Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.
I urge you to suspend the current proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (i.e., “Roadless Rule”). The Roadless Rule was created with overwhelming public support and has protected forests for more than 25 years. Decisions about these areas should be based on science, not short-term corporate interests.
These protected forests provide important habitat for wildlife, protect clean water, and give people opportunities to enjoy and connect with nature. These places should continue to be protected, not fragmented, logged, and mined for private or corporate benefit.
I have a deep connection to the forests surrounding the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness, some of the now-threatened Roadless Areas in Maine. These intact ecosystems are special places for people to visit, explore, and learn about nature, provide habitat for several threatened species, and are home to some of New England's last remaining old-growth forests. Mainers cannot afford to lose the habitat and water quality benefits provided by these Roadless Areas. I urge you to protect these places for future generations by suspending the current proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Samaia Can
80 N Allen St Albany, NY 12203
gunner_laity_2z@icloud.com
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 3 submissions in its group.
Please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat. They’re our favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from road-building, commercial logging and mining.
Industrial activity would destroy the trees and trails we love. Keep our national forests wild.
Sincerely,
Sandra Dal Cais
4534 48th St Woodside, NY 11377-5337
plutonique@aol.com
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
se01nsnn se01nsnn ,
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. This includes 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.
Why would you consider rescinding this rule now?
Could it be that greedy companies want access to these lands for their own profit?
Could it be that these companies have lobbied for access and that you are paying more attention to their requests than to the American people?
I'm sure you are aware that rescinding the Roadless Rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development. It would fragment vulnerable wildlife habitat, degrade waterways, and put our parklands 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.
But it may be that greedy Big Lumber and Big Mining want MORE. Could it be that you have been pressured to give it to them?
Do not move forward with this rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place. Protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and national parks from the greedy predators who want to despoil these lands for their profit.
You know better than this.
Carol Saul
711 Amsterdam Ave Apt 27K
New York, NY 10025-6917
Sincerely,
Ms. C P Saul
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 32 submissions in its group.
Please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat. They’re our favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from road-building, commercial logging and mining.
Industrial activity would destroy the trees and trails we love. Keep our national forests wild. These forests are our unique historical and cultural heritage, and are irreplaceable. They should not be sacrificed to immediate commercial goals in the name of practicality.
Sincerely,
Charles Ruas
347 W Broadway New York, NY 10013-2239
cruas14@gmail.com
I strongly urge you to please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat. They’re our favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from road-building, commercial logging and mining.
We need to protect all the tree and forest areas we still have as much as possible. Wild fires, droughts, floods and other disasters as well as mining and fossil fuel production have already destroyed so much acreage of forested areas, while at the same time reenforcing pollution of air and water. We need our forests to keep our air, soil and water clean and to stem against the pollution we already caused. We do NOT need more mines and fossil fuels.
As the US Forest Service you really should know better. You are in charge of protecting our forests, not selling them out.
Keep our national forests wild.
Sincerely,
Claudia Shapiro
29 Oak Crest Dr Huntington Station, NY 11746-3920
cshap26@yahoo.com
As a lifelong hunter, fisherman, and hiker, I strongly support the Roadless Rule which protects nearly 60 million acres of undeveloped national forest land from new road building. Removing the Roadless Rule would benefit a very few to the detriment of everyone else. The Roadless Rule protects public land for those of us alive today and keeps it undeveloped for our children, grandchildren and their descendants. The Roadless Rule is visionary in its protections, and should remain in place for the benefit of ALL Americans in perpetuity.
Respectfully, Christopher J. Riley
81 Carmen Rd
Amherst, NY 14226
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 409 submissions in its group.
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.
Nicholas Moy
436 N Aurora St. APT 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
Sincerely,
Nicholas Moy
As a consulting forester of 40 plus years, sustainability planner and conservationist, I am opposed to the dangerous, non-sensical recession of the vital 2001 USDA FS Roadless Rule enacted in 2001.
The federal government must protect and maintain this essential Roadless Rule fully in it strongest form. Protection of our national roadless forests is essential for preserving the nations biodiversity, clean water, diverse wildlife, hunting and recreational forest lands and more.
These values and benefits to present and future generations must be secure and maintained in the secure, strong present roadless rule as it is current, vital, successful law.
Please protect the roadless rule as strong as it is at present and do not permit any recession.
Thank you for considering my public testimony.
