Read the comments.

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 object to the proposed rule rescinding the "roadless rule." As an American hiker and driver on existing roads, I have had personal experiences that are relevant to the decision. The current rule provides both access to recreational users of public forest lands as well as approved timber activity. The current intersection of these activities is working, and at times can be dangerous. For example, the intersection of timber trucks through a potion of the Redwood Forest pits hikes and sightseers against large, heavy timber trucks. An increase in timber roads will put more Americans in danger. Americans that pay taxes and use their public lands versus companies that take the public resources for private profit. Absolutely no private business would turn over it's property to other private interests to only the benefit of those other private businesses, especially considering such choice might cut into the profitability of other economic activities. Thus, the federal government should not turn over its land to private business when such action is not done at the market rate for such activities and when it reduces the economic development of competing activities, such as hiking, hunting, fishing, and other profitable recreational activities. Additionally the economic benefits of maintaining public land must be considered and not discounted in the analysis of the rule. Any consideration of rescission of the rule must calculate the loss, both direct and indirectly to local areas, of economic value that new roads or loss of certainty in use of the public lands causes. Additionally, any consideration of changing the current rule should take into account the desires of the taxpayers. Without this data, repeal of the rule is made without considering the entirety of the data and situation and is a transgression against the citizens of the United States of America.

The reasons stated in the attached files (20261006_McNamara_FS-2025-0001-223869_Opposition.pdf and 20261006_McNamara_FS-2025-0001-223869_Opposition.docx) address why partially or completely rescinding the Roadless Rule does not achieve the objectives proposed and why this action would – in fact – reduce public safety, waste taxpayer dollars, and be a net decrease in benefits to the American public. As an avid sportsperson, off-road recreational vehicle user, hiker, and citizen impacted seasonally by Colorado’s fires (that regularly creep into the wildland-urban interface), I state my opposition to any attempt to rescind – fully or partially – the roadless rule for any reason, including the fully unsubstantiated claims addressed above.

Please remove the roadless rule. We need those roads open for fighting wild fires. The amount of money spent trying to fight wildfires would significantly be reduced if the forest was more easily accessed. Air pollution would be reduced. Animal lives would be spared. Fire fighters would be safer. Wood cutters would have more access which would help clean up our forests and help prevent wildfires. I live in a forested area and have had to prepare to evacuate because of close wildfires. I know people who have lost their homes due to wildfires. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I am writing in support of rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Responsible resource development, for the maximum benefit of the people (AK Constitution Article VIII), is of critical importance to our national security and economic viability. We must develop sustainable and self-reliant domestic supply of critical and rare earth minerals, independent from China.

Please do not repeal the Roadless Rule. This rule is so critical to not only the health of people and wildlife but also to our national security. Smart national security means preserving our natural resources, not senselessly destroying them. Furthermore, 90% of wildfires are started on or near roads. With stats like that, building more roads seems extremely dangerous in the age of climate change. Please protect our forests from more destruction and maintain this simple, yet incredible effective and powerful rule, to stay in place. We only have so much forested land left. Let’s save it.

My name is Margaret Bishop, and I live in El Dorado County in the Sierra Foothills of California. About half of our County is National Forest land. In 2021, we experienced a devastating wildfire here (the Caldor Fire) that burned over 200,000 acres. It basically burned an entire town down (Grizzly Flats) in one morning. This fire was started by a bullet in El Dorado National Forest (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/caldor-fire-tahoe-cause-18596595.php). I am deeply concerned about the increased wildfire risk posed by rescinding the Roadless Rule. According to the United States Forest Service's own research, nearly two-thirds of all wildfires sparked on National Forest land are sparked by a roadside (https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/features/fire-never-starts). Introducing more roads into National Forest land will only increase deadly and out-of-control wildfires that destroy ecosystems and spread to populated areas. Where roads go, people and ignition-starting equipment go (such as firearms). We know that people start wildfires, again from USFS's own research. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule for the health and safety of my community. Thank you.

Conservation is patriotism, protecting our nations wild spaces is a critical national security concern. If you won’t preserve these natural areas for their own sake, do it because they protect the water supplies of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Please keep the Roadless Rule. As an Ohioan, I've not yet had to worry about my home being destroyed by out-of-control wildfires, but I've watched as an increasing amount of fires continue to encroach upon urban areas in the country. Research has shown that, from 1992-2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in areas with roads than in roadless forest tracts. Another study showed that more than 90% of all wildfires nationwide occurred within half a mile of road. With emergency services stretched thin, we cannot afford to put more of the country at risk by developing more roads in our forest spaces. Thank you.

