Read the comments.

I am writing in favor of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (the "Roadless Rule") because it protects wildlife habitat, watersheds, as well as recreational areas and outdoor economies. Within the 45 million acres of forest under the U.S. Forest Service’s jurisdiction, the Roadless Rule covers some of the country's most important natural resources. The benefits are myriad - Native cultures depend on it, it helps safeguard drinking water for 25 million people, it prohibits roads that are proven to yield more wildfires, and more. If the Roadless Rule is rescinded, it would strip 9 million acres of southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the largest national forest at 17 million acres, in the United States, of its protections. These wonders drew more than 3 million visitors from around the nation and the world to Alaska from May 2024 through April 2025 — a record. My family was one of them. We chartered a private charter and it was unbelievably memorable. In fact, we were among many as in 2023, tourism became the largest economic sector in Southeast Alaska. For a place already facing various threats, it pains us to think that federal protections would be stripped. In addition to helping to protect the climate with the massive amount of carbon sequestered in its trees (20% of all carbon in the entire national forest system!), much of the Tongass is still largely intact, protecting wild salmon and all the animals that feast on them. I recently learned that our summer home located near a national forest - Hiawatha National Forest - benefits from the Roadless Rule. Many of our family and friends recreate and cherish this outdoor area. This is a public law that affects every U.S. citizen and so I feel compelled to speak out. Given other opportunities for public opinion, it is overwhelmingly clear that the public is in favor of it and its protections. Nor should U.S. taxpayers heavily subsidize industrial scale clear-cut logging in these precious spaces, as it does not and has never made economic sense.

Continued: 4. Fire is a part of the ecosystem. To the extent that the rationale is reducing fire, the rationale is wrong, as other commenters have pointed out and as the rationale points out, that more roads lead to more fire activity. But also the entire proposal is misplaced — because the most effective way to address fires of increasing intensity is to address climate change. That is the real national priority that needs to be addressed that the government is completely failing to address. Roads in forests are not a recognized wild-land fire management policy, as other commenters have pointed out. *** Put simply, the repeal of the Roadless Rule is a step backwards in public lands management. It effectively takes public lands out of the hands of the people they are set aside for — the American public — and hands them to special interests who are willing to pay for them. This is not the mandate that the USFS has been given by Congress. The mandate is the manage these lands for multiple uses. Creating new roads in forests prioritizes only one use, timber harvesting, over all others. *** My experience in this comment is drawn from recreating at the following USFS properties: Little Missouri National Grassland; Buffalo Gap National Grassland; BigHorn National Forest; Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest; Hiawatha National Forest; Ottawa National Forest; Huron-Manistee National Forest; Superior National Forest; Chippewa National Forest; Shoshone National Forest; Custer-Gallatin National Forest; Flathead National Forest; Bridger-Teton National Forest; Caribou-Targhee National Forest; Gifford Pinchot National Forest; Olympic National Forest; Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest; Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest; Colville National Forest; Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest; Arapaho National Forest; White River National Forest; Black Hills National Forest; Thunder Basin National Grassland; Unit-Wasatch-Cache National Forest; Sierra National Forest; Stanislaus National Forest; Lincoln National Forest; and Shawnee National Forest. My major takeaway from all these experiences is that these Forests already have more roads than most people could explore in a lifetime. There is quite simply no practical or logistical need, from a recreational perspective, for more under the rationales that the USFS has proposed in this rule change.

