Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I (along with many others) 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. For these reasons and much more these environments should be protected! 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. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Therefore, 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, Christina Rodriguez Austin, TX 78741 c.rdrgz@yahoo.com

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. This is a reckless move that will have long stranding repercussions for our nation so that a few wealthy people can become wealthier. Americans do not benefit from a rollback. 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. Janet Journeay 4212 Gnarl Dr Austin, TX 78731 Sincerely, Janet Journeay

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. Our public land is not for sale! With the ever increasing human population and urbanization these protected lands mean more than ever! For the people who enjoy them and take peace in being among towering trees to migrating birds that pass every migration season. The roadless rule helps preserve land for people and wildlife alike. 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. AND YOUR PEOPLE OF THE US Jasmine Rivera 20483 kilbourn rd Harlingen, TX 78550 Sincerely, Jasmine Rivera

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and choose the No Action alternative. This rule is key to protecting ~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. The preservation of these benefits outweighs any economic or market benefits potentially enabled by new roads and development. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to ensure the continued protection of our treasures forests, wildlife, clean water, and national parks. Thank you, Celina Bonugli 1407 THECKLA TER Austin, TX 78756 Sincerely, Celina Bonugli

As a father, I want my daughter to inherit public lands as wild as the ones I know today. The Roadless Rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of our national forests for 25 years — keeping drinking water clean, wildlife habitat intact, and backcountry open for hunting, fishing, and hiking. Repealing it to expand logging and road-building trades a lasting public treasure for short-term profit. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Joshua Villarreal Houston, TX 77080 Joshua.villarreal@gmail.com Sincerely, Joshua Villarreal Houston, TX 77080 Joshua.villarreal@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose any effort by the USDA to weaken or eliminate the Roadless Rule. Our roadless forests protect clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and some of the best places in America for hiking, fishing, camping, skiing, and simply getting away from it all. Building roads into these areas fragments habitat, increases erosion and invasive species, and can increase wildfire risk. Once these remote landscapes are cut up by roads and development, the damage is difficult—if not impossible—to undo. I urge the USDA to reject the proposed rollbacks and keep the Roadless Rule in place. Protecting these lands is an investment in clean water, wildlife, recreation, and the long-term health of our public forests. Thank you for listening to the concerns of those who want to see these places protected for future generations. 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, Charley Wasson Fair Oaks Ranch, TX 78015-4553 charleywasson@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I am writing to urge the USDA to PRESERVE THE ROADLESS RULE and reject any proposal that would weaken or eliminate these important protections for our national forests. Roadless areas are among the nation’s remaining large, relatively undisturbed forest landscapes. Their value extends far beyond their scenery. These forests help protect clean drinking water, sustain wildlife habitat, store carbon, and provide places for people to hike, camp, fish, ski, bike, forage, climb, and experience nature away from roads and development. Allowing additional roads and development into these areas would come with lasting environmental costs. Roads can fragment habitat, facilitate the spread of invasive species, contribute to erosion and sedimentation, and disrupt wildlife. They also introduce human activity into landscapes that have remained relatively intact. In an era of increasing wildfire risk and a changing climate, maintaining connected and resilient forest ecosystems is increasingly important. Once roads are constructed and forests are fragmented, restoring those landscapes to their original condition can be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The short-term benefits of opening additional roadless areas to development do not justify the long-term loss of ecological, recreational, and watershed values. For these reasons, I oppose the proposed alternatives that would roll back protections under the Roadless Rule. I respectfully urge the USDA to maintain the existing rule and continue protecting the remaining roadless forests that provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, carbon storage, and climate resilience for current and future generations. Please leave the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, [Your Name] 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, Octavia Brooks Austin, TX 78748-5892 obaustintx@gmail.com

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the rescinding of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I grew up in Colorado where some places are more accessible than others. This is as it should be. While I appreciate the sentiment of giving more control over access to the local areas, there is a trend in this administration to take action to the detriment of the stated intent. Right now this law provides a barrier to environmental destruction. Without it, we won't have it. I support the ‘no action’ alternative that would retain the 2001 Roadless Rule. Thank you, Krysta Coffey 1985 Rafes Way, Beaumont, TX 77706

I have spent time in the National Forests every year of my life, and I am over 50. It is so important to maintain wilderness in trust for our children; once destroyed, it is almost impossible to recreate. Millions of Americans hike, climb, bike, boat, and otherwise enjoy these forests. The Roadless Rule has worked well. My children have grown up knowing the San Juan area deeply. We have spent weeks together, hiking, huddling in a tent, splashing in creeks. The roadless areas acts as purification for water for millions of us, and the forests as carbon sinks to offset growing climate change. They aren't just for recreation; they are our nations lungs, and changing this rule would benefit a few for a short time. Keeping the rule will benefit millions forever. Studies show that fires are much more likely to start in areas with roads, so this rule will put us at more risk for wildfires. Building the roads will cost taxpayers too much money, and suck resources from an already thinned Forest Service. Choose Alternative 1: no change. Sofia Martinez Austin, TX 78705

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, 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. Like many Americans, I frequent the national forest for recreation and spend time in designated wilderness areas. These areas not only provide people with amazing recreational opportunities but also act as quality habitat for countless wildlife species. The Coronado National Forest is an extremely important place to me personally and preserves one of the most unique ecosystems in the country. Removing the roadless rule puts these important areas at risk. Thank you, Patrick Cline Sincerely, Patrick Cline El Paso, TX 79924 patrickcline7@gmail.com