Read the comments.

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.

The recision of this regulation would be ill-suited for the long term environmental and economical health of the United States. To do so will incite abuse in rural areas that cannot effectively make their voices, opinions, and concerns heard over far larger corporate slash outside interests. It all but incentivizes bad actors to push for deforestation in parklands and encourages horribly mismanaged exploitation of natural resources in the name of the nebulous idea of 'rural economic opportunity'. Too often is the case where the 'economic opportunity' is a way for resources to be siphoned off away from the local area into privatized interests, giving negligible economic growth to the area at best in the very short term, and a massive environmental bill that gathers interest every year as the norm. Rescinding this would actually encourage the transfer of potential wealth and opportunity away from those local areas, as they often lack the resources (be it monetary, equipment, or manpower-wise) to actually utilize it, leading to outside - often larger privatized entities - to come in and 'take over' so to speak. This means that the local area will not see any of the economic benefits of opening up these lands (or will receive a 'trickle-down' version, which does not work in actuality). Most of the time, these operations will use the local energy/utilities grids without building them up, leading to the locals having to 'share' the existing utilities on a now strained grid. Even if the utilities are built up, the local area will still be left with the bill more often than not in the name of 'investing into the area'. Deforestation and disruption of natural habitats by road building, along with exploitation of natural resources has proven to have far greater and longer lasting negative impacts than any benefits that are provided - such as nesting/den locations being destroyed of endangered/at-risk animals, water sources being reduced or polluted, and the ground becoming polluted and torn up by road building. Local communities are left with decreased environmental health which they will have to deal with themselves, and further leads to health problems and more economic strain (groundwater contamination from resource extraction, airborne pollution causing respiratory issues, soil degradation leading to crops/plants being less healthy and/or more susceptible to increasingly uncommon weather wreaking environmental damage - floods, fires, erosion, etc.) Lastly, under the Trump administration, deregulation has lead to more economic and health damage towards the people of the United States. The deregulation and recision of previous environmental laws has a proven track record of benefiting only private investors, some of whom are foreign, leading to the common citizen to foot the bill for damages caused. These pushes have been done to benefit these mega-corporations, such as the oil and coal businesses, which have a long and damning list of long-term environmental and health damages that far outlast any temporary profit gained from the exploitation of our resources. No one who isn't on the payroll or directly benefiting from these polluting corporations is pushing for this deregulation. Rescinding this will allow for disastrous results.

I'm commenting to oppose the elimination of the Roadless Rule. The forests hold so much beauty, wonder, and natural balance for every creature on this planet and provide homes for creatures that maintain the balance of our ecosystems. Not only this, but the trees provide clean air for us to breathe; the more we destroy our forests, the less clean air anyone will have to breathe. You must keep in mind the health and safety of everyone who will be affected, and I promise that includes you as well, whether you believe it or not. So I ask, please stop, take a moment to think about how this will affect you, everyone around you, and our future. Do not eliminate the Roadless Rule.

My name is Jeanette Helgerson, I am a resident family medicine physician that works in rural Oregon. I see firsthand how decreases in the availability of nature, the carbon footprint of deforestation, and the industrialization of lands affects all of our health. I have many patients who have to drive long periods of time to access walking trails, or even get to a place where you cannot hear cars, and I live rurally. As a population, our mental health is worsening, and the incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases is rising dramatically. Forests are a major carbon sink. Removing these forests to create roads, not only destroys habitats for animals and important flora and fauna of the ecosystem, but directly contributes to decreasing the lifespan of Americans. The effects of wildfires, which are one method of breaking down the carbon in trees and releasing it into the atmosphere, are only now being recognized for how severely they affect people’s health. It is incredibly important to preserve the carbon stores that we have in these lands. I strongly urge for conservation of these forested lands, and recommend against rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. This is about more than the land itself, by preserving these lands we preserve American lives.

I oppose rescinding the roadless rule on the grounds that it would increasing the risk of wildfire in this country. In a study published in the journal Fire Ecology in January of 2026, scientists analyzed 32 years of data from across all U.S. forest regions and found that areas within 50 meters of roads were four times more likely to catch fire than areas that were roadless. It stands to reason, then, that building more roads into forests will increase wildfires. Wildfires not only harm the biodiversity living in our national forests, they put more carbon dioxide into the air, speeding up climate change. They also fill the air of cities and towns with smoke, endangering the health of U.S. citizens, and especially vulnerable people, such as myself. At a time when fire crews are tasked to their limits and barely able to contain the fires that have already been on the increase each fire season, rescinding this rule poses a grave threat to our country. I am citing the following study as evidence: 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 I would also like to submit the following additional evidence: Unsupported and Uncited Conclusion That New Roads Have No Material Effect on IRA Wildfire Ignition Rates The DEIS's conclusion that new road construction will have no material effect on wildfire ignition rates in inventoried roadless areas is stated without support and contradicts the DEIS's own cited findings and its own data. The DEIS establishes the mechanism itself. At p. 98 it states that "human caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads, supporting the notion that roads facilitate human access, which can in turn result in more human caused fires," citing Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012, Parisien et al. 2016, Balch et al. 2017, and Chen and Jin 2022. At p. 109 it states that "[r]oad density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions (Cardille et al. 2001)." Every one of these sources is in the DEIS's own bibliography.

