Read the comments.

Having taught Environmental Science for several decades, I oppose the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this rule has protected much of the wildness that remains in our national forests. The protections have been particularly vital in the Midwest, where less than 200,000 acres of roadless, untrammeled forest lands survived the widespread logging of the past two centuries. From Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet to Michigan's Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee, the Midwest’s national forests have important roadless areas that provide critical habitat for wildlife, clean our drinking water, store carbon, and offer refuge for people seeking quiet and beauty. These roadless areas are also an enormous resource for the recreation economy in the Midwest. I urge you to stop rolling back protections for our public lands and leave our last wild forests intact. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Dr. Brian Bodenbender 400 2nd Ave Holland, MI 49424-6575 bodenbender@hope.edu

I oppose this rule. Please include this comment. Thank you very much Joanne Robb 1129 Dyer Lake Road Traverse City, MI 49685.

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , Caring deeply about the protection of national parks and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative to keep the Roadless Rule in place. Protecting roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands including areas around Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Great Smoky Mountains national parks, it's been for more than two decades that the rule has safeguarded clean water, provided for wildlife habitat, supported outdoor recreation, and helped to keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would be exposing treasured landscapes to new roads and development that will fragment habitat, degrade waterways, and put our parks at risk. With many public lands already available for timber and energy development, only about 30% of National Forest lands get roadless protections. The rule needs to continue making what remains of intact areas natural for the sake of future generations of nature lovers. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Robert Hoekstra 3345 Starboard Dr 3345 Starboard Dr Holland, MI 49424 Sincerely, Mr. Robert Hoekstra

My family and I oppose the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as it protects what remains of our national forests. Forests are not city parks. The flourishing of the plant and animal life in them requires that they be large roadless tracts. These protections are vital in the Midwest where we are still recovering from two centuries of indiscriminate logging. From Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet to Michigan's Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee, the Midwest’s national forests have important roadless areas that provide critical habitat for wildlife and also clean our drinking water. These roadless areas are also an enormous resource for the recreation economy in the Midwest. My rural family visits many of these forests whenever we have time off. They are an important antidote to our underpaid and tiring working lives. Stop rolling back protections for our public lands and leave our last wild forests intact. Working Americans demand it. Sincerely, Alex Morrison Sincerely, Mrs. Alex Morrison 210 Center St Hancock, MI 49930-2106 philtechart@gmail.com

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I've written about protecting our public lands before, but I want to emphasize something different here: once an intact forest is opened up to roads and development, we cannot simply put it back the way it was. Roadless forests provide something increasingly rare—large, connected places where ecosystems can function with relatively little human disturbance. I value national parks not as isolated destinations, but as part of larger landscapes. The forests, watersheds, wildlife corridors, and other public lands surrounding them are part of what allows these places to remain healthy. Opening millions of acres of currently roadless forest to new roads, logging, mining, or energy development could create impacts far beyond the individual sites where those activities occur. I hope the Forest Service will recognize the long-term value of keeping these remaining intact forests roadless and maintain the Roadless Rule. Carly Mizerski 23424 Glenbrook Apt. 7 St. Clair Shores, MI 48082 Sincerely, Ms. Carly Mizerski

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep intact the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”), which protects nearly 45 million acres of our nation's forests and grasslands. Prior to the rule's implementation in 2001, industrial logging and accompanying roadbuilding disrupted and destroyed 3.2 million acres of fragile habitat annually while also degrading clean water supplies and limiting outdoor recreation opportunities. For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected ecologically sensitive landscapes, wildlife populations and habitat, and communities dependent upon their services. The rule protects countless wild animals, including imperiled species who rely on intact habitats for survival. Additionally, these lands provide clean water and support numerous recreational activities that sustain local jobs and economies. The rule allows for flexibility in resource management, with exceptions for vegetation management and road construction projects in the interest of public health and safety. We need less roads and more wild spaces for animals that are already fighting to survive in a world where the natural environment is disappearing. The American public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule; recent bipartisan polling shows that 77% of voters support conserving roadless lands. Indeed, the rule was created with input from over 1.6 million comments and, in September, over half a million Americans responded to the U.S. Forest Service's notice of intent to repeal the Roadless Rule with comments voicing strong opposition. We have made our opinion clear time and time again–our public lands should remain public, not be degraded for the interests of private industry. I strongly urge the U.S. Forest Service not to repeal the Roadless Rule, as keeping the rule intact will protect our shared forestlands for generations to come. Dana Atnip 1436 Pearson St., MI 48220 Sincerely, Dana Atnip

