Read the comments.

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 rescinding the roadless rule on the grounds that it would increasing the risk of wildfire in this country. In a study published in the journal Fire Ecology in January of 2026, scientists analyzed 32 years of data from across all U.S. forest regions and found that areas within 50 meters of roads were four times more likely to catch fire than areas that were roadless. It stands to reason, then, that building more roads into forests will increase wildfires. Wildfires not only harm the biodiversity living in our national forests, they put more carbon dioxide into the air, speeding up climate change. They also fill the air of cities and towns with smoke, endangering the health of U.S. citizens, and especially vulnerable people, such as myself. At a time when fire crews are tasked to their limits and barely able to contain the fires that have already been on the increase each fire season, rescinding this rule poses a grave threat to our country. I am citing the following study as evidence: Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 I would also like to submit the following additional evidence: Unsupported and Uncited Conclusion That New Roads Have No Material Effect on IRA Wildfire Ignition Rates The DEIS's conclusion that new road construction will have no material effect on wildfire ignition rates in inventoried roadless areas is stated without support and contradicts the DEIS's own cited findings and its own data. The DEIS establishes the mechanism itself. At p. 98 it states that "human caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads, supporting the notion that roads facilitate human access, which can in turn result in more human caused fires," citing Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012, Parisien et al. 2016, Balch et al. 2017, and Chen and Jin 2022. At p. 109 it states that "[r]oad density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions (Cardille et al. 2001)." Every one of these sources is in the DEIS's own bibliography.

I am a citizen with an appreciation for nature and a concern for our climate and ecosystems. I oppose removing the 2001 roadless area conservation rule and ask you to conduct a full and transparent environmental review. This policy has protected over 44million acres of land filled with various ecosystems and wildlife. These areas protect so many species, including endangered and proposed endangered species. I was lucky to visit some areas in Oregon and Washington, and have a such respect of how nature handles itself and got to learn about how trees will become nurse logs to others. Visiting roadless areas mean more to me than having to drive a road through it, which brings me to say that myself and plenty of visitors brought money into small towns and communities. Based on pages 212-214, in 2024 visitors brought in about $8.5 billion and there are economic benefits to these communities year after year as people such as myself partake in outdoor recreation or wildlife/nature viewing. . Data from the last thirty years shows wildfires predominantly caused by humans or within 50mile radius of roads (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 ). They are 4x likely to start near roads. On page 102, the DEIS essentially says timber projects are a primary motivator for this removal of protection. This concerns me because timber harvesting can increase soil erosion, aka head towards more landslides. This can have direct impact on tribal communities stretched along these areas (see DEIS pgs 201-2). As said by Dave Werntz, a Science and Conservation director, “Forest policy must be grounded in science, shaped by collaboration, and accountable to the generations that will inherit these lands,” (https://conservationnw.org/in-rescinding-the-roadless-rule-the-usda-will-shatter-habitats-and-upend-decades-of-conservation-gains/ ). Thank you for your time.

