Read the comments.

September 26, 2026 Dear Representative, I urge you to represent the best interests of the American people by continuing to uphold the Roadless Rule that protects major portions of our country’s National Forests. Roadbuilding in these currently protected areas will dramatically increase degradation of our water quality, which is protected by the intact ecosystems currently occupying these areas. Water quality and healthy ecosystems are integral to our country’s homeland security. We cannot thrive without these integral resources. Additionally, road-building is directly correlated with an increase the probability of wildland fires, which current significantly burden our economy and degrade our air and water quality. It has been my great fortune to visit many of our country’s roadless areas and I currently live within 15 miles of a magnificent roadless area in the Gila National Forest. Without continued protection, these areas with rapidly suffer from logging, increased sedimentation into waterways, and forest fragmentation, to name just a few of the negative impacts of road construction. Mitigation measures that are proposed to address these impacts are rarely effective and are often unenforced, leaving a wake of destruction surrounding any new roads. Recission of the roadless rule is a needless effort to pillage the resources others have sought to protect for so long and are a major part of what makes this country wonderful. I enjoy hiking and studying biodiversity in this area, and others enjoy fishing, hunting, birdwatching and many other activities that make living in this country so enjoyable and beneficial. Recission of the roadless rule would only serve those who seed shameless profiteering off of these precious public resources that our government was entrusted to protect. I strongly urge you to continue to uphold the current roadless rule as it stands today. Thank you, Priscilla Titus 1309 W 7th Street Silver City, NM 88061

Dear Secretary Rollins, USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule is against all ethics and common logic, it has to go. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. 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, Anna Brewer Albuquerque, NM 87105-3111 annekea1@hotmail.com

Although I was born and raised in Texas, for nearly 60 years I have lived, first in Colorado and now in New Mexico. These states and others in the western part of our country will be most affected by the repeal of Roadless Road Rule of 2001. I have personally witnessed the destruction of the natural world for resource extraction and the sprawl of urban living, leading to less and less wildland for forests, animals and humans. My great fear is that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have only small restricted natural places. Where there are roads there is development. Of the over 600 million acres of forest land in the United States the National Forest System controls about 193 million acres of which only about 58 million acres are protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001. This results in a total of 542 million acres (including 135 acres in the national forests) available to build roads for commercial endeavors such as logging, mining, fossil fuel extraction, recreation, urban development, etc. According to a National Park Service release in 2025, 85% of wildland fires are caused by human beings. Having more roads in the wilderness will lead to more human activity and ultimately to more fires. If the reason to have more roads in the wildlands is for greater fire suppression, a less destructive method of thinning the forests would be the use of small tractors and all-terrain vehicles that can carry work crews into the forests for their work of harvesting selected trees. The logged trees and related brush can be carried out by these smaller vehicles to an existing road where the logs can be forwarded for commercial uses and the brush can be put into a woodchipper and made into mulch. This approach has the additional benefit of creating more jobs for humans. A major unintended consequence of rescinding the Roadless Rule is the loss of habitat for the many wild animals that make their homes in the wilderness. Wherever human beings invade, animals lose their food supplies of vegetation and prey. As our country becomes more and more developed, we have fewer and fewer species of plant and animals, the very living organisms that make our world livable. Please do not rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 for the 44.7 million acres of national forest land currently under consideration. Prior to 1850 what is now the United States had over one billion acres of forest. Today less than two-thirds of our national treasure remains. Nancy A. Murphy ! Via Tertia Santa Fe, NM 87507

