Read the comments.

The Blue Mountains, Gifford Pinchot, Deschutes, Wenatchee, Rogue, and Siskiyou National Forests are where I hike and camp. These are inventoried roadless areas, and the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would directly change what those places are. I oppose this rescission. The agency states, in the Rationale for the Proposed Rule, that "The 2001 Roadless Rule limited the Forest Service’s ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns." That claim is the centerpiece of the forest health rationale. But the agency's own document undercuts it. The document cites research finding the rule did not meaningfully constrain fuel treatments as a share of forested land. The same document acknowledges that insect and disease risk in western roadless areas is similar to or lower than on managed forest land. Those two findings sit alongside the forest health assertion without any attempt to reconcile them. The agency needs to explain, specifically, how removing the rule addresses a forest health problem that its own cited research suggests the rule was not meaningfully causing. On recreation, the agency frames its loss estimate as modest because it is capped at a fraction of operable land in any single year. But roads, once built, do not undo themselves, and recreation settings, once degraded, do not reset. The agency's own Recreation section acknowledges that the magnitude of losses is unknown, and it places the estimate against roadless recreation benefits it values at upwards of $1.5 billion. A single-year fraction does not capture what accumulates across decades as roads and altered settings compound. The agency should model cumulative recreation losses over a meaningful time horizon and compare them against projected timber revenue before treating the annual figure as an adequate accounting. The forests I named are not abstractions. They are where I go. The agency must address both of these points directly in its response to public comment.

To: Director, EMC, USDA FS Re: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, Proposed Rule, 91 FR 53827 (August 20, 2026). Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66 I oppose the proposal to remove and reserve 36 CFR 294(B), and I urge the Department to adopt the No Action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in full. These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat, and they are my favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from roadbuilding, commercial logging and mining. My name is HELEN M. HOOPES, and I live in CRESCENT CITY, CA. I regularly visit THE REDWOODS IN JEDEDIAH SMITH PARK WHERE THERE IS A ROTARIAN PROTECTED GROVE AND A DAUGHTERS OF THE REVOLUTION PROTECTIVE GROVE - these protected groves are lovely and speak to the need for protection historically considered in the US. But they are not located in roadless areas and are not as protected or pure as the roadless areas. Hundreds of thousands of acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in Mendocino, Six Rivers, Klamath, Shasta-Trinity and Rogue-Siskiyou National Forests leave much more unprotected areas for the types of activities being sought by change in this rule and are only drop in the map of California. I also live in Lubec, Maine.. The 235,000 acres of protected roadless backcountry within the White Mountain National Forest serve as a world-class playground for outdoor enthusiasts. Because these areas are kept completely free of industrial roadbuilding and logging, they preserve a raw, rugged terrain that people love to explore. Here you can find Common Loons nesting on quiet lakes and scattered ponds. Wood Ducks & Canada Geese in in the low-lying wetland refuges bordering the mountain edges and in the higher elevations you can find Bicknell's Thrush, Spruce Grouse, and Black-backed Woodpecker, but though not spoken of, even the eagle and swan can be found communing in flight The fishing, hiking and swimming that i get to do in these pristine areas awakens the heart and spirit and allows us to follow the laws of nature and God. •Laudato Si' (2015): Pope Francis laid the groundwork for this concept in his environmental encyclical, emphasizing human responsibility to protect the planet as part of moral and social duty. •Amazon Synod (2019): The final document from the Synod of Bishops on the Amazon formally proposed defining an "ecological sin", leading directly to the Pope's public remarks later that year •Vatican Guidance (2026): Building directly on these foundations, the Vatican's International Theological Commission released a comprehensive text authorized under Pope Leo XIV titled Caring for Our Common Home: A Responsible and Fraternal Response to the Triune God, which frames serious environmental destruction explicitly as a "sin against creation and against the Creator. •My specific comments below follow the sections of the proposed rule's preamble, as the Department requested. the remainder are in the attachment. 1. Mature and old-growth forests and wildlife habitat. Roadless areas hold some of the last large, unfragmented stands of mature and old-growth forest on National Forest System lands. Once a road is cut and an old stand is logged, that habitat cannot be replaced on any timescale that matters to the species that depend on it. The preamble ("Summary of Potential Impacts – Timber") says rescission would open about 4.8 million acres of forest to active management. It does not say how much of that is mature or old growth. Elk, deer, salmon, trout, fishers, lynx and many other species rely on these intact areas as habitat and as connecting corridors between protected lands. Request: Keep Subpart B. At minimum, the final EIS must map and quantify the mature and old-growth acres that would lose protection, and analyze habitat fragmentation and connectivity loss for at-risk species. 2. Hiking, fishing, camping and the recreation economy.The Department's own analysis admits rescission would trade away quiet, remote, self-reliant recreation, increase user conflicts, and cost recreationists an estimated $6.1 million a year ("Summary of Potential Impacts – Recreation"). That is exactly the kind of recreation I come to these forests for. Roadless headwaters are also where clean, cold water for trout and salmon begins. Roads are a leading source of sediment in streams. The preamble says effects on fisheries are not expected to be significant, but it also concedes that later plan changes "could result in effects to commercial fisheries if resource conditions are affected." The benefit side is weak by comparison. The projected $5.2 to $11.4 million in timber revenue assumes harvest on every operable acre, which the Department itself calls unlikely. Request: The final EIS and cost-benefit analysis should fully value recreation, tourism, outfitting, sport fishing and drinking-water protection, and compare them honestly against speculative timber revenue.