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

I am writing to oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I work for the National Park Service and have worked in, recreated in, and enjoyed the benefits of roadless wilderness areas my entire life. With that said, wild places are valuable for many reasons beyond the personal benefits they've provided to my life. They're the watersheds for our rivers and the water we drink, the lungs of our planet, and the homes of species that have inherent value simply by sharing this country with us. The value of wild places is that they are for everyone, and that they belong to no one. In his book "Desert Solitaire", Edward Abbey wrote, "We can't have wilderness without freedom." I would argue that the opposite is also true: we can't have freedom without wilderness. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule will have an irreversible and massive impact on our country. The argument proposed for rescinding or altering the Roadless Rule is ostensibly for wildfire prevention. To be frank and use contemporary slang, this reason is very much "concern trolling." The predominant cause of wildfires is human activity. A recently published study by Aplet et al. (2026) found that wildfire-ignition density is lowest in wilderness areas, while the highest ignition density occurred in lands within 50 meters of roads. This study found that areas within 164 ft (50 meters) of a forest road are as much as four times more likely than roadless areas to see fire ignitions. Another study has found that 90% of wildfires are ignited within a quarter of a mile of a road (Morrison, 2007). The Roadless Rule already includes explicit provisions for fire suppression actions and road construction in cases of imminent threat. Another argument proposed for ending or modifying the Roadless Rule is timber extraction. The US Forest Service is already the largest road management jurisdiction agency on earth, with some 370,000 miles of existing roads to maintain. Less than 30% of these roads are in good condition according to the Forest Service's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement (p.40), and the USFS is already burdened with $7 billion in deferred maintenance. Creating new roads would cost the USFS more money than timber extraction would be able to recoup. Timber extraction is a $300 million industry, which includes plantations that are far easier and less costly to harvest. Meanwhile, the outdoor recreation industry is worth a gargantuan $13.5 billion per year, according to the latest assessments, which brings immense benefits to local communities. Maintaining healthy roadless wildernesses for Americans who engage in this industry is worth far more to the American economy than timber extraction. Establishing roads in roadless public lands--some of the most high quality habitat in the U.S.--would also have cascading impacts on the ecosystem services that wilderness areas provide. Sediment from the construction of roads in these areas would pollute and overwhelm the watersheds that these areas support. Tire wear particles from vehicles would pollute streams near roads, and carry toxins which bioaccumulate in fishes like salmon and trout (which sustain and are consumed by both people and other species). Roadless areas supply clean water to millions of Americans; construction can irreversibly damage this service. If roadless protections are reversed or diminished, species that require these areas will see myriad impacts. Road ecology research has shown that animals from antelope to salmon are losing their ability to migrate due to road traffic, noise, and fencing; invasive plants hitch rides in tire treads and spread to previously uncolonized areas; road salt contaminates lakes and rivers; and vehicle noise sends songbirds and mammals fleeing even from significant distances due to their sensitivity to the sounds of human activities (Goldfarb, 2023). For the above reasons, I am truly baffled by the decision to rescind the Roadless Rule, and I strongly urge the Department of Agriculture to examine the decades of road ecology, fire ecology, water ecology, and sound ecology research that supports the existence of roadless areas. I am an ardent fan of wilderness areas and a public servant that has worked to protect them for the benefit of all Americans. Rescinding this rule is short-sighted and actively harms both Americans and the habitats that sustain us. References Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Goldfarb, B. (2023). Crossings: How Road Ecology Is Shaping the Future of Our Planet. W.W. Norton & Co. Morrison, P.H. (2007). Roads and Wildfires. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 40 p. 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission_Proposed Rule_Draft EIS Volume I. https://www.regulations.gov/document/FS-2025-0001-224064

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

Hello, I am Sarah Zito and I oppose the recission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I currently reside in the state of Washington, and prior to that, I lived in California. Both states are known for their astounding variety of biomes and public lands, including forests. I grew up camping, hiking, and backpacking in many of those forests, and now travel throughout the country to visit forests in other states. While I do use roads to get there, we do not need to add more to the ones already in existence. Many of our most scenic lands have limited or no road access, helping them to remain unspoiled and pristine. One of the main arguments for repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is to allow the construction of roads to increase access for fire mitigation, but this is entirely unnecessary as Section 294.13 already permits tree thinning and emergency fire access. Another study, conducted by the US Forest Service, published in 2020 analyzed 20 years of data and found that, “…a lack of roads has not stopped fire prevention measures…” (Healey, Sean P. 2020 Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness. Environmental Research Letters. 15: 104023). This same study also found that, “roads are strongly associated with the spread of invasive plant species in national forests.” The conclusion of that study is that, “Speculation that eliminating road prohibitions would improve forest health is not supported by nearly twenty years of monitoring data.” In another paper, published this year, it was found that, “wildfire-ignition density was lowest in designated wilderness areas.” (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) Other impacts of building roads include but are not limited to the disruption of migratory routes, habitat fragmentation, deforestation, increased roadkill, the loss of biodiversity, the easier spread of invasive organisms, and an increase in air, soil, and water pollution. As an actual scientist with a background in environmental sciences and toxicology, ALL of those reasons should be concerning to EVERY person in this country, especially to those who are contemplating removing safeguards to increase these negative impacts. The destruction of our natural resources is definitely concerning to many voters, and those voters may choose to oust an elected representative who chooses to support abolishing this rule. Aside from the environmental impacts, there are also potential economic impacts to consider, such as who will be paying for these roads? If it a private corporation, will the public even be granted access to the roads? And if public lands are placed into the hands of a private corporation, will there be compensation to the general public? If the roads are paid for by our tax dollars, how will funds be allocated? We already have surmounting problems with our current infrastructure and existing roads need to be serviced before we even contemplate making additional ones. The Forest Service should choose the No Action Alternative, keeping this rule fully intact. Thank you, Sarah Zito

