Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, We depend on the forests for our way of life. Hiking in the forests is a major pastime. Bringing roads in will make it easier for commercial mushroom picking which the forests already get raked. Cars in the forests create higher fire risks. We don’t want our nature to be taken over, by ATVs, it’s what makes the Rogue Valley so special. Tourism by rafting groups would also be affected. Please preserve the wilderness. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Shelly Waugh Williams, OR 97544-9563 waushe26@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I am an avid outdoor photography who regularly visits roadless areas on America's national forests and I support the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. I STRONGLY oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This is a reckless action that would public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Wildfires 4x more likely to start near roads than in roadless forests Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Lynn Robb Santa Monica, CA 90405-5804 lynn.robb@verizon.net

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. I'm an Oregonian and frequently spend time hiking, backpacking, hunting, and exploring many of the Roadless areas in Oregon, Washington and throughout the West. Repealing or weakening the Roadless Rule is reckless and unnecessary. It will waste taxpayer resources, devastate public lands, and degrade watersheds (and our clean drinking water), disrupt wildlife areas, and destroy fragile and intact ecosystems. Just last month I went on an annual backpacking trip with my two sons and my sister to Bobby Lake in the Maiden Peak roadless area in the Deschutes National Forest. This was one of the few areas in Oregon last summer (2026) not impacted by wildfires. There were so many folks out enjoying many of the backcountry campsites - adventuring into the wilderness to experience a weekend without the noise and pollution of vehicles, to fish in the lake, to enjoy being "out in nature". This is not the same experience with a road running through it. The Deschutes National Forest, and the Willamette National Forest it borders, are unique and special recreation areas that folks from all over the US come to enjoy. We should be doing more to protect these areas, not stripping them of the few protections they currently have. A few days ago, I took friends visiting the coast to explore the Oregon Sand Dunes near Tahkenitch Creek in the Siuslaw National Forest-- another area currently protected by the Roadless Rule. We love this area because of the miles of contiguous sand dunes-specifically because there are not roads running through the Dunes. This fall, I will go elk hunting with neighbors in another Roadless Area in the Siuslaw, near Drift Creek. This area is great for hunting in part because there are not roads cutting through it, which limits traffic, vehicle noise, and human access. Wildlife, Elk included, avoid roads, vehicle noise, and human noise. Wildlife rely on these contiguous wilderness/forested regions--these are places they can live and thrive without constant threat of human impact. These are also areas that hunters in our region rely on to be able to fill tags each year. Again, this is a place we should be doing more, not less to protect our forests. We should keep the roadless rule intact Roadless forests include some of the most resilient ecosystems in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as carbon sinks mitigating the worst impacts of climate change. Americans love these forests: we hike, hunt, forage,fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and destroy ecosystems. More roads in the backcountry also lead to more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads--most fires are caused by humans. More access leads to more fires started. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule is a mistake. I strongly oppose any actions that weaken the Roadless Rule. Please abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen America's commitment to protecting our forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950

Dear Secretary Rollins, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! THESE FORESTS ARE IRREPLACEABLE! ONCE GONE THEY ARE GONE! THIS PLANET IS OUR ONLY HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE GO OUT INTO THE FOREST AND TAKE THE TIME TO FEEL ITS SPECIAL BEAUTY AND LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Alice Conner Eugene, OR 97405-3756 alianiamaya@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I (along with many others) strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. For these reasons and much more these environments should be protected! Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Therefore, leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Christina Rodriguez Austin, TX 78741 c.rdrgz@yahoo.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. Some of the places I hold most dear in Oregon are USFS Roadless Areas. They are forests in which I’ve seen pine martens and long-tailed weasels, places that support far-ranging elk and wolves near Willamette Pass. We have obliterated so many of the planet’s ecosystems. Here we have an opportunity to keep ecosystems and their functions for wildlife and climate change intact. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Julie Polhemus Eugene, OR 97405-3051 juliepolhemus@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. I have lived in Oregon for the last 50 years. It is very important to me to save these precious places that add value to my life in all the ways stated above. I like to hike in the beautiful Three Sisters Wilderness, camp at Cascade Lakes, take the canoe out on Waldo Lake. I don't want these places to be destroyed. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Deborah Rocha Eugene, OR 97405-4733 drr@efn.org

