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: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Camping, rafting, and backpacking throughout the West has been part of my entire life. I rely on these places for solitude and the chance to connect with nature, and the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens both. I oppose it. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale at the center of this proposal. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." That finding sits in the same document being used to justify opening these areas. The agency must explain how it can cite wildfire management as a reason for rescission while its own analysis documents that road access drives ignition rates upward. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and how it reconciles the rescission with its own conclusions about ignition risk. The ignition data makes the contradiction more precise, not less. The DEIS reports that "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." A ratio that wide is not a rounding error. The places I have spent my life traveling through, camping and backpacking in the backcountry of the West, are precisely the kind of low-ignition environments this data describes. The agency has not explained how new road access into these areas would produce a net improvement in fire conditions. It must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh that number honestly against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. Access to clean water should be a basic human right. Adding roadways to America's already over-taxed watersheds will do irreparable harm, and the agency's own analysis does not contradict that concern. The DEIS acknowledges that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The watersheds fed by these roadless areas supply drinking water to millions of people. Opening them to road construction is not a reversible experiment. The agency should explain what safeguards, if any, it has analyzed that would prevent the kind of sediment loading its own documents describe, and it should respond to the water quality implications of this rescission. The regulatory flexibility certification in this rulemaking does not hold up. "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." The no-impact conclusion is reached by spreading projected losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. Some of those firms may lose these receipts entirely. Spreading the damage thinly across a national average does not make it disappear for the businesses actually exposed. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the specific small entities operating inside the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the agency has not fulfilled its own invitation. "The proposal solicits 'any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal' (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none." This comment is one such interest. I have organized my outdoor life around the existence of these protected areas. Under established administrative law, an agency reversing a longstanding policy must assess the reliance interests its prior rule created, not merely ask for them and then set them aside. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Kate Lips Salt Lake City, UT

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Washington State and regularly use public lands in Oregon and throughout the West for hiking, camping, climbing, and recreation. The repeal of the Roadless Rule will put public lands in danger for current and future generations' fresh water, will increase risk of forest fires, and introduce development without appropriate planning or regulation. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. thank you.

I strongly oppose the repeal of the 2001 roadless area conservation rule because building new roads in our national forest harms wildlife increases erosion, and risks human caused wildfires.

Yes, please open up all the public land so we can all enjoy it and firefighters can get to areas on fire easier.

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.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Backpacking and hiking through places like Pyramid in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Paiute roadless area in Inyo National Forest to commune with nature, watch birds, and observe wildlife, I have come to understand what these landscapes hold. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put that at risk, and the agency's own analysis does not support the step it is proposing to take. I am an avid backpacker and day hiker who lives in Northern California. I have travelled all over the United States to hike and backpack. The impact of roads and off road vehicles on wildlife, the land and the experience being in the “wilderness” is obvious and depressing. Bird watching is not incidental to why I go into roadless areas. It is a central reason. The agency's own record, drawing on research the DEIS cites, documents that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. California already holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and the birds I go to find depend on the quiet and the unbroken canopy those areas provide. Opening that landscape to road-building does not simply alter the scenery. It restructures the acoustic and ecological conditions that determine whether those species stay or go. I ask the agency to explain, with specificity, how the benefits it claims from rescission can be weighed against documented declines in bird abundance and species presence that its own cited science predicts. The wildfire rationale the agency offers for this rescission conflicts directly with what its own record says. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The DEIS further reports human-caused ignition density of 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas, and states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The agency must explain why its proposal departs from these findings, reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, and quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access weighed against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. The regulatory flexibility certification also cannot stand as written. The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities while its own DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and its Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification is reached by spreading expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the guides and outfitters holding permits in the specific affected areas. The agency concedes some firms may lose those receipts. It should withdraw the certification and assess impact on the small entities actually operating in and permitted for the potentially affected roadless areas. The Chugach National Forest in Alaska is the most roadless national forest in the entire system. Ninety-nine percent of it has never had a road built through it. It holds 40 inventoried roadless areas totaling 5,439,110 acres. The Copper River Delta within it hosts the largest concentration of shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere during spring migration, including western sandpiper in the millions. Bald eagles, trumpeter swans, brown bear, moose, and mountain goat depend on this landscape at a scale that exists nowhere else in the national forest system. The 2001 rule is the structural protection that has kept those conditions intact. A state-petition process substituted for a national rule creates no guarantee that protection continues, and the agency's own record does not model what happens to that ecosystem if the rule falls. Finally, the proposal itself solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. My years of hiking, birding, and backpacking in California's roadless areas, and my expectation that federal policy would continue to protect them, are exactly the kind of reliance interests the agency invited and then declined to assess. The agency must identify and weigh those interests as part of this proceeding, including what this comment represents. Sincerely, Kristen Sorensen Petaluma, CA

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.

