Read the comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Lookout Mountain area of the Ochoco National Forest is the kind of place that stays with you. I have been going there for years, riding the Lookout Mountain trails, searching for elk, raptors, and songbirds in contiguous habitat like the Deschutes and Paulina Roadless Areas, and finding in all of it what I can rarely find elsewhere: a chance to unwind and slow down. The raw nature of the landscape and trails is what draws me back. I am filing this comment to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) because the roadless character of these places is not incidental to what they offer. It is the whole point. The elk I look for in the Deschutes and Paulina Roadless Areas depend on conditions that roads destroy. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed, and that unroaded land with cover and forage constitutes ideal summer elk habitat. The bird richness I seek in this contiguous habitat is equally at stake. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. These are not projections about distant forests. They describe the conditions I go to the Ochoco and Deschutes to find. I ask the agency to explain what analysis supports the conclusion that opening these areas to road construction would leave wildlife-dependent recreation intact. The agency defends this rescission partly on wildfire grounds, but its own record states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must reconcile the rescission with those findings and explain why the proposal departs from its own prior analysis of fire occurrence and fuel treatment in the areas the rule currently protects. On economics: the agency's own record states 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." Its own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system. The agency has not shown how expanding that system, at marginal commodity gains its own numbers cannot confirm as net positive, serves the public interest. It should answer that question plainly before moving forward. Finally, the small-business certification in the supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading estimated losses across every small firm in the affected sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators actually holding permits in the affected areas. The DEIS names those operators as affected, and the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books their recreation losses at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. A methodology that dissolves real, localized harm into a national average does not satisfy the purpose of the certification requirement. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct a genuine assessment of the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, including those on the Ochoco and Deschutes National Forests where I ride and watch for wildlife. The Deschutes holds 11 inventoried roadless areas totaling 136,446 acres. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. These are not abstract figures. They represent the contiguous, unroaded habitat that makes the wildlife and the experience I described possible. The agency should protect them. Sincerely, Mike Schmeiske Bend, OR

To the U.S. Forest Service / USDA Re: Proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to ask the Forest Service to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and not rescind it. My husband and I regularly camp and travel in Oregon's national forests, including the Ochoco National Forest, in a Jeep with a small trailer. We fish, read, and camp along the Crooked River and in the Mill Creek area. The quiet, undeveloped character of these inventoried roadless areas — clean headwater streams, intact habitat, and places you can still experience on foot or on a forest road without new road construction cutting through them — is exactly why we go. Roadless protections do not close these forests to the public. They keep the existing road system in place while preventing new permanent roads and most commercial timber harvest in the wildest remaining backcountry. That balance has worked for 25 years: it protects drinking-water headwaters and fish and wildlife habitat while leaving recreation, existing access, and forest management tools available. Please retain the Roadless Rule as it stands. At minimum, I ask that the agency fully analyze, in the final environmental impact statement, the effects of rescission on recreation access and experience, water quality in headwater streams like the Crooked River, and wildlife habitat connectivity in Oregon's national forests before making any change. Thank you for considering my comment. Anna Streano Lake Oswego, Oregon

I am writing to ask the Federal Government to protect our National Forests by maintaining the Roadless Rule. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have had the opportunity to backpack, hike and enjoy many areas in Oregon and Washington protects by the Roadless Rule. Being in these areas provides me and many others with recreation, reflection and wellbeing. I live in Sisters, Oregon and spend summers hiking up Tumalo Mountain and exploring the Cascade Lakes. I hike in the Ochoco National Forest, as well. In northern Washington, I have spent several weeks exploring areas along the PCT such as Snowy Lakes and Rainy Pass. This weekend, I backpacked in the Sawtooth Range in Washington with hundreds of other hikers, exploring the larch forests changing color. The value that these experiences give me and thousands of Americans is why we love this country. The Roadless Rule protects the watersheds in both Bend, Oregon where I work part of the year and the Methow Valley in Washington, where I also work. In addition to having the health, quality and quality of our water effected, both these communities depend on recreation based tourism for their economic stability. People visiting these areas generate revenue for many local businesses. Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species (both plant and animal), and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change. We are seeing the effects of climate change from increased forest fires to low snow years. As a ski instructor, I am directly impacted economically by climate change. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of forest management, balancing ecological and economics. It supports people’s wellbeing and connection to nature. It creates better mental and physical health for those of us who enjoy the land. Instead of rolling back protections, the agency should strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for clean water, climate resilience and recreation. All of which directly affect me, my community and livelihood. Please maintain the Roadless Rule and keep our public lands protected. Thank you.