Please see attached document for my full comments and argument for strongly opposing rescinding the roadless area conservation act. Below is my conclusion from the document. The current roadless area rule already recognizes that there can be exceptional circumstances. It allows road construction in inventoried roadless areas when it is needed to protect public health and safety, including in response to an imminent threat of fire. This means the Roadless Rule does not require the Forest Service to ignore legitimate emergencies or community safety needs. Rather than removing the rule's protections across the board, I believe the existing exceptions and site-specific processes should continue to be used when a particular need can be demonstrated. Individual needs do not necessarily justify removing a national protection from millions of acres. What concerns me most is that some of the justification for rescinding the rule conflicts with the Forest Service's own history and research. The agency's 2001 analysis recognized the wildfire and ecological risks associated with roads (USDA Forest Service, 2001). More recent research conducted through Forest Service Research and Development found that roadless areas have not prevented fuel management and have not experienced higher rates of fire (Healey, 2020). Independent research has also found substantially higher wildfire-ignition density near roads (Aplet et al., 2026). Given that record, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. References Aplet, G. H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M. S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology, 22, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Healey, S. P. (2020). Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness. Environmental Research Letters, 15, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba031 Pew Charitable Trusts. (2026, October 5). U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes eliminating the Roadless Rule. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2001). Roadless area conservation; Final rule. Federal Register, 66(9), 3244–3272.

I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This objection includes full or partial rescission. I am a constituent in Pennsylvania and an analyst by day. I enjoy recreating on our beautiful public lands. It is a gift to be able to hike and camp in these parts of our great country. We travel to Washington state specifically to enjoy our public lands. Olympic, Mt Baker, Gifford Pinchot, and Wenatchee National Forests each surround our national parks in WA and are critical ecosystems to maintain. Opening up ANY of the 40M+ acres of our national forests is clearly against the will of the American majority and is strictly a money-grabbing scheme. Clean Drinking Water - watersheds will be impacted by logging, development, and roads. Sediment builds up and would need to be filtered out. Chemicals from roads and development also leech into water systems. At least 25 million Americans would be negatively impacted by this. Furthermore, this will increase the reliance on public water systems and drive up costs for people. (Source https://www.washington.edu/news/2026/07/15/roadless-rule-helps-protect-clean-drinking-water-new-study-shows/) Wildfires/Drought - let’s be clear here. It has been well established that most fires are caused by humans. Wildfires near roads are four times more likely to occur than in roadless or wilderness areas. (Source https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2) Claiming that thinning the forests and/or building roads to mitigate fire risk or severity is “science-based” is a farce. This administration clearly does not put stock in science. Also, I’m not sure which scientists you claimed to have gotten this information from, but they do in fact disagree. (Source https://www.npr.org/2025/08/28/nx-s1-5468957/trump-administration-argues-that-more-roads-would-help-against-wildfires) Additionally, droughts are intensified by climate change. (Source https://www.usgs.gov/science/science-explorer/climate/droughts-and-climate-change#overview) Climate change is worsened by deforestation. (Source https://earth.org/deforestation-global-warming/) Public Sentiment - this is not something that the American majority wants rescinded. The last time a rescission was proposed by the administration, over 600k comments were submitted and almost 99% oppose rescission. This is bogus. This is being proposed for the sole purpose of benefitting logging and mining companies at the detriment of our people and our land. We the people want to retain this rule.