Do NOT change the roadless rule. If you really care about protecting the forests, reverse the DOGE and Trump administration cuts of nearly 6,000 U.S. Forest Service workers, slashed budgets of $438 million, and paused critical wildfire prevention funds they carried out in early 2025.

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.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I grew up on the edge of the El Dorado National Forest; a place that will forever be dear to my heart, though I now live in the also-magical realm of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. As someone who recreates in these public lands, I am -not- in support of building more roads in them. I have seen the tragedies of additional road-building in these wild areas too often; habitat is fragmented and animals are often killed trying to access breeding grounds, forage, and other essential habitat. Hazardous chemicals and tire dust from vehicles are dispersed into these environments, threatening drinking water and our Western salmon populations. Though some claim that the Roadless Rule has increased the incidence of wildfire, this is untrue, and wildfires are more likely to ignite near roadsides.(1) Please leave the Roadless Rule in place as it is. I absolutely do not support any of the proposed alternatives that would weaken it. Please spend taxpayer money responsibly on conservation endeavours that support these irreplaceable lands instead of paving them over. References: (1)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 Sincerely, Nicole Johnston Vancouver, WA 98683 nljohnston.ast@gmail.com

I strongly support keeping roadless areas roadless and oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the USDA Forest Service to retain the rule and its protections against road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas. Our remaining undeveloped forests deserve lasting protection. I value these places for their clean water, wildlife habitat, natural beauty, and opportunities to experience quiet and solitude. Their value extends beyond what can be extracted from them, and future generations deserve the opportunity to enjoy them. The proposal acknowledges that expanding road access could increase human-caused wildfire ignitions and diminish opportunities for quiet, remote recreation. It also identifies an existing multibillion-dollar road and bridge maintenance backlog. These concerns weigh against opening additional areas to road construction and taking on further maintenance obligations. I support responsible forest management and efforts to protect communities from wildfire. However, the existing rule includes limited exceptions, and the agency should demonstrate why those provisions cannot address specific needs before removing protections nationwide. Any necessary changes should be narrowly tailored and supported by evidence. Local knowledge and public participation are important, but they should operate within a durable national conservation standard. Individual project reviews cannot substitute for protecting roadless landscapes from the cumulative effects of development over time. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and fully account for the long-term value of intact forests, clean water, wildlife habitat, and undeveloped recreation in your decision. Keeping roadless areas roadless is a commitment to responsible stewardship of public lands that belong to all of us.

I writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1: Status Quo/No Action in your final ruling on the proposed Roadless Rule Rescission. There are many compelling reasons to oppose the rescission. I’ll list just a few of them, focusing on ones that are particularly pertinent in Montana, which is where I live. I’m sure that you’re hearing about most of these from other folks, so I don’t think there’s a great deal of need for me to go on and on. The public is opposed—overwhelmingly so—to removing protections for roadless areas. More than 99% of responses received thus far are against the rescission of the Roadless Rule. Even amongst folks who can’t be bothered with writing letters, support for Roadless Areas has been around 76%. These are public lands we’re talking about, and how the public would like to see them used ought to weigh heavily in the decision-making process. Municipal Watersheds will be degraded. Building more roads in our National Forests will increase erosion, which will add to run-off and water purification costs. More than a third of Montanan’s water comes directly from or is downstream of roadless areas. Wildlife habitat will be further fragmented. I’m lucky enough to make my home in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (outside Livingston, MT), which is “the most intact temperate ecosystem in the world,” according to wildlife biologist Doug Smith. Removing the roadless buffer along the edges of this ecosystem will harm wildlife habitat if/when extractive industries move in. The Greater Yellowstone area draws visitors from around the world and has been studied and written about by many. We need more protections—not fewer—for an ecosystem as important as this one. Recreation Economy. Tourism is a big deal Montana, supporting 1 in 11 jobs. Outdoor recreation is also important to Montana residents, making up 4.9 percent of Montana’s GDP. 5.9 of Montanans work in fields related to outdoors recreation. Much of this recreation takes place on public lands that are easily accessible from cities and towns, and these places often include IRAs. It seems unlikely that the extractive industries enabled by rescinding roadless protections will provide a net gain for Montana’s economy, since tourism and outdoor recreation would likely suffer. Maintenance Backlog for Existing Forests Service Roads. If we can’t take care of the ones we already have, we probably don’t need more. Enough said. Private Inholding Access. This is a big one, especially for those of us who live near or like to recreate in the Crazy Mountains. The Crazy Mountains are made up of “checkerboard” public and private land ownership, though some sections (not the right ones, in my opinion) were consolidated a couple of years ago. Most of the checkerboard is currently within the Crazy Mountain IRA. If roadless protections are removed, it will be easier for owners of private inholdings to petition for permission to build a road to their property. These roads would fragment wildlife habit, disrupt public recreation, and have a negative impact on tribal resources. The boon this would provide for owners of formerly difficult-to-access private inholdings is substantial, and casts new light on the checkerboard consolidation deal brokered by the Yellowstone Club in 2025. Wildfire Reduction. This is one of the primary reasons given by the Forest Service for its need to rescind the Roadless Rule. However, scientific evidence does not support the building of roads as a way of reducing wildfire risk—in fact, human caused ignitions in Montana are more than 8 times higher within 100 yards of a road than they are on more remote forest service land. I live a couple of miles from an IRA that runs along the northern edge of Absarokas, and the wildfires we’d had in this area since I’ve lived here tended to be fought by air. Some ignitions occurred on private property (often, a vehicle was involved), others were caused by lightning strikes, but the outcome was the same: the sky was abuzz. At times, firefighters were dropped into wilderness areas to fight fire on the ground—but roads provided little in the way of meaningful firefighting access. Plus, there’s enough wiggle room in the current Roadless Rule to allow for forest thinning and controlled burns in the WUI. Though it will never be perfect, I believe that the Roadless Rule and wildfire protection for our towns and neighborhoods in the urban interface can successfully coexist. Thanks for hearing me out. There’s plenty more I could say, but I believe I’ve gone on for long enough. I hope you make a decision that serves the general public, not a select few. Please go with Alternative 1. The other options serve neither our forests nor the people who love them.

I write in strong support of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety. This one-size-fits-all national restriction has constrained local forest managers for 25 years, limiting timely access for active management, hazardous fuels reduction, and wildfire response across more than 44 million acres of National Forest System lands. Rescinding the rule restores decision-making authority to the local level through existing land management planning processes under the National Forest Management Act, without mandating any particular road construction or timber harvest. This change is especially important for communities like those in Skamania County, Washington, which border and depend on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The Gifford Pinchot contains substantial inventoried roadless areas (approximately 213,000 acres based on Forest Service inventory data). These lands sit amid a landscape that has faced elevated wildfire risk, including recent high and very high fire danger ratings, fire restrictions, and incidents such as the Backbone, and High Lava fires. Local officials in Skamania County have highlighted the heavy fuel loads on the forest and the need for strategic fuel breaks and treatments to protect communities, infrastructure, and residual old-growth and wildlife habitat from catastrophic fire. The Roadless Rule has restricted road construction and reconstruction needed for efficient access to conduct thinning, prescribed fire, and other fuels treatments in many of these areas. Forest Service data indicate that more than 40 percent of inventoried roadless areas nationwide carry high or very high wildfire hazard potential, yet only about 5 percent have received hazardous fuels reduction treatments since 2014. A significant portion of these lands already lie near existing roads. Removing the national prohibition gives Gifford Pinchot managers the flexibility to evaluate site-specific needs—improving firefighter access, reducing response times, creating defensible space near communities and critical infrastructure, and treating fuels before they accumulate into extreme fire behavior—while still operating under full NEPA review, forest plans, and other environmental laws. For Skamania County residents, the stakes are practical and immediate: safer communities, reduced risk of large, destructive fires that threaten homes, water supplies, recreation, and local economies, and the ability for the Forest Service to manage the land based on current conditions rather than a 25-year-old blanket restriction. Active management is essential to restoring forest health and resilience in the Cascades. I urge the Department to finalize the full rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Returning authority to local national forest managers will better enable the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and similar forests across the West to address wildfire risk, protect neighboring communities such as those in Skamania County, and sustain the multiple uses and values these public lands provide. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for prioritizing practical, science-informed forest management. Sincerely, Asa Leckie asal00@msn.com