We have close to 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in Central Oregon. These areas include the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. Wildlife habitats have been protected, boosting economies through both outdoor recreation and high quality of life, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I recreate on these public lands regularly and I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. Because it is so important to the future of our wildlife and water, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. It would be impractical and dangerous to rescind the Roadless Rule. Opening roadless areas to logging in central Oregon will not yield a meaningful economic return, but rather it will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate within Central Oregon. Additional roads also mean more fires as research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. Adding roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed originates in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Without Roadless protections, water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country will be threatened. Our forests are far less resilient if the Roadless Rule is rescinded. Rescinding Roadless Rules will spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. On behalf of myself and our community at large, I ask that you please abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide. Thank you Meghan Bowman Bend, OR

As a resident living at 16047 NE Sealy Springs Rd in Prineville (Crook County), I am writing to express my strong opposition to policies under the Roadless Rule that restrict active forest management in our local public lands. Living directly adjacent to the Ochoco National Forest, my neighbors and community have experienced firsthand the immediate threat posed by catastrophic wildfires. Properties like the nearby Wine Down Ranch on McKay Creek Road—a working family cattle and timber ranch—faced grave danger during the recent Brewer and Rowe Complex Fire. While active forest management, emergency access, and tireless firefighting efforts prevented total devastation, the fire demonstrated how crucial road access and active land stewardship are to community safety and wildfire response. The restrictions mandated by the Roadless Rule severely limit federal agencies and local land managers from implementing essential forest health measures, such as mechanical thinning, fuels reduction, brush clearing, and maintaining critical access roads for firefighting equipment. Restricting road access under the guise of conservation creates unmanaged overgrowth, impedes rapid emergency response, and places neighboring private landowners, homes, livestock, and first responders at elevated risk. Effective conservation and public safety are not mutually exclusive; true forest stewardship requires active management. I strongly urge the Forest Service to prioritize community safety, wildland firefighter access, and sound forest health practices by supporting active forest management and reconsidering restrictions imposed by the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Jodi Clark 16047 NE Sealy Springs Rd Prineville, OR 97754 Crook County

As members of the National Parks Conservation Association’s (NPCA) Northwest Regional Council we urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the water, wildlife, and wild places that sustain our national parks including Olympic, Crater Lake, North Cascades. Since 2001, the Roadless Rule has protected the integrity of key national park landscapes across Washington and Oregon. In the Northwest, roadless areas conserve some of our favorite places to hike, bike, and hunt. These protections secure the cold-water fisheries that support the salmon populations the northwest is renowned for. These intact forests also secure habitat for federally protected species, from Canada Lynx and Marbled Murrelets to Bull Trout and endangered salmon. The Council works with NPCA’s Northwest regional staff and includes business and community leaders committed to securing the future of our national parks. We work with communities and businesses to support national parks and adjacent public lands. Healthy national parks depend on healthy forests, clean waterways, and intact public lands beyond their boundaries, including many places protected by the Roadless Rule. More than 45 million acres of national forest lands are designated roadless, and nearly 30% of those acres are within 30 miles of national park sites. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will remove protections from roughly 1,965,000 acres in Oregon and 2,015,000 in Washington. Across the Northwest region, the Roadless Rule protects public lands that are integral to national park landscapes. These protections include: • In the North Cascades Ecosystem, anchored by North Cascades National Park, roadless land helps support wildlife movement, expanded recreation opportunities, wildfire resilience, and watershed health expanding the protected core by 31%. • Nearly 70,000 acres of roadless area in Olympic National Forest border Olympic National Park, providing protections for the hydrologic features that characterize this landscape and provide the cold, clean water required by bull trout, coho salmon, and the Olympic torrent salamander. • Roadless areas in the Malheur and Ochoco national forest in Oregon provide important big game habitat for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope within the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument landscape. If Roadless Rule protections are rescinded, these lands—and more than 45 million acres of public lands nationwide—will be opened to roadbuilding, large-scale logging, mining, and oil and gas development, putting nearby national parks, gateway communities, outdoor recreation, clean water, and wildlife at risk. As national park advocates and community leaders from across the region, we urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect roadless forests and the national park landscapes they sustain. Thank You, Kai Tran Blaine, Washington Lisa Mighetto Seattle, Washington Lou Capozzi Bend, Oregon Matt Rudolf Mercer Island, Washington Robyn Grad Seattle, Washington Roger Andrascik Eatonville, Washington Sara Crumb Seattle, Washington Susan Pohl Seattle, Washington