I strongly object to ending the roadless rule. By ending this rule, it poses multiple threats to our forests and public health via increased wildfires, threatens local economies, jeopardizes clean drinking water for millions of Americans, threatens natural habitats and biodiversity, and violates the public land agreement with American taxpayers. Data shows that roads act as an ignition source for wildfires and they are the most common places for wildfires to start. The US Forest Service's own data shows that roads are highly correlated with wildfires, with the majority of wildfires being started as a result of human activity within 50 meters of a roadway. Additionally, researchers found that there is a four times greater risk of fires starting near roads compared with roadless forests (Aplet et al., 2026). The administration's claim that the Roadless Rule prevents the US Forest Service from decreasing wildfire damage is simply false; repealing this rule will result in more fires (Aplet et al., 2026), further straining already at capacity wildfire fighting resources. This also places habitats and communities in increased danger, and home and business owners assume an increased risk for property damage, which has further economic implications. Regarding public health, wildfire smoke contributes to poor air quality for millions of Americans. Wildfire smoke composition is harmful to breathe, exacerbating chronic respiratory conditions and promoting the development of reactive airway conditions, like asthma (The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, 2026). The administration's continued cuts to healthcare spending creates a situation where we should be focusing on reducing chronic illness, not promoting it. The economic implications of long-term chronic conditions are well established, and air quality is a major factor in chronic disease prevention. Local economies will suffer under this rule change, with the US Forest Service’s own economists stating that revoking the rule would result in a loss of up to $9 million annually in visitor spending to nearby communities that benefit from remote public land tourism. Additionally, the agency is already behind in existing road maintenance (US Forest Service, 2026); adding more dirt roads for the primary purpose of industry accessing forests, not for the benefit of American taxpayers, will further contribute to the road maintenance spending backlog resulting in an even bigger bill for taxpayers who are ultimately footing the bill for private industry to access our public lands (US Forest Service, 2026). Drinking water quality will suffer under this rule change for approximately 25 million Americans (Olden et al., 2026; US Forest Service, 2026). Increased soil erosion, sediment run off, and pollution will jeopardize remote watersheds that provide drinking water for millions of Americans (US Forest Service, 2026). At a time when we are facing more droughts and competition with industry for fresh water, this is a disastrous situation that will result in water shortages for millions of people. Additionally, the biological assessment provided by the US Forest Service highlights the negative impact on biodiversity and 327 threatened and endangered species. Seventy-one designated critical habitats are at risk with revoking this rule (US Forest Service, 2026). Biodiversity is the cornerstone of a healthy ecosystem. These lands are pristine and untouched American wilderness. Who are we that we would destroy our own world-renowned, iconic wilderness. This is our heritage. Americans take great pride in our protected, wild, public lands and I reject any actions by the federal government that would damage this, such as revoking the Roadless Rule. As an American taxpayer I fundamentally oppose this action that would result in unnecessary increased spending of our tax dollars, poorer air and water quality, destruction of old growth habitats and wildlife populations, and what represents an egregious misuse of our public lands with nothing in return, while industry makes billions in profits at our expense. I oppose. 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 Ecology 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Olden JD, Postel SL, Dombeck MP, Kesting H, Freeman P, et al. (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 The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. (2026, July 16). Wildfire Smoke, Asthma and the Immune System. https://www.aaaai.org/tools-for-the-public/conditions-library/asthma/wildfire US Forest Service. (2026, August). 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. US Department of Agriculture.

I strongly oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. By ending this rule, it poses multiple threats to our forests and public health via increased wildfires, threatens local economies, jeopardizes clean drinking water for millions of Americans, endangers natural habitats and ecosystem biodiversity, and violates the public land agreement with American taxpayers. Data shows that roads act as an ignition source for wildfires and they are the most common places for wildfires to start. The US Forest Service's own data shows that roads are highly correlated with wildfires, with the majority of wildfires being started as a result of human activity within 50 meters of a roadway. Additionally, researchers found that there is a four times greater risk of fires starting near roads compared with roadless forests (Aplet et al., 2026). The administration's claim that the Roadless Rule prevents the US Forest Service from decreasing wildfire damage is simply false; repealing this rule will result in more fires (Aplet et al., 2026), further straining already at capacity wildfire fighting resources. This also places habitats and communities in increased danger, and home and business owners assume an increased risk for property damage, which has further economic implications. Regarding public health, wildfire smoke contributes to poor air quality for millions of Americans. Wildfire smoke composition is harmful to breathe, exacerbating chronic respiratory conditions and promoting the development of reactive airway conditions, like asthma (The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, 2026). The administration's continued cuts to healthcare spending creates a situation where we should be focusing on reducing chronic illness, not promoting it. The economic implications of long-term chronic conditions are well established, and air quality is a major factor in chronic disease prevention. Local economies will suffer under this rule change, with the US Forest Service’s own economists stating that revoking the Roadless Rule would result in a loss of up to $9 million annually in visitor spending to nearby communities that benefit from remote public land tourism. Additionally, the agency is already behind in existing road maintenance (US Forest Service, 2026); adding more dirt roads for the primary purpose of industry accessing forests, not for the benefit of American taxpayers, will further contribute to the road maintenance spending backlog resulting in an even bigger bill for taxpayers who are ultimately footing the bill for private industry to access our public lands (US Forest Service, 2026). Drinking water quality will suffer under this rule change for approximately 25 million Americans (Olden et al., 2026; US Forest Service, 2026). Increased soil erosion, sediment run off, and pollution will jeopardize remote watersheds that provide drinking water for millions of Americans (US Forest Service, 2026). At a time when we are facing more droughts and competition with industry for fresh water, this is a disastrous situation that will result in water shortages for millions of people. Additionally, the biological assessment provided by the US Forest Service highlights the negative impact on biodiversity and 327 threatened and endangered species. Seventy-one designated critical habitats are at risk with revoking this rule (US Forest Service, 2026). Biodiversity is the cornerstone of a healthy ecosystem. These lands are pristine and untouched American wilderness. Who are we that we would destroy our own world-renowned, iconic wilderness. This is our heritage. Americans take great pride in our protected, wild, public lands and I reject any actions by the federal government that would damage them, such as revoking the Roadless Rule. As an American taxpayer I fundamentally oppose this action that would result in unnecessary increased spending of our tax dollars, poorer air and water quality, destruction of old growth habitats and wildlife populations, and what represents an egregious misuse of our public lands with nothing in return, while industry makes billions in profits at our expense. I oppose. 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 Ecology 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Olden JD, Postel SL, Dombeck MP, Kesting H, Freeman P, et al. (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 The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. (2026, July 16). Wildfire Smoke, Asthma and the Immune System. https://www.aaaai.org/tools-for-the-public/conditions-library/asthma/wildfire US Forest Service. (2026, August). 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. US Department of Agriculture.