As a former US Forest Service employee with extensive experience in and adjacent to Roadless Areas, I strongly object to rescission of the the Roadless Area rule. I worked on the Mt baker Snoqualmie National Forest from 1980 through 1991. I worked on the Nez Perce National Forest in 1978 I worked on the Silver Fire Recovery Forest in the Siskiyou National Forest in 1987. I worked on the Hurricane Hugo Watershed Recovery Project in the El Yunque National Forest in 1989 I currently live in PA and have traveled and recreated in the Allegheny National Forest. I lived in Alaska in 2010 and traveled in Se Alaska in 1982 and throughout Alaska during my work for the Alaska Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Many of the roadless areas especially on the Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest were in areas not well suited to timber harvest. They occupied steep landscapes in the Silver Fir zone, areas that did not recover well from timber harvest and were often subject to landslides in zero order drain ages and due to failure of roads in the steep unstable terrain. Timber removal in these landscapes resulted in negative impacts on salmon habitat, wildlife habitat and yielded relatively little value for the timber harvested with the cost of harvest. I dispute that removing the roadless area rule would return decision making for the management of inventoried roadless areas to the land management planning process at the individual national forest level.Each National Forest and Ranger District has been under timber harvest goals set at higher organizations, not because of the true ability of the land to withstand the impacts of road construction and timber harvest. The Darrington Ranger District of the Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest where I worked for nearly a decade is a prime example. Areas open to timber harvest had excessive road construction, often poorly maintained and subject to slope failures. Once the levels of timber harvest were reduced in Darrington and Monte Cristo the local economy developed more reliance and infrastructure to support recreation that utilized back country and front country resources. The areas proposed to be removed from the Roadless Area Rule in the Darrington Ranger District are generally adjacent to wilderness, on lands not well suited to road construction and timber harvest. They are far more valuable and suited for back country recreation, protection of fisheries and wildlife habitat. The Roadless Areas of the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest Striking a balance between recreational enjoyment and the well-being of our wildlife is crucial for ensuring the long-term health of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. Roadless areas are designated for increased ATV, motorcycle, and snowmachine use, which will displace essential wildlife such as wolverines, mountain goats, grizzly bears, and elk. The absence of specific written directions in the plan to protect wildlife from increased motorized recreation raises questions about the sustainability of such expansion. Most named wildlife require extensive habitat. the absence of defined limits on the extent of motorized trails or riding areas leaves these critical zones vulnerable to an unlimited influx of motorized recreation. The roadless areas of the Nez Perce Clearwater like the Chugach Tongass and Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forests are far more valuable for protection of salmon habitat than they are for timber harvest. The Chugach National Forest Roadless areas are located in areas not well suited to timber harvest. Much of the landscapes steep sloped areas with soil that is destabilized by road construction, posing a risk to the highly valuable fisheries resource. The Tongass National Forest in Alaska is well suited to insure the long term protection of the salmon and other fisheries, and wildlife. The Tongass not unlike the Higher elevation roadless areas on the Mt Baker Snoqualmie and Siskiyou National Forests does not support timber harvest and regrowth to justify the cost and environmental impact of that harvest. The EL Yunque National Forest has roadless areas. They are a vital resource for protecting critical wildlife habitat and watershed resources. There are ample areas of the El Yunque National Forest to serve the needs of the casual tourist. The Allegheny National Forest is a precious resource to Pennsylvanians. Opening up current Roadless areas to road construction and energy development would degrade the wildlife habitat and diminish precious backcountry recreation. The Roadless areas are adjacent to the Allegheny River, The Clarion Wild and Scenic River, within the Allegheny National Recreation Area and the Hickory Creek Wilderness. I strongly object to rescission of the Roadless Area Rule. These roadless areas are a unique and irreplaceable resource belonging the people of the United States. They are part of our heritage and should be retained in current condition.