When I returned from a trip to Alaska at the end of June 2024, it took weeks for the euphoric feeling of wildness to drain from my body. I live in the South Toe Valley of Yancey County, one of the most pristine river valleys in North Carolina, alongside the wildlands of the Black Mountains, but our thick forests and clean river suddenly felt miniscule and adulterated compared to the vastness and quality of Alaska’s wilderness. The Blacks harbor about 15,000 designated roadless acres (split between Balsam Cone and Bearwallow roadless tracts) but most of the entire state of Alaska is roadless. Imagine erasing 99% of the roads in the entire state of North Carolina; that’s what Alaska is like. Alaska’s vast roadless nature has long served as a reservoir of American wildness. When the bald eagle was all but extirpated from the continental US, a thriving remnant Alaskan population helped repopulate the rest of the nation. In addition to saving the bald eagle from extinction, we can thank Alaska for preserving and protecting trumpeter swans and timber wolves. Closer to home, that reservoir theory can be applied to the relatively modest patches of wild forest of North America’s eastern seaboard. The Southern Appalachians are fortunate to have one large tract of wilderness (the Great Smoky Mts NP’s 400,000 acres of roadlessness) but more modest roadless pockets in places like the Black Mountains play an increasingly important role in the sheltering of native species. Many Eastern species were lost or endangered when the forests were largely cleared between one and two hundred years ago. The remaining tracts of forest and their unique inhabitants have largely recovered and spread over the past century, thanks to the natural communities that found harbor in those wild refuges. Three months after returning from Alaska, my home in the mountains was hit by Hurricane Helene. Geologists have not determined the exact number of deadly landslides and debris flows that were instigated by roads, but experts in geomorphology who I’ve consulted say road scars on our mountains caused many, if not most, destructive landslides. When a road is constructed on a mountainous landscape such as ours, it changes the grade both above and below the roadbed, making those areas much more vulnerable to slope failure. These failures too often lead to deadly debris flows. When Helene came to this valley, we received a record-breaking 31” of rain in 48 hours. It was not a coincidence that not a single South Toe resident died in a debris flow. Several died in the paths of debris flows in the Cane River Valley – just on the other side of the Black Mountains where the USFS land is not protected under roadless statutes. Lastly, I run an ecotour business which employs myself and several part-time employees, and is utterly dependent on the Balsam Cone roadless area. I am a fee-paying, permitted guide and outfitter in the Pisgah NF; its roadless areas and the clean tributaries protected by them are the most valuable assets of my business. Ecotourism is increasingly becoming an essential part of our WNC economy. I would urge you to preserve the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Thanks for taking all this into consideration!

The roadless rule has helped conserve habitat for fish and game while avoiding unecessary costs associated with building and maintaining roads that we do not need. I have enough experience in the backwooods and backroads to know that more roads leads to additional human caused fire risk, vandalism, and illegal dumping. No one I know (including many wildland firefighters) is convinced this will help firefighting efforts. This would also put increased strain on rural law enforcement that is already stretched too thin.

It is drastically important to our country’s overall wellbeing that our public lands are kept roadless. Public lands serve as a buffer protection for our cities, suburbs, rural communities, and agricultural lands from natural disasters. Public lands are our nation’s greatest resource and must be protected as such.

I am writing to express my strong support for keeping the roadless rule intact. I have spent countless hours hiking, camping, and fishing in roadless areas in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, and it is imperative to me that these areas remain protected and roadless. As a professional photographer, roadless, wild, natural spaces are integral to my work. If protections are weakened, and these places are subject to road building and other destructive activities, it will reduce my access to wild, undisturbed spaces, negatively impacting both my ability to earn a living, and my enjoyment of the outdoors. If the roadless rule is rescinded, it will also exacerbate fire danger and lead to increased criminal activity in backcountry areas. Roads greatly increase the risk of fire, through additional opportunities for human-caused fire starts, the introduction of flammable invasive species, and exacerbated heat/drought/wind. Additional roads will also make it more difficult to patrol the forest, leading to more criminal activity in these areas. I have personally observed how areas with extensive road networks are subject to increased criminal activity, while areas with few or no roads see significantly reduced criminal activity. Building roads directly results in elevated crime levels in rural and backcountry areas. Also, at the end of the day, roadless areas are beautiful and irreplaceable, and once developed can never be fully restored. They deserve to remain protected under the roadless rule, and hopefully one day to become designated wilderness.