I strongly oppose the proposal to rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, commonly referred to as the 2001 Roadless Rule. Both my husband and I have spent many vacations in areas of the U.S. that are either adjacent to or within National Forest areas. As a child, I spent time in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, including the Hiawatha National Forest, as well as along the western side of the Lower Peninsula near the Huron Manistee National Forest. In the 1980’s we lived in Rhode Island, and spent winter vacations cross-country skiing in the back country near Jackson, New Hampshire in the White Mountain National Forest. After relocating to California, we have spent the last 40 years vacationing in or near many of the National Forests located in the state. We have hiked and skied the back country near Mammoth Mountain and Lake Tahoe. My husband has been trout fishing for the last 20 years in the lakes and streams around Bridgeport in the Eastern Sierra. The common thread that runs through all of these forests is areas that are protected by the Roadless Rule. The roadless areas that we access by hiking or skiing provide peace and quiet that help us decompress from our busy urban lives, and our tourism helps support those local economies so that we can continue to enjoy them. Even more important, roadless areas help protect watersheds from silt and runoff contamination, since roads are a significant source of sediment in forested watersheds. By preventing sedimentation of the watershed, the Roadless Rule protects both the natural areas themselves and the drinking water sources for many downstream residents. Since I have spent most of my adult life in California, I would like to point out just a few of the important ways the Roadless Rule greatly benefits me and my family. The Roadless Rule is what helps protect the water clarity of Lake Tahoe, a major recreation asset for my family as well as the State. The Roadless Rule supports wonderful fishing areas in the Stanislaus and Humboldt Toiyabe National Forests around Bridgeport, since it prevents the sedimentation that kills trout. The Roadless Rule protects thousands of acres of the Sierra National Forest that contribute to the “Sierra Snowpack” that provides clean water for millions in California. Repeal of the Roadless Rule would endanger these all of these benefits. Most importantly, the Roadless Rule helps, rather than hinders, wildfire resilience in the forest. The US Forest Service own analysis shows that repealing the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of wildfire due to the increased human activity(1). In California, about 86% of wildfires are caused by human activity, and the ignition risk if four times higher near roads (2,3). In contrast, the Forest Service has been successfully increasing wildfire resilience in roadless areas for many years without building new roads. The Wildfire Crisis Strategy selected 10 initial forests for additional funding for work already underway within the Social and Ecological Resilience Across the Landscape Project (SERAL). One of the of the forests selected was the Stanislaus National Forest. This allowed the Forest Service to work in partnership with state and private land owners to perform proactive treatments to reduce fire risk. These treatments included hazard tree removal, prescribed fires, fuel break construction, and hand thinning to remove smaller trees and brush. Thinning is very important, since it reduces the vegetation that fires can use to climb from the ground to the forest canopy. Rather than the removal of mature trees by industrial logging that would harm the watershed, removal of small trees and brush leaves the larger older trees better able to withstand drought, insects, and new fires. Examples like the current work in the Stanislaus National Forest show that the Roadless Rule does NOT block wildfire prevention. Instead, it is a national standard that ensures a strong baseline of protection for these areas. It strikes the right balance with cooperation between the Forest Service, private land owners, and the State encouraged through local land management plans. By preventing unnecessary new roads and logging, the Roadless Rule just provides guardrails that prevent short-sighted political or industry pressure from damaging irreplaceable resources. Please reject the broad repeal of the Roadless Rule. Preserve what has worked well for more than 20 years. 1.Draft Environmental Impact Statement – 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission Volume 1. Project #68605 Updated August 19, 2026 by Patrick C.Yamnik. 2. 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 3. Morrison, P.H. 2007. Roads and Wildfires. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 40p.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Hiawatha National Forest, where I hike, camp, canoe, photograph, sketch, and paint, holds some of what remains of God's creation in Michigan. Human beings cannot create complex, interdependent wilderness habitat. We are part of that creation. We need it intact for our very survival and the survival of God's creatures. The beauty of the wild places, including Round Island, Government Island, and the Fibre roadless area, is our legacy. The rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put that legacy at risk, and the agency's own record does not support the action it proposes. The wildfire rationale offered for rescission collapses under the weight of the agency's own prior findings. The 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." The Hiawatha's inventoried roadless areas, including the 7,432-acre Fibre unit, carry precisely the kind of habitat that this finding was meant to protect from ignition by access. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record concedes 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." Against that minimal extractive contribution, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million, a spread so wide it establishes nothing. Michigan alone holds 6 inventoried roadless areas totaling 16,124 acres, and 286 municipal water intakes across the Eastern region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency cannot show a net benefit, yet it proposes to expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I ask the agency to reconcile that arithmetic, on the record, before proceeding. The agency also misrepresents the rule as a blunt prohibition when it is nothing of the kind. The rule as written already states that it "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Emergency access, community wildfire protection, and existing mineral leases are not blocked by the rule. The agency has not identified which specific burdens remain unaddressed by those exceptions, and it has not quantified them. I ask the agency to do so before it treats administrative convenience as sufficient grounds to abandon protections covering places like Government Island and Round Island. Finally, the small-business certification accompanying this proposal cannot survive scrutiny. The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities while its own DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification was reached by spreading the estimated loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas, and the analysis itself concedes that some of those firms may lose these receipts entirely. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm.

