Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, We depend on the forests for our way of life. Hiking in the forests is a major pastime. Bringing roads in will make it easier for commercial mushroom picking which the forests already get raked. Cars in the forests create higher fire risks. We don’t want our nature to be taken over, by ATVs, it’s what makes the Rogue Valley so special. Tourism by rafting groups would also be affected. Please preserve the wilderness. 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, Shelly Waugh Williams, OR 97544-9563 waushe26@gmail.com

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. I personally have camped, fished, boated and rafted in some of the areas currently protected by the Roadless Rule including many times at gorgeous Sparks Lake, Oregon Dunes in the Siuslaw Forest, the PCT near the incomparable Waldo Lake and Hardesty Mountain. To build roads in any of these pristine areas would open them to irreparable damage. 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 intact to protect these precious resources for future generations. Sincerely, Janice Bohman Eugene, OR 97405-5824 janbohman@comcast.net

Dear Secretary Rollins, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! THESE FORESTS ARE IRREPLACEABLE! ONCE GONE THEY ARE GONE! THIS PLANET IS OUR ONLY HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE GO OUT INTO THE FOREST AND TAKE THE TIME TO FEEL ITS SPECIAL BEAUTY AND LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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, Alice Conner Eugene, OR 97405-3756 alianiamaya@gmail.com

The attached file is the transcript from the Roadless Rule Town Hall held in Portland on April 8th, 2026, from 6 to 8 pm. This event took place at Ecotrust Building, at 721 NW 9th Ave, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97209. This meeting was co-hosted by organizations including Sierra Club, Cascade Conservancy, Save our Wild Salmon, BARK, Oregon Wild, and Environment Oregon. During the development of the Roadless Rule in 2001, the Forest Service put together a commendable effort to hold public meetings and incorporate that feedback into the makeup of the rule itself. In contrast to this, the Forest Service has failed to hold a single public meeting for the current proposed rescission of the rule. This Town Hall was organized as a venue for community members to be able to express their own expertise and opinions in support of retaining the Roadless Rule, with the acknowledgement that their testimony would be submitted to this public process when the comment period opened. This transcript contains 24 unique and substantive comments from individual speakers, including tribal representatives, Federal Representative Andrea Salinas, and the representatives of a number of different organizations. Thank you for considering their words carefully. Individual comments from: 1. Damon Motz-Storey, Sierra Club Oregon Chapter Director 2. Rep. Andrea Salinas, Oregon's 6th District (guest speaker) 3. Justin Boyles, Environment Oregon 4. Steve Kruger, Trailkeepers of Oregon 5. Regna Merritt, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility 6. Jordan Latter, Bark 7. Abby Dalke, Save Our Wild Salmon 8. Casey Clapp, arborist (podcast: Completely Arbortrary) 9. Jared Kennedy, Greater Hells Canyon Council 10. Will Pattiz, More Than Just Parks 11. Kristin Faulkner, individual 12. David Rollins, firefighter/conservationist 13. Felice Kelly, 350PDX Forest Defense Team 14. Tommy Hough, WaterWatch of Oregon 15. Grace Ng Dung, artist/illustrator 16. Dan Faulkner, individual 17. Alder McDonald, individual 18. Sierra Cromwell, individual 19. Kathleen Worley, individual 20. Sharon Selvaqqiu, Mazamas Mountaineering Club 21. Trygve Steen, individual 22. Ellen Mendoza, Great Old Broads for Wilderness 23. Guy Berliner, individual

Dear Secretary Rollins, I absolutely oppose eliminating or weakening the Roadless Rule. I am afraid this action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. 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! I am excited to continue to spend my money visiting near and around these Roadless areas. My family loves to hike, camp, backpack, snowshoe, and bike. We live in the Pacific Northwest, and we value our beautiful views, our clean drinking water, the gorgeous forests, and the diverse wildlife these areas support. Sincerely, Susan Vendetti Eugene, OR 97402-3185 sstumpf@uoregon.edu

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. For over 40 years since the second battle of Bunker Hill, when we tried to save old growth trees in Lane County, Oregon, we have known the value of old growth forests to humans and the wildlife that inhabit these forests. Cut the second growth trees, and please leave these old growth forests road less for all the benefits they provide for all living beings. Thank you, Sincerely, Diane Albino Springfield, OR 97477-1886 iriedi@yahoo.com

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. Some of the places I hold most dear in Oregon are USFS Roadless Areas. They are forests in which I’ve seen pine martens and long-tailed weasels, places that support far-ranging elk and wolves near Willamette Pass. We have obliterated so many of the planet’s ecosystems. Here we have an opportunity to keep ecosystems and their functions for wildlife and climate change intact. 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, Julie Polhemus Eugene, OR 97405-3051 juliepolhemus@gmail.com