For most of my youth and all of my adult life, I have spent many days, weeks, and years exploring and enjoying the Bridger-Teton National Forest as well as the nearby Shoshone National Forest. Hiking, camping, and marveling at the beauty of the landscape of these forests has been what I choose to do whenever I have the opportunity ever since I was old enough to make the choice. These trips were not only formative but continue to be life defining. Any loss of the natural beauty and outdoor access would be a loss in countless ways. Activities that support self reliance, curiosity, strength, and solitude are nearly impossible to find in modern times, and land like this is an amazing asset to the American people. It calls back to what Americans have been doing since they first established this country. Our most famous explorers and leaders all knew the majesty of this important landscape and strove to protect it. The Roadless Rule is currently the only safeguard we have to protect our American values, and our only chance to salvage the last frontier Americans have to practice our self-reliance and re-discover our history. I don't want to look at my children one day and shrug when they ask what happened to the forests. I don't want to live in a future where I can't give them the same life-enriching experiences that made me the proud independent American I am today. The Roadless Rule has to be protected. This is a matter of national security.

I would like to comment on the Roadless Rule on behalf of the San Diego Off Road Coalition (SDORC). SDORC advocates for off road vehicle users in the Southwest of the USA and beyond. We have taken an interest in this action because we have mixed feeling with it. We agree that local forests should have control over their land. We agree that large paved roads and wide graded dirt roads don't belong in certain back country areas, but we would like to drive our recreational vehicles on roads known as two track or single lane trails. We want the rule amended so that if it conhtinues to stand, routes no wider that eight feet be allowed to be constructed in Roadless Areas. Narrow dirt roads have a minimal effect on species in the forests. Some reptiles prefer areas like dirt roads to soak up the sun. 8-foot-wide trail serves as a vital recreation asset without crossing the threshold into becoming a high-speed, industrial "road" 8-foot trails can act as critical, low-impact access routes for wildland firefighters, search-and-rescue teams, and emergency personnel utilizing smaller tactical vehicles without compromising the overall "roadless" integrity of the area. Whether the Forest Service completely rescinds the 2001 rule or modifies its frameworks, managing the backcountry requires a balanced approach that embraces the massive economic and cultural value of motorized recreation. I request that the Forest Service direct local forest supervisors to integrate sustainable, 8-foot-wide motorized trail corridors into upcoming Travel Management Rule updates and local forest plans. Ed Stovin Director of Land Use SDORC

Oppose roadless Rule act conservation as it endangers our lives and our environment and our communities and ecosystems and our endangered species everything is on the line

Please allow access for business, firefighters, recreation and sportsmen to areas that were closed by the roadless rule.

I am strongly opposed to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID No. FS-2025-0001). As a resident of Western North Carolina who regularly fishes and recreates in multiple Roadless areas and whose drinking water comes from a watershed partially protected by Roadless designation, this issue is personal. As someone who witnessed the horrors of Hurricane Helene in Appalachia, I am strongly opposed to actions that would further fragment our national forests and exacerbate the flood and landslide damage from extreme precipitation. Our national forests are part of our country's natural heritage. It's where we recreate and connect with nature. These forests provide crucial habitat for wildlife, keep our air and water clean, and mitigate the impacts of flooding. During heavy rain events, trees help to slow the flow of water, allowing soil and vegetation to absorb more of it. Tree roots also help to hold soil in place, reducing the risks of landslides. When forests are cut down, the risk of severe flooding and landslides increases. Additionally, since water tends to flow along roadways, new road construction can disrupt the natural water flow, resulting in increased flooding in certain areas. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was enacted in 2001 to protect some of our most precious national forest areas from road construction and logging. These protections recognized the importance of these areas, not only for our recreational enjoyment, but also for the critical ecosystem services they provide. The proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would undermine these protections and put communities at greater risk. The Appalachian region is particularly susceptible to heavy rains and damaging flooding. The steep terrain causes water to accumulate in low-lying areas, where homes and businesses tend to be concentrated because they are often the only flat areas suitable for building. Widespread deforestation and road construction from historical surface mining and other activities have already increased flood risk for downstream communities, as demonstrated by the 2022 floods in Eastern Kentucky. Many areas currently protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are less accessible because of steep, rocky terrain. These features also make these areas particularly susceptible to landslides, especially when existing trees are removed and there are no longer roots to hold soil in place. Once trees have been removed from an area, it can take decades for them to regrow, and large swaths of forests have already been lost in recent years. For example, Hurricane Helene damaged more than 800,000 acres of forests in western North Carolina, including more than 190,000 acres of national forest lands. These areas cannot afford to lose even more trees. The proposed rule will only increase the frequency and severity of future flooding and landslides, and the impacts of those disasters will be felt far beyond the regions directly impacted. All Americans will bear higher disaster recovery costs associated with increased flooding and landslides. We should invest in stronger protections for communities susceptible to natural disasters, rather than eliminating existing protections. I also cannot say enough about the value of large swaths of national forest only broken up by pre-2001 roadways. The vistas from the Blue Ridge Parkway where my husband and I had our first date and where he proposed — and where millions visit each year, keeping WNC small town economies humming — those viewsheds are in large part protected by the Roadless Rule. I often hike in areas that are not protected by Roadless designation as well, and the difference is striking — constant traffic noise, even on a beautiful mountain hike. I'm grateful I can drive another 30-45 minutes further and dip into the protected sections of Pisgah, where traffic noise is seldom and the ecological integrity (and the variety of trees, flowers, birds, etc.) is striking. These pockets protected by the Roadless Rule are tiny in comparison to the vastness of the United States, and once they are tracked through with roads, there is no going back. We have an obligation to future generations to protect what remains of the continent's undisturbed woods, so that our children's children can also fish and camp and enjoy these peaceful woods. Thank you for your consideration of my comment and for your service to our national forests.