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. As someone who was born and raised in Colorado, I grew up camping, hiking, fishing, and hunting. Through my life experiences with these activities, I have come to value them so deeply that any legislation or policy that puts those things at risk is of immediate concern to me. I believe that all peoples should be able to enjoy these activities with ease and our government should uphold that. Legislation that destabilizes and part of the 2001 Roadless Rule would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Soren Gulsrud Longmont, CO 80501 brolo34@gmail.con

Dear Secretary Rollins, Hi. My name is Kimberly and I love being outside. In fact, just this year, I’ve visited 5 National Parks. I’m so grateful they exist. This country is great because of how incredible and wild our parks are. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Kimberly Fisher Burbank, CA 91506-1540 kimbernfish@gmail.com

October 5, 2026 Dear Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Comments on docket number FS-2025-0001-223869, Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation I support the “no action” Alternative 1, and oppose any proposal that fully or partially rescinds the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule is one of the most important land conservation policies in our nation, conserving the highest integrity forests in the US.[1] The Roadless Rule has proven its effectiveness through the many values these areas provide, clean drinking water, critical wildlife habitat and carbon storage in mature and old-growth forests, cultural values, increased human health, and world class recreation. IRAs provide these valuable and irreplaceable ecosystem services free of cost. I live in Northeast Oregon, where Roadless Areas play an integral role in connecting habitat for wildlife and providing places for recreation for our family and our community. The main justification for rescinding the rule, that more roads are needed to reduce wildfire risk, is not supported by scientific research or the DEIS. Science clearly shows that roads are the dominant place where fires start and adding more roads will increase fire risk. In a study of three decades of fire ignitions, wilderness and roadless areas had the lowest ignition densities, while areas near roads had the highest wildfire ignition density because people start the most fires.[2] The DEIS's own analysis found that “The total number of wildfires originating on NFS lands from 2014 to 2024 is lowest within wilderness, followed by potentially affected IRAs, and highest on other NFS lands (Table 18).” At 101 the DEIS states that “With increased road construction, especially open-access roads, and other human activity, there could be increased hazard from human-caused ignitions.” Burning government time and money on building more roads and logging in our country's most intact, backcountry forests will worsen wildfire risk. The Forest Service can't afford to take care of the roads it already has and runs an over $10.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog mostly due to roads.[3] Fiscal considerations of building additional roads were a major concern and rationale for the 2001 Roadless Rule. With road maintenance costs already on the rise, adding even more roads that are expensive to build and costly to maintain in remote areas is grossly uneconomic. Roadless areas provide many valuable services that are degraded by road-building like clean drinking water. A recent study found that IRAs protect watersheds that supply drinking water to over 25 million Americans.[4] One-third of the populations of Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana source drinking water to IRA-influenced watersheds, and eastern US IRAs are smaller, but disproportionately important because of their proximity to large urban centers. IRAs are critical drinking-water infrastructure for the American people. Scientific research and the DEIS show that the justifications for rescinding the Roadless Rule are wrong. I support alternative 1 and respectfully urge you to leave the Roadless Area Conservation Rule unchanged. Sincerely, Andrea Mildrexler [1] Mildrexler, D.J.; Berner, L.T.; Law, B.E.; Booth, M.S. Roadless Rule Rescission Threatens Highest Integrity Forest Ecosystems in the United States. Biol. Conserv. 2026, 321, 111950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 [2] Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P., and Dietz, M.S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-US national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignition near roads. Fire Ecol. 22, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 [3] USDA Forest Service (2025b). Fiscal Year 2025, Quarter 2 Deferred Maintenance Needs. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fy25-q2-deferred-maint-report.pdf. [4] Olden JD, Postel SL, Dombeck MP, Kesting H, Freeman P, Comte L (2026) Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water 5(7): e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538