I am strongly opposed to rescinding the Roadless Rule, which has served our forests and public lands admirably. As someone who fled a wildfire several years ago, I have read considerable research that documents that fires are MORE likely to occur where there are roads! I have also experienced personally the serious backlog by the Forest Service to maintaining the roads that they already have. There is a ridiculous amount of “deferred” maintenance already. And poorly maintained roads contribute to runoff and increased water pollution. The last thing we need is more roads – particularly in wild or even semi-wild areas. A great animals and birds require large areas without roads to be successful and survive. And frankly, humans need such areas just as much, and in every season. The time I spend outside in roadless places – hiking, backcountry skiing or just relaxing – are such a tonic to the noisy and crazy world we live in. You’re heard such comments from many people, I have no doubt. But please know that regardless if you personally spend time in roadless areas, these special places are what make this country great and also democratic. Every single person, regardless of wealth or political party benefit from and enjoy them. And we constitute a large and powerful voting block! Do NOT rescind the Roadless Rule, duh. Julia Corbett 915 NW Elizabeth Dr Corvallis, OR 97330

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. I have lived in Oregon for the last 50 years. It is very important to me to save these precious places that add value to my life in all the ways stated above. I like to hike in the beautiful Three Sisters Wilderness, camp at Cascade Lakes, take the canoe out on Waldo Lake. I don't want these places to be destroyed. 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, Deborah Rocha Eugene, OR 97405-4733 drr@efn.org

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I ask 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. Becky Kring PO Box 663 Reedsport, OR 97467 Sincerely, Ms. Becky Kring

Dear Secretary Rollins, I ask you to reflect on your legacy regarding our valued public lands and the impact of what repeating or diminishing it will cause. I oppose the USDA’s plan to remove or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would damage public lands, waste taxpayer funds, and diminish the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation that millions of Americans cherish. Roadless forests are among the most intact and resilient ecosystems in our nation. They filter and store clean drinking water, offer refuge for vulnerable species, and act as vital carbon sinks that help counter the growing effects of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, camp, ski, climb, and find peace in these remote areas. I personally find solace in silence, and seek out such places such as these for reconnecting with nature. More roads will also spread invasive species, tear apart wildlife habitat and weaken ecological resilience. More roads in the backcountry will also raise fire risks and research indicates wildfires ignite more often near roads. Once roads and clearcuts divide these landscapes, the harm is long- lasting. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a serious error. I do not support any proposed alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to drop this effort and instead reinforce its commitment to protecting our contry’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they supply. Please Keep 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, Stevyn Llewellyn Portland, OR 97231-2725 stevyn.llewellyn@gmail.com

To the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture: I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). I live in Southern Oregon, and the wild country here is a big reason why. I spend my free time in so many incredible outdoor sites that deserve our protection: the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, the Trinity Alps, the Marble Mountains, the Russian Wilderness, and the Redwood National Forest, to name just a few, where I hike, backpack, camp, fish, snowshoe, cross country ski and deeply feed my soul. These are the places I go to reset. What makes them worth the trip is exactly what this proposal puts at risk: quiet, intact forest with no roads and no machinery. I am also a nurse practitioner, so I see this as a health issue as much as a recreation issue. The headwaters inside roadless areas feed the rivers and reservoirs that downstream communities drink from. Clean water, clean air, and time in wild places are basic to human health, and they are far cheaper to protect than to restore once the damage is done. Roads change a forest permanently. They cut habitat into pieces, break up the corridors wildlife depend on, and push sediment into the streams where salmon and steelhead spawn. Intact forests store carbon and hold up better through drought and fire than fragmented, heavily managed timber land. What troubles me most is the reasoning behind this proposal. These lands belong to all of us and to the people who come after us. They should not be stripped and sold off so a few can turn a short-term profit. Once a roadless area is roaded and logged, it will not come back in my lifetime or the next generation's. No dollar figure makes that a fair trade. Handing these decisions to individual forest plans without a national safeguard would open millions of acres of backcountry to industrial logging and road construction. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 (No Action) and keep full, nationwide protections for all inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Andrea Giachetti, Nurse Practitioner, lover of all the wild and scenic places that exist in this country Phoenix, OR 97535

Dear Secretary Rollins, While up at Mt. Whitney last week I enjoyed a hike among tall trees, a river, a beautiful mountain landscape and relaxed along a water fall and contemplated the importance that nature provides as a respite from living in a busy, bustling city as I thought about the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule was established to safeguarded some of the most pristine and undeveloped land in our public National Forest System. These are cherished places me and a multitude of other people who camp, backpack, hike, bird watch, ski, fish and engage in other recreational and meaningful pursuits. While there I also saw an informational board about the 1964 Wilderness Act that created our National Wilderness Preservation System that provides the means for ordinary people to protect ecologically and communally important natural areas through their elected representatives in Congress and for the permanent good of the whole people. The informational board is titled "A Noble and Visionary Act" and I do not see arbitrarily gutting the Roadless Rule as noble or visionary but shortsighted, cheating the next generations, rushed and favoring promoting the commercial aspects of managing our public lands. I think Americans cherish their public and deserve leaders who protect them for future generations and not give them away to corporations and exploit them. I also want to add that rationalizing cutting down our forest in the name of fire prevention is not accurate and research from Oregon State University Professor Chris Dunn, a forest ecologist and wildfire expert and his colleagues, found most wildfires in Western national forest between 19984 and 2018 started near roads, showing an increased likelihood of wildfire where roads exist, because the number one cause of wildfires is people. Also good to note that research also demonstrates that climate change has contributed to longer fire seasons, hotter and unpredictable fire behavior. So, in agreement with the following narrative, 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, Sophie Swirczynski Eugene, OR 97404-3179 sophieswirz@gmaill.com