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , As someone who cares deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Morgan Wolfe 16 Lafayette Ave SE Apt 6 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Sincerely, Morgan Wolfe

I oppose the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has protected much of the few remaining wild and undeveloped areas within our national forests. Those protections are especially important in the Midwest, where less than 200,000 acres of roadless forest remain after generations of widespread logging and development. In Wisconsin’s Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and Michigan’s Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, these remaining roadless areas provide important wildlife habitat, protect clean water, store carbon, and preserve places where people can experience our public lands without roads and development. These areas also support outdoor recreation and the communities and businesses that depend on it. Once these remaining roadless areas are opened to road construction and development, we cannot simply recreate what has been lost. There is no reason to roll back protections that have been in place for more than two decades. I urge you to leave the Roadless Rule in place and protect the remaining wild areas of our national forests for future generations. I urge you to stop rolling back protections for our public lands and leave our last wild forests intact. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Ms. Miriam Leary 2586 Wickfield Rd West Bloomfield, MI 48323-3271 attorneymleary@gmail.com

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, This is our land and it is our duty to protect it! This rule was put in place to make sure that the plant and animal species stay safe and undisturbed from human destruction. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep intact the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”), which protects nearly 45 million acres of our nation's forests and grasslands. Prior to the rule's implementation in 2001, industrial logging and accompanying roadbuilding disrupted and destroyed 3.2 million acres of fragile habitat annually while also degrading clean water supplies and limiting outdoor recreation opportunities. For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected ecologically sensitive landscapes, wildlife populations and habitat, and communities dependent upon their services. The rule protects countless wild animals, including imperiled species who rely on intact habitats for survival. Additionally, these lands provide clean water and support numerous recreational activities that sustain local jobs and economies. The rule allows for flexibility in resource management, with exceptions for vegetation management and road construction projects in the interest of public health and safety. The American public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule; recent bipartisan polling shows that 77% of voters support conserving roadless lands. Indeed, the rule was created with input from over 1.6 million comments and, in September, over half a million Americans responded to the U.S. Forest Service's notice of intent to repeal the Roadless Rule with comments voicing strong opposition. We have made our opinion clear time and time again–our public lands should remain public, not be degraded for the interests of private industry. I strongly urge the U.S. Forest Service not to repeal the Roadless Rule, as keeping the rule intact will protect our shared forestlands for generations to come. Ayn Zitzman 14377 Appletree Ln, MI 48430 Sincerely, Ayn Zitzman

I oppose the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this rule has protected much of the wildness that remains in our national forests. The protections have been particularly vital in the Midwest, where less than 200,000 acres of roadless, untrammeled forest lands survived the widespread logging of the past two centuries. From Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet to Michigan's Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee, the Midwest’s national forests have important roadless areas that provide critical habitat for wildlife, clean our drinking water, store carbon, and offer refuge for people seeking quiet and beauty. These roadless areas are also an enormous resource for the recreation economy in the Midwest. I urge you to stop rolling back protections for our public lands and leave our last wild forests intact. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. I haven't yet had a chance to hike in these pristine locations - please let them be so I have a chance to. Sincerely, Ms. Rondi Brower 1376 Leroy St Ferndale, MI 48220-1655 rbrower17@yahoo.com