Dear U.S. Forest Service Officials, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. As a resident of Siskiyou County, California, I am deeply concerned about how lifting these protections will permanently harm our local environment, our water supply, and our way of life. My opposition is rooted in the following critical issues: 1. Protection of Clean Drinking Water at the Source Siskiyou County contains the headwaters for vital watersheds that supply clean drinking water to our local communities and regions downstream. Roadless areas act as natural filtration systems. Allowing road construction and subsequent commercial logging in these pristine areas will inevitably lead to severe soil erosion, sedimentation in our streams, and degraded water quality. We must protect our water at the source. 2. Preservation of Pristine Wilderness The inventoried roadless areas within and surrounding Siskiyou County, including parts of the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests are irreplaceable. These lands provide critical, undisturbed habitats for wildlife, support biodiversity, and offer world-class quiet recreation. Rescinding the rule opens the door to industrial disruptions that will fragment these ecosystems and destroy their pristine, wild character. 3. Increased Wildfire Risk from Road Infrastructure While the agency suggests that rescinding the rule allows for better wildfire management, building new roads historically increases human-caused wildfire ignitions. In a region already highly vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires, introducing more access roads and industrial equipment into remote areas poses an unacceptable public safety risk to Siskiyou County residents. I urge the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture to withdraw this proposal and maintain the strict protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule to ensure our water remains clean and our pristine wilderness stays wild. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, A Siskiyiu County Resident

A Colour I am writing to voice my firm opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an Oregon resident and public land user, my quality of life and regional economy are inextricably linked to the intact backcountry of the Mt. Hood, Willamette, Deschutes, and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests. I frequently recreate along the pristine corridors of the Columbia, Willamette, Rogue, and Deschutes Rivers, and utilize world-class trail systems including the McKenzie River Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. Oregon’s outdoor recreation economy generates billions in annual consumer spending and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our state’s global reputation for tourism, outfitting, and salmon fishing relies entirely on pristine, unroaded forest landscapes. The agency's analysis completely fails to calculate the economic losses that backcountry fragmentation will inflict on downstream businesses. Siltation from upstream roadbuilding directly degrades world-class fly fishing and rafting rivers, threatening the commercial vitality of regional tourism hubs from Bend to the Columbia River Gorge. The Forest Service’s DEIS contains a fatal legal flaw under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agency completely fails to evaluate the cumulative impacts of road construction on federally protected salmonids, including wild coho, chinook, and steelhead. Stripping national roadless protection allows roadbuilding across thousands of acres of fragile, steep-slope terrain. Landslides and chronic erosion from these roads dump fine sediments into high-elevation spawning tributaries, destroying critical habitat and violating federal water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. The agency’s core argument, that removing roadless protections is necessary to thin forests and stop catastrophic wildfires, is completely refuted by spatial fire science. Peer-reviewed data demonstrates that industrial logging roads act as the primary vectors for human-caused wildfire ignitions in the Pacific Northwest. Furthermore, open canopy conditions created by commercial logging and road corridors alter microclimates, increasing ground-level wind speeds and drying out fuel loads, which can make fires burn hotter and faster. The Forest Service must immediately withdraw this legally vulnerable and scientifically deficient proposal. Please preserve the national 2001 Roadless Rule baseline to protect Oregon’s water, wildlife, and outdoor economy.

I am writing to voice my firm opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an Oregon resident and public land user, my quality of life and regional economy are inextricably linked to the intact backcountry of the Mt. Hood, Willamette, Deschutes, and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests. I frequently recreate along the pristine corridors of the Columbia, Willamette, Rogue, and Deschutes Rivers, and utilize world-class trail systems including the McKenzie River Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. Oregon’s outdoor recreation economy generates billions in annual consumer spending and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our state’s global reputation for tourism, outfitting, and salmon fishing relies entirely on pristine, unroaded forest landscapes. The agency's analysis completely fails to calculate the economic losses that backcountry fragmentation will inflict on downstream businesses. Siltation from upstream roadbuilding directly degrades world-class fly fishing and rafting rivers, threatening the commercial vitality of regional tourism hubs from Bend to the Columbia River Gorge. The Forest Service’s DEIS contains a fatal legal flaw under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agency completely fails to evaluate the cumulative impacts of road construction on federally protected salmonids, including wild coho, chinook, and steelhead. Stripping national roadless protection allows roadbuilding across thousands of acres of fragile, steep-slope terrain. Landslides and chronic erosion from these roads dump fine sediments into high-elevation spawning tributaries, destroying critical habitat and violating federal water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. The agency’s core argument, that removing roadless protections is necessary to thin forests and stop catastrophic wildfires, is completely refuted by spatial fire science. Peer-reviewed data demonstrates that industrial logging roads act as the primary vectors for human-caused wildfire ignitions in the Pacific Northwest. Furthermore, open canopy conditions created by commercial logging and road corridors alter microclimates, increasing ground-level wind speeds and drying out fuel loads, which can make fires burn hotter and faster. The Forest Service must immediately withdraw this legally vulnerable and scientifically deficient proposal. Please preserve the national 2001 Roadless Rule baseline to protect Oregon’s water, wildlife, and outdoor economy.