Dear Secretary Rollins, I ask you to reflect on your legacy regarding our valued public lands and the impact of what repeating or diminishing it will cause. I oppose the USDA’s plan to remove or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would damage public lands, waste taxpayer funds, and diminish the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation that millions of Americans cherish. Roadless forests are among the most intact and resilient ecosystems in our nation. They filter and store clean drinking water, offer refuge for vulnerable species, and act as vital carbon sinks that help counter the growing effects of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, camp, ski, climb, and find peace in these remote areas. I personally find solace in silence, and seek out such places such as these for reconnecting with nature. More roads will also spread invasive species, tear apart wildlife habitat and weaken ecological resilience. More roads in the backcountry will also raise fire risks and research indicates wildfires ignite more often near roads. Once roads and clearcuts divide these landscapes, the harm is long- lasting. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a serious error. I do not support any proposed alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to drop this effort and instead reinforce its commitment to protecting our contry’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they supply. Please Keep the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Stevyn Llewellyn Portland, OR 97231-2725 stevyn.llewellyn@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. As a native of north Alabama who camped, fished, and hiked in Oakley Mountain in the Talladega National Forest, I experienced how vital these public lands are. The USDA's proposal would devastate these public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, habitat, and recreation that many millions of Americans rely on. These roadless forests represent some of the most intact ecosystems left in our country. They serve critical ecological functions: filtering clean drinking water, provide wildlife habitats, and are carbon sinks . People, like me and my family, hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find pleasure in these places. Roads will do damage: spreading invasive species, disrupting habitats, and disrupting the particular remote recreation that is unique to these Roadless areas. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and nce roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. Please abandon this misguided effort, and I ask that the USDA instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Jessica Hines Saco, ME 04072-3544 hinesjn0@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, While up at Mt. Whitney last week I enjoyed a hike among tall trees, a river, a beautiful mountain landscape and relaxed along a water fall and contemplated the importance that nature provides as a respite from living in a busy, bustling city as I thought about the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule was established to safeguarded some of the most pristine and undeveloped land in our public National Forest System. These are cherished places me and a multitude of other people who camp, backpack, hike, bird watch, ski, fish and engage in other recreational and meaningful pursuits. While there I also saw an informational board about the 1964 Wilderness Act that created our National Wilderness Preservation System that provides the means for ordinary people to protect ecologically and communally important natural areas through their elected representatives in Congress and for the permanent good of the whole people. The informational board is titled "A Noble and Visionary Act" and I do not see arbitrarily gutting the Roadless Rule as noble or visionary but shortsighted, cheating the next generations, rushed and favoring promoting the commercial aspects of managing our public lands. I think Americans cherish their public and deserve leaders who protect them for future generations and not give them away to corporations and exploit them. I also want to add that rationalizing cutting down our forest in the name of fire prevention is not accurate and research from Oregon State University Professor Chris Dunn, a forest ecologist and wildfire expert and his colleagues, found most wildfires in Western national forest between 19984 and 2018 started near roads, showing an increased likelihood of wildfire where roads exist, because the number one cause of wildfires is people. Also good to note that research also demonstrates that climate change has contributed to longer fire seasons, hotter and unpredictable fire behavior. So, in agreement with the following narrative, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Sophie Swirczynski Eugene, OR 97404-3179 sophieswirz@gmaill.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I am writing because I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless change would be devastating to our public lands and an enormous waste of taxpayer funds. It would destroy wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities, increase the risk of wildfire, and undermine the outdoor industry. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems that we have left in the United States. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. By contrast, roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Part of the justification given for this proposed change has been that more roads would aid fire suppression, but in fact, research shows that the opposite is true. Most wildfires ignite near roads and are human-caused. Opening our forests to more roads would lead to more wildfires, which are extremely expensive and dangerous to fight. Weakening or eliminating the Roadless Rule would be financially unsound and put lives at risk. I am also personally invested this issue because my work depends on roadless spaces. In the summers, I work in outdoor education, leading youth from a wide range of backgrounds on backpacking trips. Our public lands, including those protected by the Roadless Rule, are the backbone of these experiences. I have seen firsthand how experiences in the outdoors help young people build confidence in themselves and connections with each other, as well as appreciation for the world around them. It is vitally important that we protect these spaces so that future generations have the chance to experience that wonder and connection. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Clara Barclay Eugene, OR 97405 cmbarclay9@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate the Roadless Rule. I am a whitewater kayaker, outdoor recrecreator, and steward of this earth. The enactment of the action would lead to the dimise of natural spaces Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Ryland Harrison Sylva, NC 28779-1362 rylandkayaks@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, As a scientist, river restoration practitioner, and outdoor recreationist, I extremely oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They protect faraway cities and infrastructure, filter and store drinking water, provide refuge for many species, and serve as carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hunt, hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a changing climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would undermine decades of conservation and take millennia to recover from. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to maintain the one of its most important policies and continue to protect America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Let's trade instant gratification and extraction for long term stewardship that protects what we love for future generations to enjoy. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Emily Iskin Hood River, OR 97031-1104 emilyiskin@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action will devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent many of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. I grew up wandering roadless areas in the California sierra, and today Oregon wildlands are my vacation spot. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Marion Richardson-Beatty Portland, OR 97266 lc22-0402@lclark.edu