I am writing to oppose adding roads into areas of conservation. We need to protect our wild areas with indigenous science. Keep paved roads and recklessness out of our protected natural environment. These spaces are needed for human longevity, sanity and for wildlife, including plants, animals, birds, microcosms and microbiomes. This all supports humanity.

The Roadless Rule is one of the only defenses our ecosystem has against overdevelopment, and without a thriving ecosystem, we will see more flooding and erosion, worse air quality, more droughts, more crop failures, and a worse quality of life for all Americans. Repealing this would be an attack against citizens by putting our homes and lives further in danger of wildfire, flooding, and other natural disasters. Protect Americans and our land by refusing to repeal the Roadless Rule.

I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Oregon, and I write as a concerned citizen and scientist who understands that human health is intertwined with the health of our environment. Our drinking water, wildlife, outdoor recreation, and livelihoods depend on healthy forests. Protecting safe drinking water begins upstream. Intact forests help stabilize soils, regulate water flow, and protect the streams that supply downstream communities. Road construction and associated disturbance can increase erosion and sediment entering waterways. The Forest Service recognized protection of public drinking-water sources as a central reason for adopting the Roadless Rule. Maintaining these protections is an investment in public health. In Oregon, healthy forests also support a substantial recreation economy. Hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, and wildlife watching sustain businesses and jobs, including in rural communities. A state-sponsored analysis estimated that outdoor recreation supported $16 billion in spending at Oregon businesses in 2022. Protecting the landscapes that draw people here protects an enduring economic resource. We see the pressures on wildlife around us, and the global evidence reinforces our concern. WWF’s 2024 Living Planet Report documents a 73% decline in the average size of monitored vertebrate wildlife populations between 1970 and 2020. This is an unmistakable warning. Roadless areas preserve large, connected habitats and refuges for vulnerable species. Fragmenting these remaining ecosystems risks destroying biodiversity that cannot easily be rebuilt. Oregonians have also experienced the devastation of wildfires and smoke. I am concerned that opening more roadless land to roads and associated human activity will increase wildfire ignitions. Forest Service research has already linked greater road density with increased human-caused ignitions and cross-boundary fire activity. The agency must fully assess these risks rather than assume that removing protections will make communities safer. The consequences extend far beyond burned acreage. Wildfire smoke aggravates respiratory disease and can trigger serious cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and worsening heart failure. These exposures can lead to emergency visits, hospitalizations, and premature death. Wildfire exposure and particulate matter both increase incidence of lung cancer and brain tumors. More smoke exposure means greater risks to health, added burdens on healthcare systems and family finances, and more human suffering. As a scientist, I understand that ecological damage can accumulate before its full consequences become visible. A forest can remain green on a map while losing healthy streams, connected habitat, and the biological relationships that sustain it. These systems are resilient, but their resilience has limits. I urge the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and reject the proposed rescission. Protect our drinking-water sources, wildlife habitat, recreation economy, and public health. Our children should inherit forests that continue to sustain both wild communities and human ones.

I am a scientists with a PhD in environmental chemistry, an MS in public health and a BS in Ecology. I have studied how natural systems are connected and this move to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is going to harm ecosystems, but it is also going to harm humans who depend on natural systems to survive. One cannot just pillage the natural world for a quick pay out, without facing long-term consequences. This is absolute madness and I want to log my objection.

Roadless area conservation is imperative, not just to the survival of our countries natural beauty, but to the ability to survive and thrive in every aspect of our great nation, from people, to education, health, and even for the economy. Firstly, we will talk about the natural beauty of our country. America used to be so beautiful, not just in the huge flora of old growth forests, but the wide diversity of fauna that lived there, and all the other aspects of the beautiful American land scape. And then we started to destroy it, cutting down the flora and killing the fauna directly and indirectly. This can only be attributed to human nature. This happened everywhere, so why should it not happen here? We did not know any better. One day, America did know better, and Yosemite was deemed protected land. There had been protected land before, so this action on its own, while still amazing, was not a first. Later, Yellowstone was officially deemed a national park for the first time in the world, and it was a success. America added a great chapter onto its legacy, and other countries started following its precedence. This will ultimately hurt the American people. Not only would it take away vacation spots for many families or it could drive some poor child’s favorite animal to extinction, it will also have disastrous impacts on the health of millions of Americans. As we remove more vegetation, riparian buffers disappear, and our water gets polluted, this also will cause habitat destruction, which leads to more human -wildlife encounters, which can lead to zoonotic diseases or even physical harm. Education will be harmed by this as well, after all, how can you expect a child to learn when struggling with a previously unknown strain of plague or a teacher to teach when mauled by a terrified, out of place bison? Especially when they are on a reduced salary because money from tourism, clean water, and public health has taken a toll. This problem will continue to get worse as education gets worse. This reminds me of a time we did not care about the environment and there were disasters impacts, the dust bowl, and how it happened to coincide with the Great Depression. National parks and protected land are a great example of a time when America made the right move, and other countries followed its precedence. Why would we rip up this chapter? This simply would make America look bad in world view. Along with making it look bad on a world view, it would look bad on home soil: the natural beauty lessened, peoples moral down because they lost their vacation spot, sickness running rampant, and overall quality of life down.