To Secretary Rollins: I urge you to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Its nearly 45 million acres are among the last places in America where you can walk for hours and hear only wind, water, and birdsong, free of vehicle noise, exhaust, and the dangers of traffic. Once a road is cut through, it's gone for good. Roads also damage the ecosystems this rule was built to protect: - Wildlife: Vehicles kill animals directly, and traffic noise masks the calls animals rely on to find mates and avoid predators. Roads also fragment habitat for elk, bear, and other wide-ranging species. - Water: Road runoff and washouts send fine sediment into streams, smothering the gravel beds where salmon and steelhead spawn. - Invasive species: Vehicles carry weed seeds into intact native habitat. - Wildfire: More access means more human-caused ignitions. The Forest Service already can't afford to maintain the roads it has. Adding more in remote, erosion-prone terrain creates costs taxpayers will carry for decades. The public has made its opposition to this repeal clear. Please withdraw it and leave something quiet for the generations that follow. Sincerely, Lukas Wehrle Portland, OR 97212 mww.luke@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, Our public lands should continue to be valued and protected. It would be heartbreaking to see the beautiful and important ecosystems that they contain be impacted by the elimination or weakening of the roadless rule. I don’t support it, and I urge the USDA to leave the roadless rule in place. Sincerely, Aneesa Winn Portland, OR 97218-3149 thetreechic@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I am writing because I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless change would be devastating to our public lands and an enormous waste of taxpayer funds. It would destroy wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities, increase the risk of wildfire, and undermine the outdoor industry. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems that we have left in the United States. 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. By contrast, roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Part of the justification given for this proposed change has been that more roads would aid fire suppression, but in fact, research shows that the opposite is true. Most wildfires ignite near roads and are human-caused. Opening our forests to more roads would lead to more wildfires, which are extremely expensive and dangerous to fight. Weakening or eliminating the Roadless Rule would be financially unsound and put lives at risk. I am also personally invested this issue because my work depends on roadless spaces. In the summers, I work in outdoor education, leading youth from a wide range of backgrounds on backpacking trips. Our public lands, including those protected by the Roadless Rule, are the backbone of these experiences. I have seen firsthand how experiences in the outdoors help young people build confidence in themselves and connections with each other, as well as appreciation for the world around them. It is vitally important that we protect these spaces so that future generations have the chance to experience that wonder and connection. 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, Clara Barclay Eugene, OR 97405 cmbarclay9@gmail.com

Secretary Rollins, I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the proposed rollbacks of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Repealing these protections would put some of the most precious areas of wild habitat in immediate jeopardy. As you know, the Roadless Rule was instated to protect 45 million acres from logging and other destructive activities. We cannot afford to lose any more wild spaces in this country. American species of mammals, birds, insects, and fish rely on these habitats to survive. American people rely on these habitats to live as well; we need clean water, clean air, natural spaces for recreation including hunting, fishing, and foraging for food. Public lands belong to all citizens of this country - destroying them should not be an option. Please do everything in your power to preserve the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Sincerely, Arianne Jacques Portland, OR 97205 ariannej13@gmail.com

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed policy change. As a person familiar with western public lands, having worked both for the U.S. Forest Service, and local non-profits, I have listened to much debate regarding the roadless rule since its enactment in 2001. I understand the concerns expressed by the current proposed change regarding access for firefighters, timber harvest, and other legitimate Forest uses. However, on balance, my experience and my research leads me to believe that the 2001 roadless rule should remain in place. In much of the lower 48 states, the areas that currently lack roads are steep, prone to landslides, and are difficult to harvest without permanently harming local soils (which are fundamental to the ability of our lands to grow trees) and/or the roads themselves. It is dubious that such proposed new roads and harvests will pencil out. Funds for road maintenance were so short during my time with the U.S. Forest service that travel was very slow and we avoided USFS roads where alternatives were available. Adding additional roads to public lands will not help, but simply add to the unfunded maintenance burden. Furthermore, roads also provide access to the public and, as public firefighters have repeatedly stated, most fires start near roads, often because a member of the public is not following proper procedures. This forces the USFS to expend precious resources patrolling the woods. In my experience, the public is also extremely adept at getting through locked gates and other barriers. The USFS and private contractors are already adept at accessing remote sites without roads. We don't need to provide more opportunities for human caused fires along new roads in our forests, especially given how much the land management agency budgets are currently being eaten up by fire suppression efforts. We should instead focus on thinning and restoring forests along areas with current roads and decommissioning less used routes for fire safety. Respectfully, Robert Hladky 88001 9th St. Veneta, OR 97487 (541) 223-9862

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

Dear Secretary Rollins, I was born and raised in Oregon, brought up by parents who showed me the beauty and power of wild forests. I want the opportunity to bring my children into a world that protects these forests and the deep impacts they have on all f us who explore. Sincerely, Ursula barton Ashland, OR 97520-3652 ursula.barton@gmail.com