Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Sincerely, JJ So California

I strongly oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I spend time hiking and camping on our national forests, and I value having large areas of public land that remain wild, remote and largely undeveloped. These places provide wildlife habitat, protect watersheds, and give people the chance to experience the backcountry in a way that becomes harder to preserve once roads and development are added. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place and continue protecting these areas for future generations.

I support keeping the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless forests safeguard wildlife habitats, protect clean water and connect ecosystems. I am especially concerned about the impact of losing these protections on wildlife in Oregon and Washington, including the northwestern pond turtle, which depends on connected aquatic and upland habitat. I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to keep turtles on track — not on roads. Organizations like the Oregon Zoo are working to save wildlife in the Pacific Northwest and rescinding the Roadless Rule would undermine decades of conservation wins. Please choose Alternative 1, No Action, to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and its protections for inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for considering my comment.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Sincerely, Jennifer Waldo Florida

Furthermore: Abolish ICE! Free Palestine! Impeach and hold the administration fully accountable! End any US military action around the world without the prior approval of the people! Universal healthcare for anyone in the US! 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.

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.

Please do no open our protected forest to roads. We need to protect or environment and Have untouched lands! Keep the roadless rule!!! 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 like the roadless rule. And world like it to remain.

RE: Docket Number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66 I am writing to submit my comments regarding rescinding the Roadless Rule, Docket Number FS-2025-0001 or RIN 0596-AD66. I respectfully request that the Roadless Rule remain in full force. I reside adjacent to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Klickitat County. As a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest, I treasure the natural beauty it offers and hold dear the preservation of areas intended to serve nature solely for itself without the threat of human pressures. As a small forest owner/steward I know how impactful any type of disturbance can be to the ecosystem. We spent five weeks witnessing the destruction of 44 acres of the parcel that borders us on two sides while they installed roads and clear-cut last summer (June 2025). The logging trucks start rolling (four per hour at a minimum) in at 2:30 AM and the feller buncher fires up at the very same time, running for ten to twelve hours- six days a week. A decibel meter registered readings of 95 db. for many hours over the course of the day. It was impossible to sleep and the production of our flock of chickens dropped to less than half for the duration of the logging operations. Those are just two of the impacts, there were many more to ourselves and the surrounding community. Every type of wildlife left for the duration of the logging, and it took until this spring for them to begin to return. Our forests had been planted at the same time, and the trees were more than 75 years old- young in the life of a forest and a lifetime for most humans. Our adjoining parcels contain extensive wetlands, seasonal waterways, and ponds. None of these were protected from the destruction and oversight to ensure that setbacks were observed was non-existent. The impact was and has been intense, causing tremendous flooding where it had not occurred previously. Water and precipitation at our elevation (2000’) is precious and would have stayed higher in the watershed had those trees still been there and the wetlands not been demolished during the logging. We are in our fourth year of drought here in the northwest and every drop feels precious. Our pond is the lowest we’ve ever witnessed in the 10 plus years we’ve owned. I share our experience in the hope that you will closely consider the ALL of the potential impacts of rescinding the Roadless Rule- both short term and long term. Our forests are under tremendous pressure, at a time when we need them more than ever to help offset climate change. Humans have spent the past three centuries creating monocultures, including in our forests. The lack of complex ecosystems has dramatically impacted the health of our forests, and now policy makers, Department of Natural resources, and logging interests are using the perceived threat of forest fires to push a narrative of burning to enhance forest health. Rescinding the roadless rule will have tremendous impacts that will take generations to repair. The Roadless Rule helps preserve: •Clean Water for Communities •Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity •Outdoor Recreation and Local Economies •Natural Resilience •Threaten Tribal Sovereignty and access to traditional, sacred gathering grounds. Any action taken that will reduce these restrictions puts these pristine areas at risk. Most Sincerely, Jennifer Sharp 12 Pyatt Rd., White Salmon, WA 98672

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

See attached file(s)

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

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

Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White,Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, and Members of Congress:I'm respectfully writing to oppose the US Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). Please drop this plan or select Alternative 1, No Action.For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has provided an essential layer of protection for approximately 58.5 million-acres of National Forest System lands, or about a third of all lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service). “Inventoried Roadless Areas” (IRAs) protected by the Roadless Rule represent many of the wildest, healthiest, and most intact landscapes in the United States (https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Roadless-Rule-Rescision-Threatens-Preprint-Mildrexler-et-al.-2026.pdf). Over 1.5 million Americans submitted comments in support of the Roadless Rule when it was developed, a record for public participation in federal rulemaking that still holds to this day.In New England, the Roadless Rule protects 260,000 acres, or approximately one-fifth of the White and Green Mountain National Forests, combined. Iconic landscapes protected by the Rule include places like New Hampshire’s Franconia Notch, Mt Moosilauke, Mt Chocorua, and the Presidential Range, as well as Vermont’s White Rocks. The famous Long Trail and Appalachian Trail traverse numerous Inventoried Roadless Areas protected by the Roadless Rule. Equally important, the Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water, protects against floods and droughts, and supports the region's native biodiversity, including imperiled species like the Northern Long-eared Bat, brook trout, Canada lynx, Bicknell's Thrush, and American marten, among many others.Only 3.3% of New England is protected from timber harvest and road construction, but scientists say we must protect at least 10% of the region for the benefit of biodiversity, carbon storage, and the wellbeing of our communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would set our region back in time, making New England's conservation goals even harder to achieve.Recognizing the exceptional value of Inventoried Roadless Areas (totaling just 2% of the lower-48 states), as well as the Forest Service’s unsustainable multi-billion dollar road maintenance backlog, the agency promulgated the Roadless Rule as “a down payment on the well-being of future generations,” in the words of former Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck, who oversaw the Rule’s development.A recent study found that in New England, the Roadless Rule helps to protect drinking water for 8.8% of Vermont residents and 7.3% of New Hampshire residents (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538). Additionally, 7% of Massachusetts residents get their water from sources that originate in Inventoried Roadless Areas in the White Mountain National Forest.Importantly, the Roadless Rule is also among our best tools for addressing wildfire. Most fires are started by people, and a recent study found that fires are four times more likely to start near roads (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2). The Roadless Rule also protects culturally-important sites and subsistence use areas. These spaces are critical to food security for many indigenous communities as well as for sustaining cultural and spiritual practices, including hunting, fishing, and gathering forest plants for food, medicine, and traditional arts.Please drop this plan to rescind the Roadless Rule or select Alternative 1, No Action.Finally, I am calling on my members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R.3930 and S.2042, to codify the Roadless Rule in statute.Thank you.SarahVermont

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

I 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.