Read the comments.

RE: Docket Number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66 I am writing to submit my comments regarding rescinding the Roadless Rule, Docket Number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66. I respectfully request that the Roadless Rule remain in full force. I reside adjacent to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Klickitat County. As a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest, I treasure the natural beauty it offers and hold dear the preservation of areas intended to serve nature solely for itself without the threat of human pressures. As a small forest owner/steward I know how impactful any type of disturbance can be to the ecosystem. We spent five weeks witnessing the destruction of 44 acres of the parcel that borders us on two sides while they installed roads and clear-cut last summer (June 2025). The logging trucks start rolling (four per hour at a minimum) in at 2:30 AM and the feller buncher fires up at the very same time, running for ten to twelve hours- six days a week. A decibel meter registered readings of 95 db. for many hours over the course of the day. It was impossible to sleep and the production of our flock of chickens dropped to less than half for the duration of the logging operations. Those are just two of the impacts, there were many more to ourselves and the surrounding community. Every type of wildlife left for the duration of the logging, and it took until this spring for them to begin to return. Our forests had been planted at the same time, and the trees were more than 75 years old- young in the life of a forest and a lifetime for most humans. Our adjoining parcels contain extensive wetlands, seasonal waterways, and ponds. None of these were protected from the destruction and oversight to ensure that setbacks were observed was non-existent. The impact was and has been intense, causing tremendous flooding where it had not occurred previously. Water and precipitation at our elevation (2000’) is precious and would have stayed higher in the watershed had those trees still been there and the wetlands not been demolished during the logging. We are in our fourth year of drought here in the northwest and every drop feels precious. Our pond is the lowest we’ve ever witnessed in the 10 plus years we’ve owned. I share our experience in the hope that you will closely consider the ALL of the potential impacts of rescinding the Roadless Rule- both short term and long term. Our forests are under tremendous pressure, at a time when we need them more than ever to help offset climate change. Humans have spent the past three centuries creating monocultures, including in our forests. The lack of complex ecosystems has dramatically impacted the health of our forests, and now policy makers, Department of Natural resources, and logging interests are using the perceived threat of forest fires to push a narrative of burning to enhance forest health. Rescinding the roadless rule will have tremendous impacts that will take generations to repair. The Roadless Rule helps preserve: •Clean Water for Communities •Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity •Outdoor Recreation and Local Economies •Natural Resilience •Threaten Tribal Sovereignty and access to traditional, sacred gathering grounds. Any action taken that will reduce these restrictions puts these pristine areas at risk. Most Sincerely, Jennifer Sharp 12 Pyatt Rd., White Salmon, WA 98672

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I've spent my career in climate, helping some of the world's largest companies reduce their environmental impact. I know lasting progress depends on clear, enforceable rules that protect shared resources. Before this work, I watched public lands opened to private interests in ways that degraded public welfare and left communities to bear the costs. Any repeal would repeat that pattern. Repeal would open millions of acres to road building, logging, mining, and drilling. Wildfire is the stated reason, but the clearer motive is more timber for private industry. These forests store carbon, shelter wildlife, and protect drinking water for millions. Please reject this repeal and protect them for future generations. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.

I urge you to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully in place. Roadless forests protect clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, and carbon storage, and they preserve places like the wild backcountry surrounding Crater Lake, where undeveloped forests help safeguard the watersheds and quiet landscapes that make the region so special. New roads and logging in these areas would fragment habitat, increase erosion and wildfire risk, and add costs to a Forest Service that already can't maintain its existing road network. Once these places are developed, they can't be restored, so please protect roadless areas for current and future generations. Thank you for considering my comment.

