Read the comments.

Hello, I oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule without clear safeguards as this could expose mature and old-growth forests to unnecessary commercial harvesting and permanent road construction. Before changing the rule, I respectfully ask the Forest Service to establish enforceable protections for existing old-growth trees and ecologically significant mature forests. Any exceptions should allow legitimate wildfire prevention, public safety and ecological restoration while preventing those exceptions from becoming a pathway for unnecessary commercial removal of irreplaceable old trees. These forests took CENTURIES to develop and cannot simply be replaced by planting new trees (many of which die in a few days). Please preserve responsible forest-management tools while adding clear protections for the mature and old-growth forests we cannot replace. You do not want this country to be a forest-less country. We have beautiful landscapes, but they are only beautiful if people protect them.

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

Protect the Roadless Rule. It is good for wildlife and our lands.

I am dishearted by our government attempting to rescind the roadless rule. Areas protected by this rule should not be sacrificed and destroyed. We need nature and nature deserves protections, not to be endlessly extracted from!

Dear Regulators As a life-long lover of both roads and forests, I am writing to strongly reject repealing the 2001 "Roadless Rule". I understand that this rule was put in place to protect vital habitats across the United States - and to slow the spread of development and deforestation. In my lifetime, I have seen how one road can lead to many roads which then create a criss-cross effect that breaks up and ultimately destroys habitats. I have seen water rights extended to commercial operators in National Forests - with roads and pipelines damaging the ecosystem and taxpayers footing the bill for their access. I do not believe local forest leaders should be able to remove protections from these designated lands - overseeing their activities would be costly and complicated - who would provide oversight or enforcement of local protections? • The Proposal: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Forest Service proposed repealing the 2001 rule, which protects roughly 45 to 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless national forest lands from most commercial logging and new road construction. • The Administration's Rationale: Proponents of the repeal argue it will reduce regulatory burdens, transfer management flexibility to local forest leaders, and help mitigate severe wildfire risks and insect outbreaks through active forest management. Removing national protections threatens critical wildlife habitats, compromises clean drinking water sources for millions of Americans, and could increase wildfire risks by opening remote backcountry areas to commercial activities. If you are truly concerned about mitigating severe wildfire risks, then consider a different kind of de-regulation: one in which the First People lead the management of these forests - this would achieve the same result, transferring national control to regionally-relavant managers, while still maintaining a cohesive protection that extends across all National Forests. The federal government would still provide oversight and enforcement, but local indigenous management would be able to steward the forests regionally. Thank you for your consideration, J. DIDIER, Los Angeles, CA

Forests are very important for wildlife, but forests also mean many different things to many different people in ways i cannot describe, we don't need roads that cut through these untouched places. so please keep these forests safe

I strongly oppose eliminating the Roadless Rule. These protections safeguard some of our nation’s most valuable undeveloped public lands, wildlife habitat, clean water, and outdoor recreation opportunities. Once these areas are opened to roads and development, the damage can be permanent. Please preserve the Roadless Rule and protect these public lands for future generations.

I am a lifelong hiker and backpacker, a kayaker, a forager, a naturalist, a lover of wild places. The Roadless Rule has had a deeply impactful and beneficial role in protecting what small amount of wilderness is left to Turtle Island. Roads do so much harm, from introducing invasive species, creating erosion, increasing the risk of wildfire, and facilitating the wanton extraction of our last remaining stands of wild timber. Even as an outdoor enthusiast who has used and appreciated roads that take me deep into the wilderness, I firmly oppose and weakening or rewriting of the roadless rule that would create more roads. We do not need more roads. We do not need more access. We need stewardship. We need ecosystem repair, we need clean water and fish habitat and places where mountain lions, bears, otters, wolves, and other wild creatures can take refuge. What has been done to our natural history and our ecosystems is criminal and ugly. The shame of it should haunt us all for generations. We must not cut the last trees, mine the last bedrock. We don't need more roads, don't need more access for multinational companies to strip our wilderness of resources. We need courage and integrity from our leaders, not a short-sighted selloff destined to benefit only a few, while despoiling our last wild places. Protect the Roadless Rule. Protect our water and our forests and our earth and our history. No new roads. No more extraction. The only honorable action is one of resistance to this onslaught of extractive greed and terror. I will lay down in front of the bulldozers rather than see more of this horrific harm from this morally bankrupt, intellectually corrupt, and utterly vile administration. Protect the Roadless Rule.

