Read the comments.

It is extremely important that we keep the 2001 Roadless Rule the way it is. Here are some quick facts: - From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four more times as likely to start in areas with roads than in roadless areas. - Our National Forests are a vital source of water for millions of Americans. Roads are a major source of water pollution, threatening our clean drinking water. - Fragmented forest areas are worse habitats for the species that are vital for the health of forests and other ecosystems. - The Roadless Rule already has built in flexibility for exceptions. The forest service can build roads as needed to address fires, floods, and other catastrophes. The Roadless Rule is so important for protecting our public land and wildlife from pollution, fires, and other human caused threats to our ecosystems, and it already has built in safe-guards for preventing forest fires and other disasters. Our forests do not need to be 'productive.' We do not need to log every tree in the United States. Forests are valuable resources in their own right, especially when they are minimally impacted by humans. We need to take a step back and stop the ruthless commoditization of every square foot of land available in our nation. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a step back, but a dangerous step towards this commoditization. I grew up in North Idaho recreating on roadless lands. I grew up backpacking in Idaho Panhandle National Forests by Priest Lake in some of the most pristine forests I have ever seen. I took a group of friends from Wisconsin backpacking through Hells Canyon in Nez Perce National Forest, and then visited the canyon again the same year with my best friend. I've been exploring Sawtooth National Forest since I was 8 with my family. I've climbed huge mountains in Salmon-Challis National Forest. Idaho is one of the most beautiful and untouched states in our nation because so much of its national forest land has been designated as roadless, and one of the greatest pleasures of my life has been experiencing these places for myself. Rescinding the roadless rule creates so many risks that threaten to take these experiences away permanently, from myself and millions of other Americans. Logging, pollution, and increased risks of fires associated with human-constructed roads are extremely preventable issues: just don’t build the roads. We don’t need them. Please, listen to the pleas of the thousands and thousands of Americans asking you to keep the Roadless Rule intact. Henry DePew

I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule. I am a scientist, a steward of our natural resources, and a concerned citizen who cares deeply about keeping our public lands intact for generations to come. I particularly care about areas of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, which have large roadless areas. The presence of the Roadless Rule has allowed me to appreciate the beauty of this landscape and many others as I continue to explore this precious land. These areas belong to the American public, not to companies who are interested in profiting off of the removal of the resources they contain. Despite the claims of economic benefits and environmental protection, opening up Wilderness areas to road construction and logging will be harmful to these areas. Human-caused wildfires are much more likely in areas near roads, and we cannot afford to continue having record-breaking fire seasons. The lost tourism economy from visitors to businesses near these areas will harm communities to a degree hat outweighs any increased industry by opening up more of our public lands for logging. Increased motorized activity will be devastating to ecosystems, due to habitat loss, wildlife mortality, degraded water quality, and stripped resources. We have a responsibility to care for our natural resources in a way that ensures their health, so that we may benefit from them for much longer. Keep the Roadless Rule and its significant positive impacts on our National Forest lands.

I am writing as a concerned citizen and public land steward to strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule across 44.7 million acres of National Forest System lands. Decades of peer-reviewed wildlife biology and road ecology research demonstrate that roads—regardless of size or surface—exert widespread, irreversible negative impacts on wildlife, habitat connectivity, and ecosystem integrity. It is scientifically impossible to mitigate these cumulative impacts at a national scale. I urge the Forest Service to select the No Action Alternative and maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule in full. I. Scientific Evidence: Universal Road Impacts on Wildlife Extensive literature confirms that roads severely degrade ecosystems and disrupt wildlife behavior: Universal Ecological Degradation: Trombulak & Frissell (2000) reviewed decades of research and documented seven pathways of negative road impacts on terrestrial and aquatic species, including direct mortality, behavior disruption, invasive species spread, and microclimate alteration—with no net ecological benefits. The "Road-Effect Zone" & Edge Effects: Forman & Alexander (1998) and Forman et al. (2003) showed that road impacts extend hundreds to thousands of meters into adjacent forests, converting interior habitat into degraded edge habitat. Habitat Loss & Fragmentation: Haddad et al. (2015, Science Advances) demonstrated that global fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13% to 75% and impairs ecosystem function. Ibisch et al. (2016, Science) highlighted contiguous roadless areas as vital buffers against biodiversity loss. Wildlife Movement & Mortality: Studies on ungulates and carnivores (Sawyer et al. 2013; Northrup et al. 2012) show animals actively avoid roads, severing migration corridors and causing functional habitat loss. For wide-ranging species like grizzly bears and wolverines, road density directly predicts displacement and human-caused mortality (Boulanger & Stenhouse 2014; Mowat et al. 2019). II. Specific Ecosystems at Risk Rescinding this rule threatens irreplaceable landscapes across the country: Tongass National Forest (AK): Over 9 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protecting world-class Pacific salmon spawning streams, coastal brown bear foraging, and Alexander Archipelago wolf habitat. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Custer Gallatin & Beaverhead-Deerlodge NFs, MT/WY): Critical connectivity corridors for grizzly bears, elk calving grounds, and lynx habitat. Northern Rockies (Clearwater & Idaho Panhandle NFs, ID): Pristine watersheds providing cold, sediment-free water for ESA-listed bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Pacific Northwest Old-Growth (Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie & Olympic NFs, WA): Mature forest stands providing nesting habitat for the ESA-listed marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl. III. NEPA/FEIS Questions Requiring Response To comply with NEPA and ESA standards, I request explicit responses in the FEIS to the following: -What peer-reviewed studies prove that road impacts on wildlife can be successfully mitigated across 44.7 million acres? -How will the agency enforce scientifically defensible road-density thresholds (e.g., <1 mile per square mile for large carnivores) without national prohibitions? -How did the agency analyze cumulative interior habitat loss resulting from road-effect zones across all impacted IRAs? -How will the agency prevent sedimentation in spawning streams from new road construction? -How can the USFS justify authorizing new roads in roadless areas while carrying a multi-billion-dollar deferred maintenance backlog on its existing ~370,000-mile road system? IV. Conclusion The 2001 Roadless Rule protects our most intact, resilient public lands. I request that the USFS reject this rescission proposal and maintain full protections.