I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. Given this administration’s track record, I do not trust President Trump, his appointees, or this agency to safeguard our national forests or to put the public’s wellbeing ahead of political pressure. That is precisely why I am appealing directly to your moral responsibility — because these decisions will shape the future of our country’s most irreplaceable landscapes. Roadless forests are among the last intact, resilient ecosystems we have left. They protect clean drinking water, shelter vulnerable wildlife, and store immense amounts of carbon that help buffer the worsening impacts of climate change. Millions of Americans rely on these places for recreation, subsistence, cultural connection, and the simple human need to find peace in nature. Expanding roads into these areas would cause permanent harm. Roads fragment habitat, spread invasive species, degrade water quality, and undermine ecological resilience. They also increase wildfire ignition risk — a fact well‑documented in research. Once these landscapes are carved up by roads and clearcuts, they never recover their original integrity. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave and irreversible mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to reject this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests — for the clean water, climate stability, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities they provide. I am asking you to stand up for the citizens of this nation, for our wildlife, and for the environment we all depend on. Please choose stewardship over politics. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Gerald Hallead Traverse City, MI 49684-6605 photodude48@gmail.com

I have spent much of my life (age 79) in out of door arena including wilderness areas and remote national park lands. My activities included hiking, fishing, canoeing, back packing and hunting. It's a joy to have some areas that have been protected from the more aggressive footprint of man. I am not a scientist nor a professional, but my layman observations of areas accessed by road show increased erosion, trash, fire pits full of garbage and tire tracks everywhere possible. The noise pollution adversely interferes with the quiet solitude and peaceful environment. Frankly, we do not need more open areas. Let's continue to enjoy the few remaining parcels for us and our descendants. I feel the fire risk issue is a red herring, just to open up the area for increased foresting. Do we need it? Aren't other ways to fight fire available? Yes. Lastly, the government already has a massive backlog of projects in the forest system. Why add more when it is not being done now? Plus, it helps reduce the budget shortfalls our Country faces yearly. Please keep things as they are. Thank you. James J Shinners, Saginaw, MI 48604 cell 989 928 1866

Secretary Rollins, I am writing because I’ve reached my limit. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule, and I am decidedly fed up with a government and a Congress that keep putting profit ahead of the needs of citizens, wildlife, and the environment. This proposal is not just misguided — it is reckless, destructive, and completely out of step with what the American people deserve. Enough is enough. Roadless forests are among the last intact, resilient ecosystems we have left. They safeguard clean drinking water, shelter vulnerable wildlife, and store massive amounts of carbon that help buffer the worsening impacts of climate change. Millions of people rely on these places to hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and simply breathe in a world that feels increasingly chaotic. These landscapes are not expendable. They are irreplaceable. Expanding roads into these areas would cause permanent harm. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, degrade water quality, and undermine ecological resilience. They also increase wildfire ignition risk — a fact well‑documented in research. Once roads and clearcuts carve up these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake with consequences that cannot be undone. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this destructive effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests — for the clean water, climate stability, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities they provide. This country cannot afford more policies that sacrifice long‑term public good for short‑term political or financial gain. Our forests, our communities, and our future deserve better. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Gerald Hallead Traverse City, MI 49684-6605 photodude48@gmail.com

Attached below are 7 handwritten comments gathered from a public Roadless Rule event held in Hancock, MI 49930 on 9/12/26.

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

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, The U.S. Forest Service MUST keep intact the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”), which protects nearly 45 million acres of our nation's forests and grasslands. Prior to the rule's implementation in 2001, industrial logging and accompanying roadbuilding disrupted and destroyed 3.2 million acres of fragile habitat annually while also degrading clean water supplies and limiting outdoor recreation opportunities. For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected ecologically sensitive landscapes, wildlife populations and habitat, and communities dependent upon their services. The rule protects countless wild animals, including imperiled species who rely on intact habitats for survival. Additionally, these lands provide clean water and support numerous recreational activities that sustain local jobs and economies. The rule allows for flexibility in resource management, with exceptions for vegetation management and road construction projects in the interest of public health and safety. The American public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule; recent bipartisan polling shows that 77% of voters support conserving roadless lands. Indeed, the rule was created with input from over 1.6 million comments and, in September, over half a million Americans responded to the U.S. Forest Service's notice of intent to repeal the Roadless Rule with comments voicing strong opposition. We have made our opinion clear time and time again–our public lands should remain public, not be degraded for the interests of private industry. The U.S. Forest Service MUST NOT repeal the Roadless Rule, as keeping the rule intact will protect our shared forestlands for generations to come. Susan Welsford 642 Wendover Blvd, MI 49441 Sincerely, Ms. Susan Welsford