September 16, 2026 Brooke L. Rollins Secretary of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250 I am writing to state my strong opposition to the rescission or partial rescission of the Roadless Rule. I live in Silver City, New Mexico, surrounded by 3.3 million acres of Gila National Forest. I retired to Silver City largely because of those 3.3 million acres, as have many others. I am a hiker and a camper; however, I share a love of the region’s wild places with hunters, anglers, and Sunday picnickers who may not share my political persuasion. We have 3,300 miles of roads to access the region. Not only do we not need more; it would be harmful to increase them. I am concerned about the risk of devastating wildfires. We have been told that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect us from these fires. However, recent studies have shown that wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless area. I am concerned about invasive plants, which are spread by road construction, vehicles, and timber harvest. Native plants, as opposed to invasives, increase wildlife abundance and diversity. Roads decrease wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. Who would benefit from rescinding the Roadless Rule in the Gila National Forest? Not hikers, campers, hunters, anglers, picnickers, photographers or birdwatchers. Not animals or plants. Private extractive resource companies would benefit. Mining companies in particular, could dissect our forest and gut what makes this place beloved to its local residents and visitors. Furthermore, this land could not be returned to a wild state once the extraction is finished. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Marty Eberhardt 227 N. California Ave. Silver City, NM 88061 September 16, 2026 Brooke L. Rollins Secretary of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250 I am writing to state my strong opposition to the rescission or partial rescission of the Roadless Rule. I live in Silver City, New Mexico, surrounded by 3.3 million acres of Gila National Forest. I retired to Silver City largely because of those 3.3 million acres, as have many others. I am a hiker and a camper; however, I share a love of the region’s wild places with hunters, anglers, and Sunday picnickers who may not share my political persuasion. We have 3,300 miles of roads to access the region. Not only do we not need more; it would be harmful to increase them. I am concerned about the risk of devastating wildfires. We have been told that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect us from these fires. However, recent studies have shown that wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless area. I am concerned about invasive plants, which are spread by road construction, vehicles, and timber harvest. Native plants, as opposed to invasives, increase wildlife abundance and diversity. Roads decrease wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. Who would benefit from rescinding the Roadless Rule in the Gila National Forest? Not hikers, campers, hunters, anglers, picnickers, photographers or birdwatchers. Not animals or plants. Private extractive resource companies would benefit. Mining companies in particular, could dissect our forest and gut what makes this place beloved to its local residents and visitors. Furthermore, this land could not be returned to a wild state once the extraction is finished. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Marty Eberhardt 227 N. California Ave. Silver City, NM 88061 I strongly oppose the rescission or partial rescission of the roadless rule. My later, which I also sent via USPO, is attached.

Please keep the roadless rule for our public Please keep the roadless rule for our public lands. We need to protect our forests for ourselves and the wildlife. We don't need any more roads and development in our national lands. Thank you. Ms Pat Manaster. 2830 Sierra, nE, Albuquerque, NM 87110

Watershes, streams, rivers wetlands and aquiters and everything inbetween MUST be protected. For the health of the people, domesticated animals, wild animals and the environment at large. These are delicate balances that will be totally screwed up if this so-called conservation rule goes forward. I oppose the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to maintain the existing Rule as is. The Roadless Rule protects the watersheds of many of our National Wild and Scenic Rivers in California, as well as many rivers and streams deemed eligible for national protection by the Forest Service. The roadless areas through which these wild rivers flow are an important refuge for threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. They provide outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation in a primitive setting, such as hiking, backpacking, whitewater boating, mountain biking, and even motorized recreation on existing legal trails. Roadless areas provide clean water for wildlife and recreation and the rivers that flow from the roadless areas into reservoirs are an important source of high-quality water for downstream communities and farms. Many rivers to consider include but are not limited to the North Fork American, Tuolumne, South Fork Kings, Middle Fork Feather, and North Fork Kern. The Roadless Rule does not limit public access. Most roadless areas are legally available for public recreation under the Rule – they are simply closed to new road building, commercial logging, and other development that requires new roads. It is not true that roadless areas increase wildfire threats. Roads – not roadless areas – are a primary source of wildfire starts. I urge that Roadless Rule be retained to protect our wild places for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and as important sources of clean water for our communities and farms. Sincerely, Sincerely, L. L. Wilkinson Taos, NM 87571

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m a retired wildlife biologist who used to work for several State and Federal agencies, including the Forest Service. I spent years surveying natural species, populations and ecosystems within roadless areas to document their importance to biological diversity, ecosystem function and sustainability, and as indicators of disturbances and human interference. I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kristian McIntyre PO Box 276 Rodeo, NM 88056-0276 creativeartandsoul@gmail.com

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am an 87 year old Veteran who weekly hikes with the Portal Hiking Club into the Chricahua I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Arthur Rylander 74 Copper Ln Animas, NM 88020-9419 rarylander@yahoo.com