Read the comments.

I strongly oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water for millions of people, protects vital old-growth carbon sinks, and maintains critical wildlife habitats and migratory corridors. Opening these 44.7 million acres of inventoried roadless areas to commercial logging and new road construction risks permanent environmental damage, increases human-caused wildfire risks, and adds to an already massive federal maintenance backlog. I personally care about and depend on these public lands. The roadless areas of Sumter national forest are particularly important. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 (No Action) to keep comprehensive roadless protections fully in place across all national forest inventoried roadless areas. Sincerely, Steven Pruitt Taylors, SC 29687

I strongly oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water for millions of people, protects vital old-growth carbon sinks, and maintains critical wildlife habitats and migratory corridors. Opening these 44.7 million acres of inventoried roadless areas to commercial logging and new road construction risks permanent environmental damage, increases human-caused wildfire risks, and adds to an already massive federal maintenance backlog. I personally care about and depend on these public lands. The roadless areas of Sumter national forest are particularly important. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 (No Action) to keep comprehensive roadless protections fully in place across all national forest inventoried roadless areas. Sincerely, Rachel Pruitt Taylors, SC 29687

I strongly oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Don’t do it. Ever. Our national forests are public lands, our shared birthright, and they should be protected for the benefit of everyone, not opened to greater roadbuilding and commercial logging. In West Virginia, the Roadless Rule safeguards treasured places like Roaring Plains, Seneca Creek, Cheat Mountain, Canaan Mountain and Tea Creek, while protecting important buffers around Dolly Sods, Otter Creek and Cranberry. These wild, unfragmented landscapes provide clean water, wildlife habitat and irreplaceable opportunities for outdoor recreation. Once they are lost, we cannot easily restore them. Please preserve the Roadless Rule and protect our shared public lands for future generations. Sincerely, John Robeson 201 Brooks St Edgefield, SC 29824-1004 robesonjohn@gmail.com

To the U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area conservation Rule. Stripping protections from 45 million acres of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) would permanently damage our national forests, watersheds and local economies. As a citizen who deeply values our public lands, I urge the Forest Service to maintain the rule for the following critical reasons: Protection of Clean Drinking Water: Roadless areas safeguard the headwaters of rivers that provide clean unfiltered drinking water to millions of Americans. Allowing road construction and logging in these pristine areas will drastically increase soil erosion and degrade water quality fro downstream communities. Wildfire and Climate Resilience: Intact forests act as vital carbon sinks and natural buffers against severe climate impacts. Building roads and introducing commercial logging into these areas areas increases wildfire risks by creating edge effects and introducing new ignition vectors. Economic Value: Outdoor recreation is a massive driver for local economies. Millions of Americans visit these lands for hiking, hunting, fishing and camping. The fiscal cost of building and maintaining new roads will far outweigh any short term extractive gains, especially given the Forest Service's existing multi-billion dollar road maintenance backlog. Preservation and Biodiversity: These undisturbed ecosystems serve as critical wildlife corridors and habitats for thousands of species, many of which are threatened or endangered. Fragmenting these lands will cause biodiversity loss. Instead of rolling back these foundational protections, the Forest Service should focus on managing existing road networks and restoring degrading habitats closer to developed communities. I request that the Forest Service withdraw this proposal and permanently uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule to protect these irreplaceable public lands for future generations. Sincerely, Donna Giannini Anderson, SC 29621

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I care deeply about our national parks and the public lands that sustain them. I most strongly urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. I have visited many of our wondrous national parks and monuments and will continue to do so. Our public lands are just that…PUBLIC. They belong to me and every other U.S. citizen, not to any president, White House administration, or corporate entity. 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 incredible 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 which will cause irreparable environmental damage, destroy wildlife habitats along with the precious and varied wildlife species living there, will pollute and degrade our beautiful waterways, and will put 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. I ask that you 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. Lynn Fayard 513 High Hammock Dr Seneca, SC 29672-0362 Sincerely, Mrs. Lynn Fayard