Please under no circumstances can this rule be rescinded. It would destroy the natural beauty of this nation and wreak havoc on ecosystems and local economies. Loss of natural habitat would lead to reduced crop yields as local climate and weather is often tied very closely to the vitality and diversity of local ecosystems. These forests also provide a significant carbon sink and whether you believe it or not climate change is going to keep getting worse (it’s settled scientific fact something this department should care about). Reducing forest land will accelerate it. All the profits developers are seeking by scrapping this rule mean nothing if the world they create is unlivable. Also, I take issue with the decision that this would not affect American families. Outdoor recreation represents a huge variety of family activities which support their health and happiness. Removing this rule would decimate the ability for families to enjoy these beautiful natural habitats all in the name of profits for a handful of greedy corporations. It’s unconscionably immoral what you are trying to do here and I hope the hundreds of thousands of comments you got make you realize that. I also guarantee that millions of comments would flood in if more people knew about this but it seems as though the government and media are uninterested in getting the word out about this rule change. Nobody likes this.

Keep the country country. We need the forests to keep the air clean, keep the native species alive that work in tandem to keep the earth alive and cool. Trees produce oxygen and take up the carbon dioxide. We live in a symbiotic world where everything works together in tandem. Even the animals are in pecking order. Dont let the corruption of Washington, D.C. kill our dear Mother Earth. If we are good to her she is good to us. Right now the Global Warming crisis is real and the weather patterns are threatened our very existence. The people who dont believe in this need to be put right in the middle of some of these disasters to experience what is truly going on. Yes, it affects the forests. Being stationed in California at a military base 35-36 years ago, there were NO fires at all. Today its nonstop fires burning beautiful massive forests and floods. I lived in Nevada for awhile and watched the poor mountain lions come into the city because they were displaced by massive developments. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.

These lands belong to citizens of the United States, not to corporations which have historically, and irreparably, extracted every resource possible at the expense of the environment and every one of us who relies upon it for a good life. Repealing the Roadless Rule puts Americans at greater risk from the deleterious effects of climate change--most pressingly wildfires--and would ostensibly eliminate access to many of our most precious places for recreation. This administration's thinly-veiled policy of enriching a handful of its most sycophantic supporters and their family members at the expense of the vast majority of taxpaying americans is blatantly corrupt and a betrayal of the American people. Do not repeal the roadless rule.

The Road-less Rule protects 58M+ acres of valuable wilderness that provides us with clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, old growth, carbon storage, and lower wildfire risk. Opening the roads to logging, mining, and roads would devastate the forests and all they provide. Do not open this land to development! Protect our wilderness!!

To Whom it May Concern: I live in Seattle, WA and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, living in or near a National Forest community, and Trail runner. Natural places, untouched by roads and development, are critical for the health of our environment and for our own enjoyment and appreciation of the world. Lake Ann Trail is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Mount Baker North Inventoried Roadless Area in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. We hiked to Lake Ann this past weekend, and were blown away by the natural scenery! The trail meanders through a basin surrounded by rocky peaks and golden meadows. The lake itself was a gorgeous jade, surrounded by golden larches just reaching their peak. These places need to be preserved for future generations! I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Large areas without road access provide more protection for the habits of diverse species of plants and wildlife. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Roads disrupt natural vegetation and waterways that protect our water sources. They also create pollution, which risks the health of our watersheds and the plants and wildlife sustained by them. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. Being able to visit these incredibly special places is a privilege, and one that we are uniquely honored to have in our country. I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. Roads are associated with increased fire risk through the increased opportunity for wildfire ignition. The data shows that a majority of human caused wildfires ignite near areas with road access. I am concerned about increased timber-development pressure in currently roadless areas. The importance of a healthy tree canopy cannot be overstated, particularly at a time when we are facing increasing stresses on the climate. I believe maintaining a national conservation baseline matters. The US is special BECAUSE of the vast areas of undeveloped nature. Unlike Europe and other more densely populated countries we have the opportunity to preserve these spaces and should not be short-sight about this. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.

Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a hiker, PNW resident and climate action-driven citizen and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a hiker and animal/nature enthusiast, myself and so many citizens benefit hugely from Inventoried Roadless Area conservation, like the areas near Bellingham and in the Methow Valley. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.