I support doing away with then roadless rule. The past 30 years of no management has led to more fires, less management, less access, and overall the declining of forest health. The hands off management practices are a failure and do not serve the public nor the environment. We need active management to restore forest and improve habitat for wildlife.

I emphatically oppose the proposed rescinding of the Roadless Rule. None of the Trump Administration's justifications for rescinding the Roadless Rule are valid, and none of them are supported by science. Substantially more forest cover is lost to wildfire in roaded forests than roadless; the cost of building new or reopening decommissioned roads exceeds the value of merchantable timber available for harvest by orders of magnitude in the vast majority of cases; and we need more, not fewer, wild places preserved by limiting motorized access. I call on Congress and the President to preserve the Roadless Rule in its current form.

I support increased flexibility for wildfire mitigation, forest health treatments, and community protection, but I want strong safeguards to maintain important wildlife habitat, water quality, hunting opportunities, and the roadless character of high-value backcountry areas.

I am writing to respectfully request the USDA discontinue efforts to abolish the Roadless Rule. This rule that has protected endangered species and fauna, wildlife corridors, tourism revenue, wildfire prevention, pristine watersheds/drinking water, and more. These lands and waterways belong to the American people. They provide opportunities to connect with the natural world, to understand the environment in which we live, how our lives are connected to the natural world. Ending this for corporate profits is short sighted. The American people need these spaces as much as they need healthcare, jobs, and family. Please protect the Roadless Rule.

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to urge the U.S. Forest Service to retain these important protections. Protecting wild places is both personally and professionally important to me. I spent years working as a wilderness and nature guide, and today I work in the nature-based travel industry. I also spend much of my personal time hiking, backpacking, paddling, camping, and exploring public lands with my family. These experiences have given me a deep appreciation for just how valuable intact, undeveloped landscapes are, and how difficult they are to get back once they are lost. Roadless areas protect more than scenery. They provide connected wildlife habitat, safeguard watersheds, support biodiversity, and give people the increasingly rare opportunity to experience places that still feel genuinely wild. I understand that our national forests need to be actively and thoughtfully managed, particularly as communities face wildfire risk. But eliminating the Roadless Rule is not necessary to accomplish responsible forest management. The existing rule provides flexibility for appropriate management when it is truly needed, while maintaining an important baseline of protection for these landscapes. I am especially concerned about the long-term consequences of opening currently roadless areas to additional road construction and development. A road may seem like an individual management decision, but its effects extend far beyond its footprint. Roads fragment habitat, increase human access and disturbance, can contribute to erosion and invasive species, and create ongoing maintenance obligations. Most importantly, once a roadless landscape has been fragmented, we cannot simply recreate what was there before. Through my career in nature-based travel, I have also seen firsthand that protecting wild places and supporting local economies are not opposing goals. Intact landscapes support guides, outfitters, gateway communities, and countless other businesses connected to outdoor recreation and tourism. People travel from around the country and around the world specifically because America still has extraordinary wild landscapes to experience. Now that I have a young son, I think about this from another perspective as well. I want him to grow up with opportunities to experience truly wild places, not simply hear stories about landscapes that previous generations had the opportunity to enjoy. Public lands are an inheritance we share, and I believe we have a responsibility to think beyond their immediate use and consider what we are leaving for the people who come after us. There will always be pressure to find new uses for undeveloped land. There will not always be opportunities to protect large, intact landscapes. Keeping these places roadless today preserves options for future generations. Developing them takes those options away. Please maintain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule and select an alternative that preserves strong, durable protections for America's inventoried roadless areas rather than rescinding the rule. Thank you for considering my comments.

I am against repealing the federal regulation regarding the roadless rule. I believe building roads increases human-caused wildfire starts, fragments wildlife habitats, and threatens clean drinking water for millions of Americans. This protection should not taken away. We need to protect our natural spaces.