As a firefighter, sportsman, and public lands owner in Nevada and Michigan, with respect I urge the rejection of this proposed roadless area rule. This rule would harm wildlife habitat and water quality in places my family and I use and care about like the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF, Coronado NF, Kaibab NF, Coconino NF, Inyo NF, Modoc NF, Umatilla NF, Huron-Manistee NF, Ottawa NF and Hiawatha NF and others. It will also likely increase risk of human-caused wildfires, most of which start near roads. This unwise, politically-motivated rule fails the broad public interest for conservation of US forests, watersheds and rural economies. Thank you, Daniel R Patterson, Indian River MI / Boulder City NV

Dear Secretary Rollins: In my experience as an outdoor enthusiast who has used roadless national forest as a recreational and restorative resource for many years, I have come to regard the 2001 Rule as one of the few administrative instruments capable of holding the line against the gradual conversion of interior forest to roaded and managed landscape. As an outdoor enthusiast hailing from a long family history of depending on ecosystem health for our livelihood, I care deeply about the preservation of the land, watersheds, and threatened and endangered species through the Roadless Rule. I am impacted by the proposed rescission because I spend much of my time camping and hiking on these lands, and many in my community and beyond depend on unpolluted watersheds and species protection made possible by the Roadless Rule. In early 2026, I was fortunate enough to camp in the Hiawatha National Forest, away from roads and development and among bald eagles, sandhill cranes, and cedar and aspen groves. Despite the bugs, the grandeur of the forest was arresting, its timelessness a symbol of American fortitude and our ecological history and beauty. For much of the wildlife in this region, though, the Hiawatha National Forest is the last frontier. Rescission of the Roadless Rule to allow for incursion and commercial development would fragment the few remaining wildlife corridors for the beavers, bobcats, cranes, etc., and put the entire ecosystem at risk. Regarding the Fibre in the Hiawatha National Forest, Michigan: Without Roadless Rule protections, the Fibre IRA in Hiawatha National Forest loses the safeguard that maintains its Great Lakes Alkaline Conifer-Hardwood Swamp (42.3%, ~3,141 acres) as functioning climate refugia. Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis, G2, E) faces 11 - Climate change & severe weather at Pervasive (71-100%) scope; rescission exposes this species to the full force of that threat by enabling degradation of its refugia habitat. "Stream animals can survive periods of stressfully warm temperatures provided there are adequate and well-connected thermal refuges. System-wide, the median spacing between cool patches suitable for Pacific salmon was 21.3 km (interquartile range: 5.7 to 49.4 km). Under warmer climate scenarios, previously long cool patches may be broken into a series of smaller patches, and closely spaced cool patches tended to occur farther upstream. These distances may exceed movement capabilities for stream biota other than salmon." — PMC / Aquatic Sciences, 2018 The documented 11 - Climate change & severe weather facing Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) demands intact refugia, not degraded habitat. Road construction in the Fibre IRA does not merely remove trees — it dismantles the microclimate moderation, hydrological stability, and habitat continuity that constitute the refugia function of Great Lakes Alkaline Conifer-Hardwood Swamp. Rescission of the Roadless Rule, despite what you argue, Secretary Rollins, would not bring 'health and productivity' to America's forests. American forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems protected by this rule are already under extreme duress from climate change and development. Putting further strain on these fragile ecosystems by opening up the millions of acres to road construction only exacerbates this issue. As any outdoor enthusiast like myself understands, human presence in a forest is a sacred responsibility, especially given that more than 80% of wild land blazes are caused by human activity. If the Roadless Rule were rescinded, a single stray cigarette butt or car engine left running on new roads could ignite these whole forests. The costs outweigh the benefits; undoing the Rule is unwise. Millions of peoples' livelihoods are at stake. Thank you, Jonathan Cartwright

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). The National Forests are special places, and the Hiawatha National Forest is an important part of my family’s life. We are avid users of the forest in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. We hike, mountain bike, snowshoe, cross-country ski, and hunt on these lands throughout the year. The two-track and single-track trails throughout the Hiawatha are heavily used by both local residents and visitors. These forests provide opportunities for recreation, wildlife habitat, and quiet outdoor experiences that are increasingly difficult to find elsewhere. I am particularly concerned that allowing additional major roadways and expanded development into roadless areas would change the character of these forests. New roads can fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife movement, increase access and disturbance, and fundamentally change the experience for people who use these areas for recreation and hunting. There is value in having places that remain relatively undeveloped and accessible without major roads. Once a road is constructed and a previously roadless area is substantially changed, that character cannot simply be restored. I ask the Forest Service to retain the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule and to keep Michigan’s Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests—and roadless areas across the country, available for future generations to experience in their current, largely undeveloped.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My name is Stephen Hoekwater and I live in Caledonia, Michigan. Public lands matter very much to me and I care deeply about the health of our lands and waters. I enjoy hiking, fishing, backpacking, and hunting and have done so in our National lands in Michigan and all throughout our county. Removing this beneficial regulation will harm our public lands. I have strong concerns that the current administration is moving ahead with energy and resource removal without consideration of the health of the land itself. For instance, if the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule were removed, timber harvesting would cause devastation to mature Forests that are a treasure we must protect. Those in leadership positions are not proving they are looking at the larger picture or the needs of future generations, but instead are seeking instant gains regardless of the harm it will cause. Areas I have particular concern for are those parts of National Forests in Michigan: Hiawatha National Forest, Huron-Manistee National Forest, and Ottawa National Forest. I urge you members of the U.S. Congress to oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule,” and support “Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Thank You, Stephen Hoekwater