Submit your public comment opposing the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Here's a comment you can use: I am firmly against USDA’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless national forests represent some of the last unspoiled public forest landscapes. They safeguard clean drinking water, wildlife habitats, salmon streams, old growth forests, outdoor recreation, and essential areas relied upon by communities, Tribal Nations, and future generations. Once these lands are disrupted by new roads, logging, and industrial access, the damage cannot be easily reversed. The USDA should not dismantle a national protection that has shielded roadless forests for over twenty years. The current Roadless Rule already enables necessary measures to mitigate wildfire risk, so rescinding it is unnecessary for community safety. In reality, more roads may increase human ignition risk, habitat fragmentation, erosion, and long-term management costs. Additionally, rescinding the rule could transfer protection decisions to local planning processes, making intact forests more susceptible to political pressure and short-sighted extraction. Public forests should be managed for clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience, Indigenous stewardship, and public good, not for increased roadbuilding and logging. Please withdraw the proposed repeal, retain the 2001 Roadless Rule, and select the strongest alternative to protect roadless areas throughout the National Forest System. Thank you for taking my comment into account.

I am a sentient member of this planet that we call home EARTH. It makes me sick to my core how the natural world and her living creatures are being treated. Sick. I have no great words of persuasion. Listen to Jane Goodall. She was wise beyond her limited time. Listen to the Native Americans. They have ALWAYS known the way. We have got to be better stewards for the next generations. Do not sell out nor lose faith. Do the right thing! PLEASE!

Please keep the Roadless Rules intact for our national parks!! I cherish the quiet solitude that hiking in our national forests and on our coastline brings me! It is important to have an escape to untouched nature!

Roadless areas matter to me Greatly because they are critical for biodiversity and biodiversity is critical for life on earth as we know it. Roadless areas allow for species to survive and thrive - as soon as you cut a road through, the species depending on roadless areas suffer and then everything downstream suffers as a result. Everything is and all species are interconnected in the web of life. Protect and defend our roadless areas. They are a public treasure not to be tampered with.

Let's keep the roads out of our National.parksmto keep them as pristine as they have been for hundreds of years so that it can be enjoyed for generations to come.

I have a family who cares about recreation and natural spaces. Taking away the Roadless Rule would endanger those spaces and make them unusable for recreation and tourism. It is a fallacy that this will create fewer fires. Fires are FOUR times more likely to start near a road. Fires are sparked by roads, this was observed BY the Forest Service. We need MORE fire fighters, not more roads! We need more funding for the USFS. This is only being done because of special interests groups and loggers. My family EMIGRATED here for logging, but they would hate to see the roadless rule repealed. This is a disgusting exercise of priories based on capitalistic endeavors by rich people. The only people who are benefiting are the rich (who pay LOWER taxes somehow). The poor and middle class who need these areas to be UNTRAMMELED by man are losing millions of acres of sacred spaces.

I respectfully request that you continue to protect our Roadless Area Conservation. As a Californian I treasure our wildlife and protection of their habitat. Please don’t allow roads to be built through our wilderness areas.

Submit your public comment against repealing the Roadless Rule. You can use this comment: I strongly oppose the USDA's plan to revoke the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless national forests are among the few remaining untouched public forest landscapes. They safeguard clean drinking water, wildlife habitats, salmon streams, old-growth forests, outdoor recreation, and areas vital to communities, Tribal Nations, and future generations. Once these lands are disrupted by roads, logging, and industrial activities, the harm cannot simply be reversed. The USDA should not eliminate a national protection that has guarded roadless forests for over 20 years. The current Roadless Rule already allows for necessary measures to reduce wildfire risk, so repealing it is unnecessary for community safety. More roads could lead to increased human ignition risks, habitat disruption, erosion, and higher management costs in the long term. I'm also worried that rescinding the rule would leave intact forests vulnerable to political pressure and short-term exploitation by shifting protection decisions to local forest planning. Public forests should prioritize clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience, Indigenous stewardship, and public welfare, not increased roadbuilding and logging. Please withdraw the proposed repeal, maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule, and select the strongest option to protect roadless areas throughout the National Forest System. Thank you for considering my comment.

Please keep forests natural. They don't need more roads. They need to be protected for current use and for future generations.

I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. There are 63 roadless areas along 288 miles of the PCT in California, Oregon and Washington. These miles represent roughly 11% of the trail. Roadless areas provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans, and these undeveloped lands are critical to our nation’s ecological health. Even after thru hiking the PCT in 2026, I enjoy recreating along the PCT for day hikes and longer backpacking trips; it is beneficial for my physical and mental health.

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed changes to the roadless rules. Resending this rule will have monumental impacts on our country’s national forests, which are some of the most pristine and valuable resources for recreation and ecosystem preservation. Once they lose their integrity through road construction, it will be difficult to get them back. Removing the rule will increase wildfire risk, as wildfires are much more likely to begin near roads. Our country already spends $3 billion each year fighting fires on federal lands and rescinding this rule will only increase that number. Resending the rule will also affect wildlife populations, whose habitat will be further fragmented and lost by roads and other activities. I often frequent national forest areas in my free time for recreation and would be devastated to lose any of these areas that help make our country so great.

It’s imperative to protect our forests and lands. I oppose chopping and demolishing these lands