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more of my life than not, the roadless backcountry of the Pacific Northwest has been the ground where my most meaningful experiences have taken place. Over the last five years alone, my family and I have hunted and fished the roadless drainages of the Mount Hood, Umpqua, Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman, and Rogue-Siskiyou National Forests. I have hunted elk in the cool, still timber of Oregon's roadless drainages and fished cold, clear streams you can only reach on foot — in the steep, timbered draws of the Umatilla, the high breaks of the Malheur, the wild corner of the Wallowa-Whitman, and the old-growth salmon country of the Rogue-Siskiyou. The places where gates mark the beginning of an American adventure have impacted me, my family, and my community unlike any other. None of that exists without the quiet, the intact habitat, and the sense that you have walked far enough from the road to be somewhere genuinely wild. The Roadless Rule is the reason those places are still there. What this proposed rescission would do is invite new road building and timber harvest into the very places that make those experiences possible. The administration frames this as a move to "ramp up timber development and road building" on roadless lands. Roads beget more roads; once a roadless area is cut by a road, the solitude, the security cover for elk and deer, the intact fisheries, and the feeling of being somewhere apart never fully come back. You cannot un-ring that bell. For hunters and anglers, roadless areas are not abstract — they are the last places where game can find refuge from pressure and where fish can hold in undisturbed, cold-water habitat. I am also writing because I believe public lands and roadless areas are one of the most profoundly American things about this country. We are a nation that, almost alone among nations, decided that vast wild places should belong to everyone — not to kings, not to the wealthy, not to whoever could get there first and fence it off, but to the people. That idea is exceptional, and it is worth defending. A factory worker in Portland and a schoolteacher in Burns can each load up a truck and drive to the same elk camp, the same trout stream, the same ridge where you can see a hundred miles and hear nothing but the wind. That shared inheritance is what makes this country great. Rescinding the Roadless Rule chips away at that inheritance — it says the wild places that belong to all of us can be opened for the few who profit from their extraction. That is not the American promise. That is the opposite of it. For more than two decades the Roadless Rule has protected roughly 58.5 million acres of national forest backcountry. It is backed by hunters, anglers, outfitters, tribal nations, small businesses, and ordinary Americans because it strikes a balance: it keeps these lands open to the public while limiting new road construction and most large-scale logging in the last, best intact places. It safeguards the core habitat our hunting and fishing traditions depend on, the clean water our fisheries need, and the backcountry experiences that draw millions of Americans into the woods every year. Forest management and wildfire resilience are legitimate concerns, but rescinding the Roadless Rule wholesale is the wrong tool. The rule already includes exceptions for public safety and wildfire response — targeted, science-based management can happen without dismantling the protections that keep our largest roadless areas intact. We should invest in home hardening and fuels treatments in the wildland-urban interface, not treat roadless backcountry as a timber supply opened under the banner of wildfire risk. For these reasons, I ask the Forest Service to: 1.Withdraw the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and keep 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B in effect nationwide, including on the Tongass National Forest. 2.Reject eliminating the national roadless standard in favor of piecemeal, forest-plan-level decisions. A patchwork of local decisions provides no durable protection for backcountry crossing forest and state boundaries, and would put millions of acres of public land up to local political pressure. 3.Extend the public comment period. Thirty days is far too short for a rulemaking of this magnitude, affecting tens of millions of acres and a half-century of conservation policy. The American public deserves a full and meaningful opportunity to weigh in. In closing: I have spent my life retreating to the backcountry of the West. Those days — with my family, with my friends, in the elk woods and on the trout streams — are the most important things in my life. The Roadless Rule is part of the promise that previous generations made to protect these lands for all of us. Please do not break it.