Read the comments.

The Honorable Brooke Rollins Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250 Dear Secretary Rollins, I am writing to urge you to select the No Action Alternative and keep the national Roadless Rule fully intact. The rule protects some of the last unfragmented backcountry in our national forests, and repealing it would put more than 40 million acres at risk of new road construction and industrial development. I live in Ojai, California, at the edge of the Los Padres National Forest. For over a decade I have hiked the Nordhoff Inventoried Roadless Area, which rises just above my home. I have watched it through drought, fire, and recovery, and it remains one of the quiet, wild places that make this community what it is. My family and I also hike and camp in the Sespe-Frazier Inventoried Roadless Area, where my kids have learned what it means to spend time in country that is still wild. Places like these cannot be replaced once roads cut through them. Across the Los Padres, more than 600,000 acres of roadless land are at stake. These lands matter for several reasons. Wildlife and biodiversity - Roadless forests give mountain lions, black bears, California condors, and many other species the large, connected habitat they need. Roads fragment that habitat, and they put the native plant communities these animals depend on at risk too. Clean drinking water - Roadless areas protect headwaters and watersheds that supply drinking water to communities downstream. More roads mean more erosion and sedimentation, and poorer water quality. Wildfire - I speak about this issue from experience. I worked as a seasonal wildland firefighter for eight years across the Mountain West with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Joshua Tree National Park and I know how fires start and spread. You argue that repealing the Roadless Rule would improve fire management, but research shows that wildfires are more likely to start near roads, because roads bring people and ignition sources deeper into the forest. The rule already allows many forest management and fire mitigation activities. In my experience, what makes communities safer is investing in defensible space, home hardening, and prescribed fire near communities, not building new roads into remote backcountry. The Roadless Rule has protected our national forests for more than two decades with broad public support. Please keep it in place, choose the No Action Alternative, and protect America's remaining intact forests for the next generation. Thank you for your consideration.

U.S. Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20250 Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov Subject: Opposition to Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66) Dear Forest Service Officials, I am writing to register my profound opposition to the agency’s proposal to dismantle the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule successfully safeguards nearly 45 million acres of our nation's wildest and most ecologically vital public lands. As a resident of Monterey, California, and an active steward of our public lands, I am deeply concerned by how this policy reversal threatens the Los Padres National Forest and the vast networks of wild national forest lands throughout the western states. The diverse landscapes of the Los Padres National Forest—stretching from the rugged Big Sur coast to the interior backcountry—exemplify why roadless protections are vital. These unroaded areas support an essential multi-use ecosystem. They protect critical watersheds that supply clean drinking water to our local communities, serve as refuge for endangered species like the California condor, and provide irreplaceable spaces for hiking, backpacking, camping, and open-space recreation. Opening these pristine terrains to further road building and industrial development directly threatens the quality of life that these forests provide for my family, my community, and the greater public. This threat extends far beyond California. As highlighted in robust opposition letters filed by coalitions of state Attorneys General—led notably by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and joined by counterparts across multiple western states—the arguments used to justify this rollback run directly counter to established science. The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims that eliminating roadless protections will aid in wildfire mitigation. However, as state legal officers and forest researchers emphasize, new road construction introduces permanent human-ignition sources into remote terrain, multiplying wildfire risks rather than subduing them. Fragmenting these wild spaces across the American West will degrade headwater watersheds, disrupt vital wildlife corridors, and compromise massive natural carbon sinks essential for stabilizing our climate. For my family and millions of Americans across the West, these national forests are not abstract resource inventories; they are the quiet places where we connect with nature and find accessible outdoor recreation. The public good derived from intact, wild ecosystems vastly outweighs any short-term commercial extraction value. I strongly urge the Department of Agriculture to listen to the sound legal and scientific warnings raised by state Attorneys General and immediately withdraw this proposal.