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently I love to walk in the forests. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Alison Stankrauff 120 Seward Apartment 408 Detroit, Michigan 48202

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Andrew Heer, Highland MI

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Mark Johnson Wyoming, MI 49519

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States.

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. [Add a sentence here about why these forests matter to you personally, such as a trail you ride, a place you hike, or even a place you fish or hunt.] I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Thomas Hertz Flint, MI

I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan’s national forests contain approximately 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including the Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling approximately 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to the Bear Swamp (3,915 acres) area. These represent some of the last remaining large, contiguous roadless forests in Michigan. The Roadless Rule provides vital protections that restrict new road construction and large-scale industrial logging. These safeguards are essential to preserving the recreational value of these lands, which are currently enjoyed by outdoor enthusiasts for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling. Rescinding this rule would facilitate the construction of new roads and increase industrial logging, inevitably resulting in habitat fragmentation and the degradation of the primitive, backcountry character that defines these forests. Some of my favorite camping and mountain biking trips have occurred in Michigan National Forests, particularly along the North Country Trail. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and maintain the protections afforded by the 2001 Roadless Rule for the Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, as well as for all protected roadless areas across the United States. Sincerely, James VanDokkumburg East Grand Rapids, Michigan

My name is John Rebers. I currently live in Marquette, Michigan, and I strongly support the 2001 Roadless Rule. I’ve been fortunate to visit many roadless areas on public lands. The most dramatic place I’ve been is the northern Pickett Range in North Cascades National Park. To reach this part of the park, you must bushwack over rough terrain through dense vegetation to reach your reward of stunning views and high alpine peaks. I’ve also backpacked in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness in the White River National Forest of Colorado, surrounded by 14,000 foot peaks. However, you don’t have to travel as far as the Washington Cascades or the Colorado Rockies to find the recreation, wildlife, and clean water protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Forest Service held multiple hearings that resulted in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule that has kept some of our public land free of roads and development. This includes 16 designated Wilderness Areas in Michigan, but also includes Roadless Areas in our National Forests. My favorite is the Norwich Plains in the Ottawa National Forest. I have hiked in this area to explore the Trap Hills, and was impressed by the scenery and the wildflowers there. There are also areas covered by the Roadless Rule in the Hiawatha National Forest and the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin that are within a two hour drive of my home. I oppose the Forest Service’s plans to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the No Action Alternative and retain the roadless rule as it exists. I am also disturbed by the short comment period given for those affected by this change to voice their opinion, and ask that the Forest Service extend the comment period to 120 days.

Dear Chief Schultz, Please uphold the multiple use principles that have guided the US Forest Service for decades and listen to the outdoorsmen and women of America by choosing NOT TO RESCIND THE ROADLESS RULE in its present form. As an avid public land hunter, angler, canoeist, hiker and camper who has visited each of Michigan’s six Roadless Areas, I am intimately aware of the immense value of these special places. I’ve fished the cool waters of the Big Sable as it flows through the Huron-Manistee National Forest’s Bear Swamp Roadless Area, I’ve paddled the emerald shores of the Hiawatha National Forest’s Government Island Roadless Area, I’ve scouted the top-notch upland bird habitat of the Ottawa National Forest’s Norwich Roadless Area, and much more. These forests offer some of the best outdoor recreation opportunities in the state. They provide wildlife habitat for grouse, deer, martens, woodcock, trout, and so much more. They filter headwater streams that flow into the Great Lakes, which hold 20% of the world’s surface freshwater and provide drinking water for 40 million people. Here in Michigan, our public lands define the scenic character of our state. If we lose these forests, we lose part of our heritage as Michiganders. Research shows that fewer than 1% of wildfires, and none of the costliest fires, since 2001 have started in Roadless Areas. Indeed, it is roads that bring in many of the root causes of wildfires like dragging chains and cigarettes. As you know, the Roadless Rule as written allows for management for fire. Instead, once these areas become roaded, they lose their unique wilderness characteristics that are so hard to come by. We would lose a wildness that in many ways defines our American spirit and our connection to the land. For all of these reasons. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you very much, Calvin Floyd