Healthy, roadless forests naturally soak up greenhouse gases to help fight climate change. The current rule already lets local managers thin out overgrown trees near neighborhoods to prevent dangerous wildfires. There is simply no need to build new roads or allow aggressive commercial logging deep in the forest. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Dear Forest Service, I am writing to ask that you not rescind the Roadless Rule, which protects important forest and wild land. Our roadless areas are crucial for many species of animals and they provide opportunities for recreation. They also protect sources of clean water. And they actually decrease the likelihood of fire. Studies have shown that forest adjacent to roads is four time more likely to burn. Throughout my life, I have enjoyed walking on trails through Forest Service land. I have always felt proud of our country for conserving our heritage of beautiful and ecologically significant forests. These lands are important for us and will be tremendously important for the generations that follow us. At a time when climate change is a huge threat to human well-being, it is especially important that we protect our forests. Once the pristine, wilderness areas are gone, there is no way to bring them back. It would be a huge mistake to allow these forests to be exploited for short-term profit. If we protect them, future generations will be grateful. Please don't allow our precious heritage of roadless wild land to be despoiled. Please do not repeal the Roadless Rule. Thank you for your consideration. Annette Holland

The Roadless Rule is integral to the health of our nation’s forests. Forest ecosystems cannot survive when fragmented; predator populations diminish, and prey begin to overrun the forests. Not only will this plan harm carbon sinks and animals protected by federal legislation, but it will also make communities, particularly in the West, more vulnerable to extreme wildfire events. Studies show that logged forests burn hotter and faster due to increased heat at the forest floor, the presence of leftover debris that acts as kindling, and the exposure to high winds from the lack of trees. If the administration cares about the health of our forests and communities, it will keep the Roadless Rule in place.

The Wonalancet Out Door Club was founded in 1898 with the mission to make the natural beauty of the Sandwich Range accessible to a broad public through the maintenance of hiking trails. We now maintain more than fifty miles of trails and provide a variety of other year-round services to thousands of visitors and hikers annually. The Club has a long history of advocacy in protecting our national forests, from supporting the Weeks Act of 1911 to promoting the establishment of the Sandwich Range Wilderness in 1984 and its expansion under the New England Wilderness Act of 2006. The Club also advocated for approval of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in 2001. The Roadless Rule, established with the input of an amazing 1.6 million letters from citizens, has acted as a safeguard for our pristine National Forests for two and a half decades. In terms of natural resources, the rule protects intact ecosystems that are the habitat for large numbers of endangered species, that serve as vital migration corridors, and that encompass the headwaters of rivers which are crucial to preserving pure drinking water for tens of millions of Americans. The function of these uninterrupted forests to sequester carbon is increasingly appreciated as new scientific studies are published. And as the rule safeguards these forests it ensures that they remain available for recreation and appreciation of natural beauty that is untouched by human interference. These values survive because these large tracts are uninterrupted ecosystems. All these benefits come from protected areas that cover only 2% of the land in the United States. It is therefore hard to fathom that short-term commercial interests that are behind efforts to rescind the Roadless Rule should be given preference over the protection of such a unique and valuable resource. Once the commercial value is taken out of our forests their value as uninterrupted ecosystems is lost forever. The building of new roads and potential increase in commercial logging not only disrupt them irrevocably; they would likely also increase the risk of wildfires, since most forest fires have been shown to be caused by human activity. Respect for our wild lands has been part of our national character for many decades. We honor that tradition and, on behalf of all our members and our partner organizations around the country strongly advocate that the U..S. Forest Service retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Respectfully submitted, Frumie Selchen and Genevieve Christy Co-Presidents Wonalancet Out Door Club

I oppose getting rid of this act and think we need to take care of the 58 millions acres of National Forest that America has kept healthy since 2001. Backpacking routes and rivers are protected by this act and so are more than 10000 climbing routes. It is a myth that building roads will help us maintain forest fires better as we can trim trees and get to the fires faster. In fact, almost 90% of forest fires since 2013 have been caused by humans. Building roads would just cause more fires and would be absolutely horrible for the amount of carbon stock we have in forests. Anyone who supports the recantation of this act is either benefiting from it economically and does not care about the environment or is simply uneducated.

