Read the comments.

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. Forester, wildlife ecologist, writer, and conservationist Aldo Leopold belonged to the first generation of American foresters and helped build the U.S. Forest Service into the effective agency it became. In 1924 he worked to establish the world's first wilderness area on the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. He ALWAYS worked to reconcile our need for sustainably managed forests with our need for protected wild landscapes. The roadless rule is the living legacy of Aldo Leopold and those who worked beside him to safeguard all the values of our national forest lands. In 1937, Leopold wrote: To build a road is so much simpler than to think of what the country really needs." Our country needs much more than the illusory "benefits" that would come from curtailing the roadless rule. It badly needs renewed respect for land as "a community to which we belong"--and respect for one another and for future generations who will value wildlands even more than we do. Leopold also wrote, in 1928: "The wilderness idea is a small but significant outgrowth of the idea of National Forests. Its importance is that of a test case. The decision, in my opinion, will indicate whether the U.S. Forest Service is tending to become a federal bureau which executes the laws, or a national enterprise which makes history." Do the right thing. Keep the roadless rule intact. And keep the respect of your fellow citizens. Sincerely, Curt Meine Sauk City, WI 53583-9694 curtmeine@gmail.com

Comment in Opposition to Rescinding the Roadless Rule Oct 6, 2026 · @Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance Docket FS-2025-0001 (RIN 0596-AD66, 91 FR 53827) Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance opposes rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and asks the Forest Service to withdraw the proposal, including for Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. GLWA is a volunteer 501(c)(3) based in Madison. We work to protect wolves and other wildlife in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region. Wisconsin's roadless areas are small, and access is not the problem The proposal would remove protection from about 69,000 acres of the Chequamegon-Nicolet, less than 5% of its 1.5 million acres (Iron Mountain Daily News). The rule limits new road construction and logging. Trout Unlimited notes these lands are typically open to hunting, fishing and firewood cutting (Outdoor Life). The rest of the forest is already heavily roaded. The Forest Service has cited about 9,000 miles of Forest Service road on the forest, and said its road budgets were falling as maintenance costs rose (WXPR, 2014). The head of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association has said the rule has not limited timber supply or constrained logging in northern Wisconsin (WJFW). New roads are not needed for access. The science points one way: fewer roads, more wildlife Road density is the best-known predictor of where wolves can live. University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers found it was the best predictor of wolf presence in northern Wisconsin (Pratt et al., 2008). In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, wolf occupancy held steady below about 0.4 km of road per km² and fell sharply above it, with a threshold near 0.7 km/km², or about 1.1 miles per square mile (Journal of Wildlife Management, 2005). The Chequamegon-Nicolet is already past that threshold. Total road density, counting closed and primitive roads, was reported at 3.1 miles per square mile on the Chequamegon and 4.9 on the Nicolet, roughly 2.8 to 4.4 times the Michigan figure (Schienebeck testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee, 2024). The same testimony says the Forest Service's 2004 plan focused road closures on wolf pack areas and low-road-density areas. The 69,000 roadless acres are among the few large blocks where low road density remains. GLIFWC staff have also said these areas help maintain high water quality (Iron Mountain Daily News). What we ask of the Forest Service 1. Withdraw the proposed rescission of 36 CFR part 294, subpart B. 2. If it proceeds, require the final environmental impact statement to analyze road density and wolf and other wildlife habitat on the Chequamegon-Nicolet's roughly 69,000 roadless acres. 3. Consult GLIFWC and the tribes whose treaty rights cover the forest before any decision. Wisconsin tribal organizations have said they were not consulted (WJFW). We stand with them as allies and do not speak for them. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Smith, Executive Director and Founder, Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance 117 Ardmore Drive, Madison, WI 53713 · msmith@wiwolvesandwildlife.org · (608) 234-8860 October 6, 2026

Dear Secretary Rollins, My name is Jazlynn Ludwig and everyday I work in our public lands. I have firsthand experience how roads impact our forests and natural areas! From the Ambler road in Alaska, to logging roads in Oregon, to the vast mining roads in Nevada and Utah, the effects are disastrous. It’s clear that this repeal would benefit only a few corporations vs the majority of the United States citizens who the land belongs to. 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, Jazlynn Ludwig Phillips, WI 54555-8319 jazlynnludwig@gmail.com

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to 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. L T N87W15137 Rozanne, WI 53051 Sincerely, Ms. L T

The following absolutely reflects my beliefs about the importance of protecting our pristine national forests. I feel very strongly that the roadless rule needs to stay in place. We must not sacrifice the very thing that can protect us from the effects of climate change. I oppose the Trump administration’s plans to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The roadless areas in our national forests are an American treasure. For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected them from roadbuilding and logging, preserving irreplaceable wildlife habitats, sources of clean water, and recreation areas for future generations. The Trump administration’s proposal to repeal the Roadless Rule threatens all these benefits. This rollback would harm forests like the Tongass National Forest, where the Roadless Rule protects over 9 million acres of the 17-million-acre forest from industrial logging and damaging roadbuilding.     Although the proposed repeal is being justified in part as a wildfire-prevention measure, peer-reviewed evidence shows that increasing roadbuilding will only increase wildfires. More than 80% of wildfires occur within 800 meters of roads, according to recent research.  In addition, increasing timber production means cutting down bigger, old trees, which are the most resilient to wildfire. Once an old-growth tree is cut and sold, it will take hundreds of years to replace it, and even longer for ecosystems to heal following clearcutting. Since older trees absorb and store more carbon than their younger counterparts, it is especially important that we keep these forests standing right now while we have the greatest ability to mitigate climate change.    Forests are not a crop to be used to line the pockets of industry executives. They sustain fish, birds, wildlife, and people; filter drinking water; provide recreational opportunities; and absorb and store carbon, helping us to fight climate change. Carving up these forests with roads and logging means we lose those benefits. These lands belong to all Americans, not the timber industry. The pristine lands protected by the Roadless Rule provide an extraordinary landscape for numerous backcountry recreation activities; sustain sensitive fish, bird and wildlife species that need these intact ecosystems to survive; provide subsistence to Tribes; and provide clean, clear drinking water for communities. Without protection for these roadless lands, all of those benefits will be jeopardized. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and protect our forests. Sincerely, Linda Vander Heyden Appleton, WI 54913 Sincerely, Linda Vander Heyden Appleton, WI

Dear Sir or Madam, We are against the proposed changes to the roadless rule. It is absurd that taxpayers spend billions of dollars constructing roads for money losing timber sales. The national debt is at $40 trillion. It's time for the federal government to stop using taxpayer money to subsidize corporations. Further, let's leave some untouched natural areas that are free from humanity's insatiable appetite for resources. Thank you, Christopher and Nancy Gloe 19355 Benington Dr. Brookfield, WI 53045

I am writing in support of the current Roadless Rule. It is my understanding that start near roads, not in remote areas. The USFS already cannot maintain the roads it is responsible for. the construction of roadways in natural areas can have a deleterious effect on the natural communites. Thank you for your time. Bethann Zonneville N109W16505 Scarlet Dr. Germantown, WI 53022 211bnb@sbcglobal.net

I am strongly in agreement that keeping the roadless rule for our forests in tact is the best way to keep our wild public lands protected from the greed of developers and extractive industries! My wife and I have used these wild places in our great country to explore, recreate and connect with nature for many decades. It should remain that way so all of our children and grandchildren can experience this same thing. Protect our forests from development and do not overturn the roadless rule! Thank you, Paul & Melody Gross 3894 Aldridge Lake Rd Eagle River, WI 54522