The Roadless Rule as pertains to our public lands among our USFS territories needs to remain in force. Please read and think about my family's reasons to keep this understanding of our watersheds, open spaces for wildlife and so much more. East Cascades Bird Alliance works to educate us about birdlife in our Central Oregon area. And protect it. This June I and others spent a day traipsing around acres and acres of USFS lands with Bird Alliance, leader, Chuck Gates. He is a retired Crook County public school biology teacher. This day is a prime example of how hiking way beyond parking lots (there were none; just roadsides stretching into roadless areas or within close viewing range of No Roads. This Roadless Rule elimination plan would basically eliminate our beloved tradition being passed on to grandkids who are already your Admin voters… 4 generations of Hensons who feel commited to many parts of our state's public lands. Here are the main geographic areas: The Rogue River/ Siskiyou NF and The Umptqua NF when we previously lived in Roseburg Boundaries of Crater Lake NP and the Park itself. Entire coastal area not protected by our State Parks that often border NForests. We visit the coast often. And there is the Strawberry Lakes region in E. Oregon and surrounding forests! And the Wallowas...! Just in Central Oregon, we highlight some truly beautiful and ecologically necessary places, in the areas around: Steelhead Falls, the Metolius River, Three Creeks Lake, Tam McArthur Rim, Paulina Lake, Kwolh Butte, Maiden Peak, Green Mountain, Lookout Mountain and more. There are close to 200,000 acres in Central Oregon of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. These areas have protected wildlife habitat, boosted the economies through both outdoor recreation and high quality of life, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. Pushing roads into these unspoiled places would change Central Oregon forever. Let’s do everything we can to ensure our forests remain wild, healthy, and resilient—for people, wildlife, and future generations. Despite hearing from over 600,000 Americans opposed to the rollback—99% of all comments received—the USDA released details as to how it plans to axe the Roadless Rule. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Sincerely, with watchful diligent eyes, Annis Henson 2399 NW Hosmer Lake Dr. Bend OR 97703 Annis Henson Bend, OR

In Central Oregon, there are close to 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland. These areas have protected wildlife habitat, boosted the economies through both outdoor recreation and high quality of life, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. As a PCT thru-hiker (class of 2015) and frequent visitor to these public lands, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical and dangerous. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule also makes our forests far less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Please abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide. Katie Cipoletti Bend, OR