Attention: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66 – Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to fully rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For nearly a quarter-century, this highly successful policy has protected roughly 45 million acres of intact, wild National Forest System lands from the long-term damages of road construction and commercial timber harvesting. Stripping away these protections in favor of localized planning would severely compromise our nation's biodiversity, watersheds, climate resilience, and outdoor recreation economies. The value of these spaces is deeply personal to me. I vividly remember hiking in Michigan's Hiawatha National Forest, which stands out as the very first place where I experienced true wilderness. It was a rare, invaluable sanctuary where we could not hear any human sounds—no distant traffic, no planes overhead, and no crowds. All we could hear was the natural world around us. This profound sense of quiet and solitude is only possible because of the large, unfragmented landscapes protected by the Roadless Rule. The justification that repealing the rule will mitigate wildfire risk is scientifically contradictory. While the Forest Service claims that removing the rule provides flexibility for mechanical thinning, historical data and recent forestry research show that building new roads actually introduces a much greater threat. Roads dramatically expand human access, and studies confirm that a vast majority of wildfires are human-caused and ignite close to roads. Paving into these remote areas will increase, rather than decrease, the frequency of devastating fires. Second, these 45 million acres serve as the literal headwaters for our nation. Roadless areas protect pristine streams that supply clean, unfiltered drinking water to tens of millions of Americans. Paving roads and introducing heavy industrial logging equipment into these ecosystems will inevitably trigger severe soil erosion, introduce harmful sediment into waterways, and permanently degrade water quality for downstream communities. Furthermore, these intact backcountry areas represent the ecological backbone of our public lands. They safeguard irreplaceable old-growth forests that act as critical carbon sinks, helping mitigate the root causes of the climate crisis. They also offer continuous, unfragmented habitats for wildlife species that cannot survive in fractured landscapes. Instead of dismantling a highly effective, decades-old framework, the USDA should maintain and strengthen the 2001 Roadless Rule. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep vital wild spaces like the Hiawatha National Forest completely intact for future generations. Sincerely and with hope for a better future, Sara S. Haslett, MI

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a Michigan resident who relies on public lands for wilderness recreation, clean water, and regional economic stability, I urge the agency to maintain nationwide roadless protections for the Huron-Manistee National Forests in the Lower Peninsula and the Hiawatha National Forest in the Upper Peninsula. Decentralizing roadless protections and shifting to forest-by-forest management decisions will directly harm Michigan’s freshwater resources and outdoor heritage for the following reasons: 1. Protection of Great Lakes Watersheds and Cold-Water Fisheries: In Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, the Huron-Manistee National Forests encompass sensitive, sandy-soiled watersheds that feed world-class cold-water trout streams like the Au Sable, Manistee, and Pere Marquette rivers. Road construction in these light-soil ecosystems dramatically increases sediment runoff, exacerbates riverbank erosion, and destroys critical fish habitat. In the Upper Peninsula, the Hiawatha National Forest spans delicate wetland networks, peatlands, and riparian corridors connecting directly to Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron. Preserving intact roadless areas is critical to filtering drinking water and safeguarding Great Lakes water quality. 2. Preservation of Michigan’s High-Value Backcountry Recreation: The Hiawatha National Forest offers rare, semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized backcountry experiences that draw hunters, anglers, campers, and hikers from across the Midwest. Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens the remote, undisturbed character of these tracts. Michigan’s outdoor recreation economy generates billions in GDP and supports tens of thousands of local jobs; replacing a predictable national protection standard with localized management plans creates long-term uncertainty for the small business communities reliant on wilderness tourism across the U.P. and Northern Lower Michigan. 3. Unmanageable Infrastructure Backlog: The Forest Service already struggles with a massive deferred maintenance backlog across its existing forest road network. Adding new roads into unroaded areas of the Huron-Manistee and Hiawatha creates ongoing, unfunded maintenance commitments that local forest districts cannot sustain, increasing long-term taxpayer liabilities while existing forest roads remain under-maintained. 4. Fire Management Capabilities Already Exist: The argument that the 2001 Roadless Rule hinders forest health management is unsupported. The current rule explicitly allows for active management, timber thinning, and fuel reduction to combat insect infestations, disease, and fire risk when necessary. Stripping away nationwide protections to construct permanent roads deep into unroaded terrain is an unnecessary measure that compromises ecology without improving forest resilience. For these reasons, I urge the Department of Agriculture to withdraw this proposal and preserve the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Sincerely, John Green Metro Detroit, MI