Read the comments.

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

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

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

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 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 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.

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.

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.

Roads disturb wilderness areas by inviting people and vehicles and creating soil disturbance and runoff. The point of a wilderness area to to protect the wild - from the fungi in the soil to the insects to the birds and animals to the wildflowers and trees. Leave it be. Roads are not necessary, and they are harmful. I'm an American citizen, and this land is something we all share and care about. I like hiking and want to protect the ever-shrinking and increasingly endangered parts of our country that are yet not paved, settled, and mostly dead.

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

I 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.

Hello, I strongly believe the Roadless Rule should not be rescinded. Roads and culverts are the number one source of degradation for our sensitive meadow systems that clean and store water at the top of all watersheds. We have so many roads that are unused wreaking havoc in forests that should be decommissioned or reused rather than building more roads and subjecting the last remaining slices of surviving complex ecology to constant noise and violence. Leave these spaces as they are to recover as much as they can as we continue to degrade their edges. Why are we accelerating some kind of technology-fueled heat death? We have solutions available to us. My heart breaks for future children and wildlife should this rule be passed. With love and human kinship, Ash Waters

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.

Keep the 2001 roadless rule intact exactly how it is!! It has helped preserve old growth forests and water sources for 25 years. Roadless land is so important and such a special part of America, having access to beautiful camping, hiking, skiing, fishing, ect spots is something we can't take for granted. The land should also be protected for current flora and fauna that is existing, we don't want to destroy animal habitats and cause them to relocate or die out. There's so much land that is expanded upon in our country for cities already we should preserve the nature we have left.

I support the current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The current Roadless Rule helps to protect public land from threats to its protected water and wildlife, from human caused fire and from developments that decrease its value to this citizen who cherishes and enjoys wild lands. Our dry western lands are under threat. The Roadless Rule helps to protect our decreasing water resources on public lands. It supports the genetic connectivity that wildlife species need to survive. Limiting roads decreases the threat of accidental or intentional human-caused fire ignitions. Many of us who live in the western United States recreate in remote public lands. We are willing to put in the energy to access these lands because we know that they are untrammeled and provide home for creatures and plants we value. They have deep inherent value to us. The U S Forest Service has a huge backlog of work needed to maintain current roads on the public lands it manages. It has not been provided with the money to do this. Do not defile our lands further by increasing the number of roads. Do not diminish the value of our federally owned lands (read: owned by us, the citizens of the United States) by making it easy for mining or logging or other commercial interests to access and exploit them. Maintain the current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Sincerely, Skip

The Roadless Rule currently protects pristine ecosystems, wildlife habitat, and watersheds. This rule has bipartisan support and an overwhelming majority of voter support. If removed, the wildlife landscape will never be the same. It is imperative and our duty to protect our valuable natural resources of this great country.

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.