These places matter to me because of the beauty and peace in these natural places. No large scale roads and industrial transportation and large scale logging should upset these large scale forests habitat. Humans as well as nature need these places to maintain our health both mental and physical. Once destroyed, they are gone forever! We need to help save these places. Maureen Eife Abray Jacksonville, FL

Please don’t undo this important federal regulation to protect our severely impacted and vulnerable wildlife these spaces are vital for the survival of these animals many of which are becoming endangered. Not only does these protections help our wildlife it also helps protect us humans by providing space for them to naturally thrive within their own space avoiding unnecessary contact with humans Sincerely Jewell Saltzman

It’s absolutely abhorrent to consider abolishing the roadless rule. It has single handedly protected America’s national parks and wilderness, not to mention keeping the livelihoods and homes of people living there safe as well.

Absolutely not. This will destroy habitats and ecosystems across the country and hugely impact my quality of life.

Open Space free from development offers health benefits. I am in favor of Alternative 1, No Action which will protect 44.7 million acres of undeveloped forest.

I write this as someone who has immense passion for protecting the environment and human health. As a neuroscientist and conservation corp member, I find it very important to work to protect both. There are many, many issues with rescinding the roadless rule. What is the logic behind lying to the people who, despite political party already support the Roadleass Rule, and have scientific studies and professional field experience to argue to keep the rule in tact? Not only are the people passionate about keeping nature undeveloped, there are lots of safety concerns for both human and ecological interactions. Building roads when we can't even afford the infrastructure that already exists everywhere else is such a waste. Not only a waste, but invites numerous hazardous chemicals and damaging processes. We have already seen the destruction and health concerns by development everywhere else. There is NO reason to expand into wild areas. There are however PLENTY of reason to keep the natural untouched lands "undeveloped". Rescinding the rule will threaten wildlife, damage critical ecological function, cause more air, soil, and water pollution, negatively impact human health because of such, increase risk of wildfires from sources of ignition, cause a huge loss of economic value from diminishing ideal recreational use and building massively expensive structures, work in opposition of tribal culture, and the list goes on. I, and many others, write in hopes to keep the Roadless Rule and oppose any rescinding action.

I am writing to urge the federal government to prioritize the permanent protection of remaining unpaved and undeveloped lands from commercial development and logging. Preserving these intact ecosystems is critical for our climate, biodiversity, and public well-being. Protecting unpaved lands is essential for several reasons: • Climate Resilience and Carbon Storage: Intact forests and undisturbed soils act as massive, natural carbon sinks. Industrial logging releases this stored carbon back into the atmosphere, while paving over land eliminates its ability to absorb carbon in the future. Furthermore, undeveloped watersheds regulate local temperatures and mitigate extreme weather risks. • Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity: Fragmenting ecosystems with roads, pads, and clear-cuts destroys critical wildlife corridors. Large, contiguous tracts of unpaved land are necessary for species migration, genetic diversity, and the survival of threatened ecosystems. • Watershed Protection and Flood Mitigation: Unpaved land acts as a natural sponge. It absorbs rainfall, filters pollutants, and recharges underground aquifers. Replacing natural terrain with impermeable surfaces or removing tree cover drastically increases soil erosion, degrades water quality, and heightens the risk of severe downstream flooding. • Economic and Public Health Benefits: Public lands provide irreplaceable opportunities for outdoor recreation, which fuels a robust outdoor economy. Additionally, access to wild, undeveloped spaces is proven to improve public health and mental well-being. Managing public lands for short-term extraction compromises long-term ecological stability. I request that the agency expand protective designations, limit timber harvesting to strictly ecological restoration, and halt the expansion of industrial infrastructure on remaining wild lands. Thank you for considering these comments and for your dedication to safeguarding our shared natural heritage. Sincerely, Danny Monger

As a wilderness, national forest, BLM, and other public land user since the 70’s, I am appalled the the current administration wants to overturn the roadless rule. Our public lands are a national treasure for recreation, hiking, running, cylcling, hunting, fishing, and mental health. People come to America from all over the world to experience the untouched beauty and recreational opportunity these lands offer. Our public’s lands have never been under greater risk of developement and destruction as they are now under this administration. It is our duty to current and future generations to keep protections in place to preserve the beauty and and environment that many of us, such as myself, live in. Please don’t sell out and destroy are lands from under us. To do so is to betray the American people and lands this country is built on. Howie Stern

I support Alternative 1: keep the Roadless Rule in place! I love green spaces without buildings and noise. This is good for the mental health of our society.

I am opposed to any reduction in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As of now the United States only has around 5% left of truly wild land that is untouched by human development. For human health, physical and mental, as well as the health of the planet and wildlife we need to increase the areas without road access and not fragment the wildness further into smaller pieces. Thank you for your consideration, Tracey Hogan