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the the roadless rule. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Neal Dickinson Everett, WA 98203-1353 therealnealdickonson@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Our roadless forests represent some of the most pristine, resilient ecosystems left in the nation. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. These areas also support a massive outdoor industry, providing economic benefits to rural communities and allowing for hiking, skiing, hunting, and other forms of recreation. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I am against any of the proposed action alternatives that interfere with the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. References: 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 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Valdemar Hill Vancouver, WA 98661-1902 dmars6971@yahoo.com

I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294, subpart B). The evidence-based science shows that Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) provide clean water, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, and ecological integrity that would be put at risk if these protections were removed. The Forest Service's own analysis of the original Rule acknowledged that roads are the primary human-caused source of soil and water disturbance in forested environments (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Services 2000). Some IRAs protect watersheds supplying drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people (Talty et al. 2020). A 2026 study quantified the benefits IRAs provide for river protection, drinking water, and aquatic biodiversity, and warned that weakened protections could degrade drinking water quality (Olden et al. 2026). Removing road and harvest restrictions in these watersheds puts a service that cannot easily be replaced at risk. IRAs add disproportionately, relative to the area they cover, to the carbon captured by existing protected areas (Talty et al. 2020). IRAs hold 22% of the mature forest carbon stock and 27% of the old-growth carbon stock on national forest lands (Mildrexler et al. 2026). Mature and old forests also support biodiversity, water availability, and resilience to climate extremes (Mildrexler et al. 2026). Opening these lands to road building and commercial logging would release stored carbon and reduce future sequestration. Roadless areas on Forest Service lands are among the nation's most important biotic areas for conservation (Loucks et al. 2003). A later national analysis found that 77% of roadless areas had the potential to conserve threatened, endangered, or imperiled species, and that a handful of roadless areas hold a large share of suitable habitat for some species of concern (Dietz et al. 2021. Roads fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, and increase human disturbance, so losing roadless status would reduce the habitat these species rely on. A 2026 analysis found that IRAs contain higher-integrity forests than surrounding lands. Higher-integrity forests provide more clean water, biodiversity, cultural value, and climate regulation, and are associated with lower wildfire incidence (Mildrexler et al. 2026). The same analysis critiques the arguments offered to justify rescission. IRAs also buffer and connect existing protected lands, and about one-third of roadless forests border a national park or wilderness area (Talty et al. 2020). Rescission is sometimes justified to reduce wildfire risk. Research analysis associates intact forests with lower wildfire incidence (Mildrexler et al. 2026), and roads are a major source of human ignitions. I ask the Department to address this evidence in the final analysis and to explain specifically how new roads would reduce, rather than increase, fire risk, and costs. I also ask the Department to respond to the concern raised by commenters that the draft EIS itself shows increased fire, landslide, and cost impacts from rescission. I urge the Department to withdraw the proposal and retain the Roadless Rule. If the Department proceeds, it should fully analyze and respond to the peer-reviewed evidence above, including impacts on drinking water supplies, carbon stocks, and species of conservation concern, and consider alternatives that retain protections for the highest-integrity roadless areas. References Dietz MS, Barnett K, Travis BR, Aplet GH. 2021. The importance of U.S. national forest roadless areas for vulnerable wildlife species. Global Ecology and Conservation. 32:e01943. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943. [accessed 2026 Oct 3]. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989421004935. Loucks C, Brown N, Loucks A, Cesareo K. 2003. USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology. 7(2). doi:10.5751/es-00528-070205. Mildrexler DJ, Berner LT, Law BE, Booth MS. 2026. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation. 321:111950. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950. [accessed 2026 Oct 3]. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320726002624. Olden JD, Postel SL, Dombeck MP, Kesting H, Freeman P, Comte L. 2026. Assessing the value of the U.S. roadless rule for people and nature. Ortega JCG, editor. PLOS Water. 5(7):e0000538. doi:10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538. Talty MJ, Mott Lacroix K, Aplet GH, Belote RT. 2020. Conservation value of national forest roadless areas. Conservation Science and Practice. 2(11). doi:10.1111/csp2.288. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Services. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation . [accessed 2026 Oct 3]. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/roadless/roadless-feis-volume1.pdf.