California, having recently moved to Oregon, I have witnessed the ineffable breadth of different ecosystems and wilderness at large, and the quintessential necessity of protecting these precious areas. The most formative aspects of my life stem from existing in outdoor wilderness via hiking, fishing, climbing, and more. Reveling in the presence of not only the physical environment itself, but also the extensive biodiversity teeming within the lands has been instrumental in molding myself and my valuable relations with others. Beyond a mere recreational context, there is an inextricable link with these ecosystems, as they instill the fruits necessary to center and better oneself, their connection to the world, and their connections with others, as my closest friends and family are linked by this great unifier. Due to this lifelong connection to preserving and living in tandem with wilderness, I am stupefied by the proposal to repeal the Roadless Rule. Since its adoption in 2001, the Roadless Rule has served as a cornerstone of public lands conservation, now protecting approximately 44 million acres of National Forest System lands across 37 states. These areas provide clean drinking water, critical wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and world-class recreation opportunities. Iconic landscapes such as the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the Gila National Forest in New Mexico, and the George Washington National Forest in Virginia exemplify the ecological, cultural, and economic importance of these lands. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the most robust public processes in federal rulemaking history. The Forest Service received 1.6 million public comments - approximately 95 percent in support - and held over 600 public meetings nationwide. In contrast, the current rescission effort has lacked meaningful public engagement. The Department provided just 21 days for public comment on the Notice of Intent in 2025 and has yet to hold any public meetings. Despite these limitations, more than 600,000 comments were submitted, with over 99 percent opposing rescission. This overwhelming and bipartisan public support underscores the continued popularity and importance of the Roadless Rule. Unsurprisingly, at just 30 days, the ongoing comment period for the DEIS and proposed rule is equally insufficient, and we encourage the USFS to extend the comment period to 120 days for a fair and transparent process. Looking past the objective value of the Roadless Rule, and my individual anecdotal experiences, the prospect of repealing this protection would be immensely counterproductive and disrespectful to indigenous communities nationwide. When the Roadless Rule was initially posited, there were 600 congregational meetings held in the intention to include tribes, local government, industry, conversation organizers, and more, however, the proposal to repeal the rule should extend the same formality in order to truly gauge the communal perspective of the proposal. By refusing to actively seek out the perspectives of indigenous communities, we broach their way of life through severe consequences/repercussions as a result of this proposal. This failure to engage with public voices to determine what is best for local communities and indigenous populaces further bolsters the inefficiency and lack of foresight in this proposal to repeal the Roadless Act. The enduring support for the Roadless Rule is rooted in its clear and measurable benefits. Over the past 25 years, the rule has helped protect watersheds, biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity by limiting road construction and large-scale logging in undeveloped areas. Forest Service data show that watersheds within roadless areas are far more likely to be in “properly functioning” condition compared to those outside of them, which are more often classified as “at risk” or “impaired.” After 25 years of successful implementation, the conclusion is clear: the Roadless Rule is effective, widely supported, and essential to responsible forest management. Rescinding it would undermine decades of progress and impose unnecessary environmental and fiscal costs. I respectfully urge the Department to end its unjustified rescission of the Roadless Rule. Regards, Vikram Subramaniam Student at the University of Oregon

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a New Mexico landowner and an avid outdoor enthusiast, I am deeply invested in the long-term health, safety, and productivity of our landscape. The proposal to strip protections from 1.6 million acres of pristine national forest lands in New Mexico poses direct risks to my property, our community water supplies, and our heritage. Please consider the following critical, region-specific points: • Downstream Watershed Impact: In New Mexico, water is life. Our roadless national forests act as the primary headwaters for critical rivers like the Gila, Rio Grande, and Pecos, which sustain our municipal drinking water, agricultural irrigation, and traditional acequias. For example, the roadless forests surrounding the Pecos Wilderness alone protect watersheds that provide 40% of the city of Santa Fe’s drinking water. Building new industrial roads will inevitably cause severe erosion, compromising the clean water that down-stream private landowners and municipalities depend on. • Increased Wildfire Risks Near Private Land: As a landowner, I am highly concerned about the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The Forest Service's claim that a total repeal will aid in fire management is heavily contradicted by federal wildfire statistics. Data shows that 88% of wildfires start near roads due to human activity and increased vehicle accessibility. Extending road networks deeper into wild public lands adjacent to private properties expands the primary ignition zones for human-caused blazes. Furthermore, the existing 2001 rule already grants local managers the authority to execute public safety tasks and hazardous fuels reduction treatments when necessary. • Preserving New Mexico’s Outdoor Economy: Our state’s roadless areas provide some of the finest hunting, backcountry hiking, fishing, and dispersed recreation opportunities in the country. Stripping protections from over 700,000 acres in the Gila National Forest alone would irreversibly fragment critical big game migration corridors and backcountry sporting havens. Our outdoor recreation economy is a vital economic driver supporting jobs statewide; industrializing these areas damages the pristine backcountry experiences that attract and sustain this growth. The national 2001 Roadless Rule has successfully protected our wild spaces for a quarter of a century. I urge the agency to look at the unique, water-scarce realities of the American Southwest and withdraw this proposed full rescission. Sincerely, Patricia Murphy Albuquerque/ Pecos, New Mexico

The integrity of Gila NF is vital to the survival of animals and human living in and near it. The habitat and water need our protection. The Roadless Rule must not be compromised. Thank you

Preserve the Roadless Rule I am writing to advocate for preservation of the Roadless Rule for our National Forest lands. In the Gila National Forest alone, there are 3,337 miles of designated roads, not including county, state and U.S. roads and highways. In contrast, there are 1,600 miles of designated hiking trails. This alone makes it hard to argue the need for yet more roads. The ecological impact of roads greatly exceeds that of trails. The disturbance caused by construction, maintenance, and use of roads facilitates expansion of harmful exotic plants and animals while at the same time reducing habitat for conservative native plants and sensitive animals. Watersheds are degraded by roads and fish habitat suffers due to sedimentation and interrupted water flow. According to a Forest Service report, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, “In general, greater short- and long-term watershed and ecological risks are associated with building roads into unroaded areas than with upgrading, maintaining, closing, or obliterating existing roads.” Considering the proposed weakening of the Endangered Species Act to exclude habitat of listed species, further reducing habitat by constructing roads in currently roadless areas will increase stressors and impact the viability of endangered and threatened species in our national forests. As of a 2003 report (Loucks, C., N. Brown, A. Loucks, and K. Cesareo. 2003. USDA Forest Service roadless areas: potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology 7(2): 5. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5/) 77% of inventoried roadless areas in the U.S. have the potential to provide critical habitat for threatened, endangered and imperiled species. Habitat loss is the leading cause of species endangerment and it is not a linear process (Hanski I. Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio. 2011 May;40(3):248-55. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3). Having lost so much already, we are on the brink of a biodiversity crisis. There is no compelling reason to repeal the Roadless Rule, given the profusion of forest roads that currently exist. In contrast, the very existence of many imperiled species depends on preservation of existing roadless areas.