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative and retain full Roadless Rule protections. I live in Bend, Oregon and spend time recreating in nearby Roadless Areas like Tumalo Mountain, the Cascade Lakes, Lookout Mountain in the Ochoco National Forest, and North and South Paulina in the Newberry Caldera. I also visit other Roadless Areas across Oregon to hike, camp, fish, forage, and enjoy nature. The Tumalo Mountain Roadless Area is especially important to me because it protects my community’s drinking watershed at Bridge Creek. Under the agency’s proposal, Alternative 2 would eliminate protections for nearly 2 million acres of wild, public lands in Oregon. Under Alternative 3, 1.4 million acres (nearly 75% of IRA acres in Oregon) would lose protections, including the ones I listed above. The economics of these attacks on the Roadless Rule simply do not add up. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used. According to the DEIS, the Forest Service could build new roads across 18.2 million acres (44.5% of current IRAs) in the short term. This would significantly inflate the deferred maintenance backlog, which is already over $6.9 billion according to the DEIS. Further, the DEIS estimates that eliminating the Roadless Rule would degrade roadless areas and backcountry access to millions of acres, resulting in a loss of $9 million in annual visitor spending in local communities. Beyond the economic folly, the environmental consequences are severe. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks in the fight against climate change. The DEIS states that eliminating the Roadless Rule would “adversely affect” 327 threatened and endangered species and 71 designated critical habitats for these species. In Oregon, this includes listed species such as Bull trout, Chinook salmon, Chum salmon, Coho salmon, Marbled murrelet, Northern spotted owl, Oregon silverspot butterfly, Oregon spotted frog, Sierra Nevada red fox, and steelhead, among others. How would the agency ensure these populations and their habitats aren’t further degraded without protection of the Roadless Rule? The DEIS also states that “Road construction and native surface forest roads are the largest source of sediment related to timber harvest operations, and sediment delivered to surface waters is a major source of water quality degradation.” Bend, Oregon has exceptional water quality, largely due to the protections of the surrounding Tumalo Mountain - Bend Watershed Roadless Area. This Roadless Area would lose protections under both Alternatives 2 and 3. Other communities in Oregon like Eugene, Ashland, and La Grande would also lose protections to their drinking watersheds. How would the agency ensure that these watersheds remain intact and that water sources are not compromised from increased risk of erosion and sedimentation? Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My family explores the Cascade corridor from Mount Baker to the Sierra. We paddle lakes, rivers and streams. We photograph everything we encounter on our adventures. We visit for the beauty, peacefulness, uninterrupted landscapes, and the flora and fauna. A road is noise and sight pollution to ALL! I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We have visited Rock Creek in the Ochoco National Forest and its beautiful watershed. We explore South Paulina in the Deschutes National Forest for the beauty. We have hiked Lookout Mountain, since the early 2000s. North Paulina is beautiful, and our family has enjoyed exploring it for years. The birding at Green Mountain is phenomenal, and would be devastating to lose those creatures. Silver Creek is good therapy near a heavier population, and that matters too. These places shelter bears, elk, and deer. On elk, the agency's own cited research found that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. Elk avoid areas near roads and the agency's own analysis says ideal summer elk habitat is unroaded land with cover and forage. On deer, the agency's own record cites research finding that roads built for extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed. Roads disrupt migration and eliminate the unroaded security deer depend on. On bears, the agency's own citation from the federal grizzly recovery plan states that the increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. I ask that the agency explain in this docket how rescinding the rule can be squared with each of those specific findings in its own record. The agency's own record states that "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a reason to rescind. That reasoning contradicts the agency's own ignition data. The agency must explain why it departs from those findings and reconcile this proposal with DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I am also not persuaded that the economics favor this action. The agency's own record states that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency should reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which cannot establish a net benefit, and explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog makes sense when the existing roads already need fixing. Why not pay to fix the current roads and avoid more debt? Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Preserving these fragile ecosystems is necessary for clean water in our future. The agency must answer, directly and specifically, how rescission protects drinking water downstream from the roadless areas we have walked and paddled. The agency has already tried replacing this national rule with a state-by-state approach. Its own record acknowledges that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit rejected that approach. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies. On the question of statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The agency must address that holding and state the basis for any contrary position it now takes. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. Future generations should not inherit fewer of these places than we did. Public land should be a safe and sheltered place from human exploitation. These places should be kept whole.

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

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

I object to removing the Roadless Rule, a rule that has protected places dear to me and my family for many years, where we hike and camp: Willamette National Forest, Mt Hood National Forest, Ochoco National Forest. We love these places because they are quiet and unspoiled. They are important habitat for Oregon wildlife--bears, cougars, wildcats, deer, elk--which we are already seeing increasingly in our towns as their nearby habitat is destroyed by development. Please do not revoke the Roadless Rule!