Sincerely,
Daniel R. Plumley
Founder Director
Totem Consulting Group, LLC
93 Hurricane Road
Keene, NY 12942
P.O. Box 746
Keene Valley, NY 12943 (Mail US Post
(518) 524-7771
Email: danplumley@totemgroup.us
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 3 submissions in its group.
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I urge the U.S. Forest Service to do the right thing and protect our remaining sacred wild places as a top priority! Please 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.
Victoria Oltarsh
16 Washington Street, NY 10960
Sincerely,
Ms. Victoria Oltarsh
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 20 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. 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,
Jeanette Capotorto
South Glens Falls, NY 12803-4210
capotro@aol.com
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 21 submissions in its group.
I urge you to suspend the current proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (i.e., “Roadless Rule”). The Roadless Rule was created with overwhelming public support and has protected forests for more than 25 years. Decisions about these areas should be based on science, not short-term corporate interests.
These protected forests provide important habitat for wildlife, protect clean water, and give people opportunities to enjoy and connect with nature. These places should continue to be protected, not fragmented, logged, and mined for private or corporate benefit.
I have a deep connection to the forests surrounding the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness, some of the now-threatened Roadless Areas in Maine. These intact ecosystems are special places for people to visit, explore, and learn about nature, provide habitat for several threatened species, and are home to some of New England's last remaining old-growth forests. Mainers cannot afford to lose the habitat and water quality benefits provided by these Roadless Areas. I urge you to protect these places for future generations by suspending the current proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Dawson
671 47th St Brooklyn, NY 11220-1459
nick@thetalkhouse.com
I strongly urge the Forest Service to withdraw its proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
As a birder, I experience forests not simply as stands of trees, but as living communities whose complexity has taken decades or centuries to develop. Some of the most extraordinary birds in the United States depend on large, intact forests for breeding, feeding, migration, and shelter. Mature and old-growth forests provide structural complexity, nesting sites, food webs, and connected habitat that cannot simply be replaced by planting new trees after logging. Once an old forest is lost, we cannot manufacture another one on a timeline meaningful to the birds and other wildlife that depend upon it.
Birds are also not decorative additions to these ecosystems. They are part of how forests function: dispersing seeds, controlling insect populations, moving nutrients through ecosystems, and serving as sensitive indicators of environmental health. Protecting bird habitat therefore protects far more than birds.
This is especially personal to me because of my connection to the forests surrounding Maine's Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness and nearby Roadless Areas. Knowing that places like these still contain relatively intact forests, including remnants of New England's increasingly rare old-growth ecosystems, is profoundly meaningful to me as a birder and as someone who believes future generations deserve the opportunity to encounter wild places that have not been fragmented by roads and industrial development.
The Roadless Rule has provided nationwide conservation protections for more than 25 years. Rescinding it would remove restrictions on road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest across nearly 45 million acres of National Forest System lands. These forests protect wildlife habitat, watersheds, biodiversity, and opportunities for people to experience genuinely wild landscapes.
We already know how difficult it is to restore an ecosystem after its complexity has been lost. We should not knowingly trade irreplaceable habitat and clean water for short-term extractive interests and then expect future generations to repair the damage.
Environmental stewardship should transcend politics. Healthy forests, clean water, biodiversity, and functioning ecosystems are matters of public interest and public health. Please preserve the protections Americans have relied upon for a quarter century and withdraw the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Sincerely,
Jess Singleton
612 W 147th St Apt 4 New York, NY 10031-4311
jess.singleton@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to the Proposal to Rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID: 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’s proposal to rescind protections on more than 45 million acres of roadless national forest lands. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
I honestly can’t even believe this is even a debate again after just 25 years of protection. It feels like we are living through a real-life version of the “The Lorax” (if you haven’t read it, write me and I will send you a copy). The scary part is that once we’ve squandered all of our world’s natural resources we can’t just pack up and move on to somewhere else like the Once-ler’s did.
As a resident of New York, I am highly concerned about how this rollback threatens the public lands of the Northeast as well as the rest of our country. In a densely populated state like New York, intact, mature, roadless patches of federal forest provide irreplaceable ecological "islands." They are primary strongholds for carbon sequestration, local watershed filtration, and habitat for deep-woods wildlife that cannot thrive near road noise or commercial timber clearings.
Leaning into commercial exploitation under the guise of wildfire management is fundamentally flawed and financially irresponsible. The U.S. Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar maintenance backlog for its existing road network. Subsidizing the construction of new timber roads into remote areas to benefit private logging operations forces federal taxpayers to shoulder an unnecessary infrastructure liability, all while increasing both human-caused environmental destruction and wildfire risks near the new access paths.