I am writing this comment to VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE the rescinding of the Roadless Rule. The impacts of this will be catastrophic for our natural areas and natural resources, which I use very frequently. Below are some of the negative impacts expected from the recision of this rule: Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally Wildlife habitat: habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road. This fact directly rebuts the administration's stated rationale for rescinding this rule. Old growth & carbon storage: contains vast swaths of the country's remaining old-growth forest and significant carbon storage Fiscal responsibility: the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog; building more roads adds to it I recreate in our beautiful wild areas regularly and this will negatively impact recreation, hunting, fishing, and everyone's enjoyment of the pride of America, our stunning national parks. Please keep the Roadless Rule and preserve out beautiful natural spaces for generations to come.

Our natural world is not only one of the few accessible magics left in society, but is also a source of sustainability, revenue, and longevity for our population. The beauty that exists in these areas, uninterrupted by man-kind is something truly irreplaceable. The carbon sinks provided, the oxygen produced, the medicines and benefits held in these places cannot be replaced. Some of these ancient biomes will not revive for thousands of years if they are destroyed. Not to mention the clean drinking water that will be poisoned by urban sprawl and resource extraction. Make no mistake, this decision will affect ALL citizens of the continent; the rich, the politicians, the whites, blacks, heterosexual, homosexual - no one will be safe or immune from the effect of public wildland loss. Please, for the sake of us all who still see the beauty of this world amd want to pass it on to our kids - stop this law from passing. THE PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS AND THE PEOPLE ARE THE POWER.

As a researcher, conservationist, and advocate for open spaces on public lands, I work with land managers and livestock producers to better manage land for long term sustainability and improved habitat on BLM, USFS, State, and private lands. Additionally as an avid hiker, the National Parks, Preserves, and wildlife management areas are valuable to me not only for recreation, but also because I know that they are beneficial to the organisms that live there - big and small. I have lived in and worked on these lands across Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. From a wildlife perspective, on a scale from insects to large ungulates, roads contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation. Noise from traffic also disrupts normal wildlife behavior, rhythms, and relationships. Madadi et al., reviewed these impacts in “Degradation of natural habitats by roads: Comparing land-take and noise effect zone.” A healthy, intact forest filters and retains water, cycles nutrients, sequesters carbon, and is primary habitat for thousands of plant and animal species. Additionally, roads and the consequential traffic increase the risk of wildfires and maintenance is costly. The Roadless Rule protects these important areas and populations from deterioration and protects future generation’s access to these pristine ecosystems. Eliminating this law would be a transgression against the scientific community who has studied this ecosystem and its inhabitants for decades. I strongly oppose removing the Roadless Rule and as for the Forest Service to adopt a “no action alternative” to keep the Rule intact. I urge the USFS to keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect these sensitive ecosystems from further degradation. Sincerely, CG

I support Alternative 1: keep the Roadless Rule in place.” As a mycologist I know the impact of keeping healthy ecosystems intact. The disturbance of clearing forests for roads and subsequent logging only further endangers fragile ecosystems already suffering from the effects of global warming and habitat destruction. Preserving habitat for microorganisms, plants, insects and wildlife is vital to the health of Virginia forests as well as the planet. Please look at the issue from a global perspective and not at short term economic gains from logging.

Hello I am a high school senior and I want to comment in favor of keeping the Roadless Rule. I would it it to be kept because Road construction fragments critical migration corridors and destroys habitats. The rule preserves bordering ecosystems that support many threatened or endangered species, healthy fisheries, and old-growth trees that serve as massive carbon sinks to combat climate change getting rid of the rule would change the ecosystems for the worse and would greatly affect humans as well we don't need more roads we need to preserve the ecosystems so that is doesn't collapse and cause huge problems for future generations to come. thank you for considering my comment.

Hello! My name is Sonia Lerner and I am a college student at George Washington University. I am also Co-President of the Environmental Justice Action Network at GWU. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. These forests are crucial to so many parts of American life; they provide vital clean water to over 50 million Americans, maintain ecosystems for countless endangered and threatened species, and provide numerous different types of recreation. Not only that, but they're incredibly important in our fight against climate change because they're carbon sinks. I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Sonia Lerner