Here in in the Evergreen State of Washington we take our forests seriously. Most people in WA would tell you that protecting the forest is a no brainer. Teddy Roosevelt would easily agree with us. While I personally believe in the value of protecting the natural beauty of our parks, forests, and untouched wildernesses; the diversity of our wildlife; the long history of indigenous reliance and maintenance of those resources, I know that argument is not the most pursuasive to the leaders of our country. So I am going to make an appeal to other values. The first I must appeal to is the untold financial cost of disrupting the forest biome. A well researched report showed that within 160 feet of roadways the threat of wildfire ignition skyrockets to 4 times higher than wilderness areas normally are. The cost of wildfires to the government and American people is immense, and the damage is in more than money it is in lives. Landslides, mudslides, and floods are also of greatly increased risk wherever our woods are cleared through to make fit for regular human travel. We do not need to expand our road reach into these areas, there is plenty of zones we've already developed in the US that wouldn't risk natural disasters and climate change on our citizens. There is plenty of infrastructure and job growth to be had in investing in modern renewable energies over building out greater dependence on last century tech and fossil fuels. The economic shocks from the Iran War greatly highlight how increased dependence on fossil fuels makes us vulnerable to the whims of the oil market and weaken our national security. Speaking of National Security, our woods are a part of our national security, it would feel like having untouched wilderness makes us more suceptible but our national forests provide buffers that help keep the US safe from invasion. A land war military skirmish is near impossible on our nation. To loop back to natural resources, but with a more social conservative flavor, hunting is a major and traditional pastime enjoyed and critical to the American populace (in WA hunters, fishers, and foragers span the entire diversity of the political spectrum, which is why it is such a no brainer for our citizens to value the woods). Good stewardship of the lands allows us to enjoy the fruits of the earth for generations to come, a small amount of restraint and effort today (very small in this case given there are not roads through these wildernesses yet at all) means generations of bounty, the bounty our forefathers and the settlers relied upon to make their harrowing passages to build the cities, states, and nation we enjoy today. Proper stewardship of the land genuinely benefits all, even for our citizens that don't explore our woods. Finally, this argument may be less pursuasive, but I think it's most important, whatever our actions, whatever our policy, we *must* do so by empowering our experts in the domain at hand. We cannot look at economic or business alone, the espertise of our experts across the domains is critical requirement to anything we do. The work of building consensus is slow and annoying, but we must build it to properly represent and protect our nation. We cannot simply find the words and recommendations of experts who affirm what we want, true quality policy comes from giving experts a seat at the table and not chasing convenience. From all my research the experts seem to be agreed here. Heed their words, lest we deprive future Americans of the beauty that we tout as "purple mountains majestes above the enameled plains" listen and read again America the Beautiful, note what this cherished song calls attention to first in its exaltations for the beauty of our nation. Thank you for reading my ramble, I can guarantee you it is not a form letter, or generated. It is the opinions of this one citizen who knows the evergreen bounties of our nation first hand, and who wishes the future Americans get to see what I see, and what I already see withering under past policy. I know this ramble is sappy and not the best written, but it comes from the heart, and I know I am not alone.

It is vital these places remain roadless. Not only for the shrinking eco-system but for the safety of humans. With roads come drivers that smoke, and cigarettes followed by fires. And that's if the cars themselves don't start any. If cars and possibly people who do not respect nature pass through trash will be inevitable, along with cars breaking down, leaking oil and other unsafe fluids- eventually the water will be unsafe for everyone. Wildlife is already finding it harder to exist in their shrinking pockets of the world. By establishing a road in these preserved places many animals will fall victim to cars and human. Humans and animals deserve a peaceful untouched place.