These unmolested natural sanctuaries should be a point of pride that we as Americans can showcase to the world for generations; they should NOT be used up for short term financial gain. I personally would love for my children and grandchildren to be able to visit these natural wonders and see what the world used to look like before we cleared everything to make room for our shopping centers.
I strongly urge the agency to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule protections and safeguard these public lands for the public good, rather than private commercial gain.
Sincerely,
Theofani Baktidy
Hobart, NY 13788
Subject: Opposition to the Proposal to Rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID: 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’s proposal to rescind protections on more than 45 million acres of roadless national forest lands. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
I honestly can’t even believe this is a debate again after just 25 years of protection. It feels like we are living through a real-life version of the “The Lorax” (if you haven’t read it, write me and I will send you a copy). The scary part is that once we’ve squandered all of our world’s natural resources we can’t just pack up and move on to somewhere else like the Once-ler’s did.
As a resident of New York, I am highly concerned about how this rollback threatens the public lands of the Northeast as well as the rest of our country. In a densely populated state like New York, intact, mature, roadless patches of federal forest provide irreplaceable ecological "islands." They are primary strongholds for carbon sequestration, local watershed filtration, and deep-woods wildlife that cannot thrive near road noise or commercial timber clearings.
Leaning into commercial exploitation under the guise of wildfire management is fundamentally flawed and financially irresponsible. The U.S. Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar maintenance backlog for its existing road network. Subsidizing the construction of new timber roads into remote areas to benefit private logging operations forces federal taxpayers to shoulder an unnecessary infrastructure liability, all while increasing both human-caused environmental destruction and wildfire risks near new access paths.
These unmolested natural sanctuaries should be a point of pride that we as Americans can showcase to the world for generations; they should NOT be used up for short term financial gain. I personally would love for my children and grandchildren to be able to visit these natural wonders and see what the world used to look like before we cleared everything to make room for shopping centers.
I strongly urge the agency to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule protections and safeguard these public lands for the public good, rather than private commercial gain.
Sincerely,
Theofani Baktidy
Hobart, NY 13788
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 21 submissions in its group.
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. Keep our wilderness wild.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Stephanie Kowalski
East Setauket, NY 11733
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express strong opposition to a proposal that would open nearly 45 million acres of national forest lands to new road construction, commercial logging, and mineral extraction. I am talking about the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001-223869).
I know that this proposal does not directly affect the Adirondack Park, where I live, but it affects it indirectly. The ecological integrity of the Adirondack Mountains is connected to the health of nearby national forests such as the Green Mountain, Finger Lakes, White Mountain, and Allegheny National Forests. These forests contribute to a broader regional network of wildlife habitat and climate-resilient landscapes that support migratory species and ecological processes extending into the Adirondacks. Weakening protections in these forests would undermine that regional connectivity, having an indirect, but deleterious, impact on the Adirondack Mountains, where I grew up and still live.
I feel strongly that commercial logging, mining, and livestock grazing belong on private lands, not on public lands. The 2001 Roadless Rule is one of the most effective tools for protecting intact forest landscapes. Weakening it would undermine decades of conservation progress and jeopardize the ecological integrity of national forests across the country.
I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and reject this proposal.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Ellen Jones
39 Country Club Lane,
Lake Placid, NY 12946
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 76 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz,
Enough of our beautiful country is paved as it is. 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,
Elizabeth Long
New York, NY 10021
theotherbess@gmail.com
Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001
The creatures we still share our world with deserve better than this. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and I am filing this comment because roadless areas in the national forests are among the last places where clean water, clean air, and the surviving remnants of wildlife still hold together. Those three things are not abstractions to me. They are the reason these lands matter, and they are precisely what this proposal puts at risk.
The agency's own draft environmental impact statement documents what road construction and timber harvest do to biological diversity, and then stops short of applying that knowledge to the lands actually at stake. Studies sponsored by agency itself show that the risk of wildfires, impacts on endangered species, and controls on climate change will all be harmed by opening up these lands to roads and other uses.
So I strongly oppose this rescission. The roadless areas of the national forests protect clean water, clean air, and wildlife that cannot be recovered once lost. The agency's own documents show the harm coming. It has not shown how that harm will be prevented.
Please listen to what I--and so many others like me--are saying. This is an important issue, and one whose ultimate fate will be on our minds on the coming election day, and in 2028 as well.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wallace
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 3 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 32 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 409 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 3 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 20 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 21 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 21 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 76 submissions in its group.