Subject: Opposition to Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66) To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For a quarter of a century, the Roadless Rule has served as a cornerstone of American conservation, protecting nearly 59 million acres of pristine national forest lands from commercial logging and destructive road construction. Repealing this safeguard is shortsighted, unnecessary, and contrary to the long-term public interest. My objection is based on the following critical points: Increased Wildfire Risk: The justification that removing roadless protections will mitigate wildfire risk is fundamentally flawed. Data and research show that human-caused ignitions happen primarily near roads, and wildfires are statistically more likely to start in roaded areas than in unfragmented, unroaded tracts. Existing regulations already permit necessary thinning and safety measures without a blanket repeal. Degradation of Water Quality: Road construction and commercial logging cause soil erosion and sediment runoff that directly threaten headwater streams, rivers, and downstream community drinking water supplies. Harm to Wildlife and Biodiversity: Unfragmented roadless areas provide critical, undisturbed habitats and migration corridors for countless native and imperiled species. Building roads breaks up these ecosystems and invites invasive species. Loss of Climate Resilience: Intact forests act as invaluable carbon sinks. Opening these landscapes to industrial development releases stored carbon and undermines our national defense against climate change. Economic Value of Recreation: Millions of visitors rely on our wild national forests for non-motorized recreation, supporting a thriving outdoor economy and local jobs that depend on natural, quiet landscapes rather than industrial extraction. Fiscally Irresponsible: The Forest Service does not have the funds to adequately maintain its existing roads. Creating more roads is fiscally irresponsible. The overwhelming public consensus—demonstrated by historic levels of public opposition during previous comment phases—shows that Americans deeply value the protection of our last remaining wild public lands. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposed rule and maintain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Thomas J. Haight, Sr. Iron River, MI 49935

I oppose the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this rule has protected much of the wildness that remains in our national forests. The protections have been particularly vital in the Midwest, where less than 200,000 acres of roadless, untrammeled forest lands survived the widespread logging of the past two centuries. From Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet to Michigan's Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee, the Midwest’s national forests have important roadless areas that provide critical habitat for wildlife, clean our drinking water, store carbon, and offer refuge for people seeking quiet and beauty. These roadless areas are also an enormous resource for the recreation economy in the Midwest. I urge you to stop rolling back protections for our public lands and leave our last wild forests intact. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Mr. Daniel F Kesselring 113 North Drive East Marshall, MI 49068

We must have areas where nature (wildlife, plants, soil, water, life) can just be nature without disturbance from human impact. These areas can NOT be reconstructed. Once these areas are lost they are lost forever. Roads bring pollution, destruction of; soil, plants, and water, noise, access. AND WE DO NOT NEED MORE DEER HABITAT IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OR MIDWEST!!!! The extremely overpopulated quantity of deer which are destroying our environment. I oppose the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this rule has protected much of the wildness that remains in our national forests. The protections have been particularly vital in the Midwest, where less than 200,000 acres of roadless, untrammeled forest lands survived the widespread logging of the past two centuries. From Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet to Michigan's Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee, the Midwest’s national forests have important roadless areas that provide critical habitat for wildlife, clean our drinking water, store carbon, and offer refuge for people seeking quiet and beauty. These roadless areas are also an enormous resource for the recreation economy in the Midwest. I urge you to stop rolling back protections for our public lands and leave our last wild forests intact. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Carolyn Thayer 831 James St. Frankfort, MI 49635 Sincerely, [Your information here]