I am opposed to rescinding the Federal roadless rule on public lands. It is not needed for wildfire suppression. It will have a net result of increasing the occurrence of wildfires. The proposed change will jeopradize valuable species like salmon and put billions of dollars in tourism revenue at risk. Please maintain the Roadless Rule on public lands. Thank you, Stuart Greeter 125 River Trace Lane Little Mountain, SC 29075 803 331-7064 sgreeter77@earthlink.net

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, N M Fort Mill, SC 29708 gamecockgirl_12@yahoo.com

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN: 0596-AD66Subject: Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping these essential protections from our remaining wild, roadless national forests would have devastating and irreversible consequences for our environment, local economies, and future generations.I urge the U.S. Forest Service to maintain the Roadless Rule for the following critical reasons: Climate Resilience and Carbon Storage: Roadless areas act as vital carbon sinks, containing some of the oldest and largest trees in our national forest system. Allowing road construction and subsequent commercial logging in these areas will release massive amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, severely undermining our national climate goals. Biodiversity and Habitat Protection: These intact ecosystems provide undisturbed habitats and critical migration corridors for numerous fish and wildlife species, including many that are threatened or endangered. Fragmenting these lands with roads will accelerate habitat loss and disrupt fragile ecosystems.Watershed and Drinking Water Protection: National forest roadless areas safeguard the headwaters of countless streams and rivers. They provide clean, filtered drinking water to millions of Americans. Introducing logging roads increases erosion, risks major landslides, and degrades water quality. Economic Reality of Forest Service Road Maintenance: The Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar backlog in maintaining its existing road network. Adding new roads into pristine areas is fiscally irresponsible and will divert scarce resources away from maintaining current infrastructure and mitigating wildfire risks near populated communities. Preservation of Outdoor Recreation: As an avid hiker / camper, I deeply value these lands for the unique primitive recreation and quiet solace they provide. These undeveloped spaces drive a robust outdoor recreation economy that sustains many rural communities.For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to reject this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact to protect our shared natural heritage.Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Donna Rice 813 Pinedale Rd West Columbia, SC 29170

Dear U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the agency to maintain the existing protections that safeguard nearly 45 million acres of intact national forest land. Stripping these protections will cause irreversible ecological degradation. I oppose this decision for the following critical reasons: Destruction of Forest Ecosystems: Rescinding the rule opens pristine, old-growth, and mature biodiverse forests to commercial logging and industrial extraction. These unfragmented ecosystems are essential climate buffers and carbon sinks. Replacing them with industrial infrastructure permanently alters their ecological integrity. Destruction of Wildlife Habitat: Roadless areas provide essential, contiguous habitat for more than 1,400 sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Constructing roads and introducing heavy machinery will fragment corridors, block migration routes, and isolate wildlife populations that depend on remote habitats to survive. Increased Wildfire Risk via Human Access: While this proposal is framed as a wildfire management strategy, the Forest Service’s own data shows that the vast majority of wildfires are human-caused and start near existing roads. Expanding road networks into currently roadless areas increases human access, which directly escalates the risk of human-caused ignitions. Severe Soil Erosion: Tree removal and heavy equipment operation compact forest soils and eliminate root structures. This lack of stability will result in severe soil erosion, particularly on steep slopes, permanently degrading the landscape and preventing healthy forest regeneration.Pollution of Watersheds: Forests act as natural water filtration networks. Increased erosion from logging and runoff from new dirt and gravel roads will deposit heavy sediment into pristine headwaters. This pollution directly threatens clean drinking water supplies for downstream communities and destroys critical aquatic habitats for fish and amphibians. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows forest managers to implement fuel management projects to mitigate fire risks near communities without building permanent roads. Developing an additional network of roads—when our National Forest System alreadyaces a massive road maintenance backlog—is ecologically and financially irresponsible.For the sake of our water, wildlife, and future generations, I ask that you withdraw this proposal and leave the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, US Citizen with Constitutional ownership of public lands and National Parks; Roger Parks 104 Edwards Cir. Simpsonville, SC 29681