To the U.S. Forest Service (and federal government at large). I am writing to express my ardent opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As someone who values our public lands and domestic natural resources, rescinding this rule is a neither a path to conservation nor economic growth. 2% of our land is roadless under the current rule allowing the vast majority to be available for resource extraction, development and industry. The value of keeping this 2% largely inaccessible outweighs the prospect of road access economically and helps preserve the last untouched areas in the US. The Tongass National Forest alone generates over $10 billion in fishing and tourism [1,2]. Disrupting the resource flow and natural beauty of the Tongass via road development and associated activities would negatively impact these industries. This doesn’t account for the biological importance of these areas. The Tongass hosts most Alaska’s birds and provides a crucial stop and breeding grounds along the pacific flyway. Disrupting these forests affects not only on local hunters and wildlife who rely on these birds but an entire Pacific flyway and outdoor industry. This is just one example for one area and there are countless others. The roadless rule protects a variety of critical habitat and species from unintentional damage caused by vehicles and the resulting increased human activity [3]. We do not and will never fully understand these species and habitats or the possible consequences of opening these areas to roads. Denali National Park only has one road and is incredibly remote, yet the tour bus traffic is halted at times during the day to allow the Dall sheep to cross. This was instated after park rangers realized the sheep were expending more energy rushing to cross in a panic which would make them more susceptible to predators and disease. In this case rangers were able to find out before cascading consequences, but this is not always the case with more vulnerable species. The notion that rescinding the roadless rule will prevent forest fires is unfounded. Fires normally start near roads [4]. Forest service resources should be devoted to controlled burns and management of areas with roads and allowing natural fires to reset the suppressed clock in roadless uninhabited ones. This is the only way to break out of the feedback loop caused by a century of suppression. I had the pleasure of experiencing the majesty of the Tongass and the inside passage it populates. It is the most remarkable place I have ever witnessed and has captured the hearts of millions of others. A world without these beautiful wild places is not one worth living and a country that doesn’t cherish these places is not one that can survive. The US’s core draw has always been the frontier: a place to explore and thrive. This myth has created the country we love today and if we lose the places that evoked it, we will surely lose the self-reliance, determination and ingenuity that made us the greatest nation. Ultimately, our national forests should be treated not like the stock market but like gold. The market can go up and down, but gold is gold, there is a finite amount its true value is in its guarantee and stability, if you sell it there’s no promise you can get it back. Our roadless areas act in the same way by offering stable natural ecosystems sheltered from our faulted policies. These areas have the chance to preserve what cannot be recovered elsewhere. If we open them to roads that preservation guarantee fades away and we have no areas to recover lost biodiversity. Therefore, I urge the Forest Service to learn from the Federal Reserve’s mistakes and maintain an ecological gold standard while bolstering our local and national economies by maintaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 1.Alaska Travel Industry Association report Alaska Travel Industry Association. 2024–2025 Annual Report. 2025, https://www.alaskatia.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/24-25%20Annual%20Report.pdf. 2.Alaska seafood economic impact report McKinley Research Group. The Economic Value of Alaska’s Seafood Industry. Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Apr. 2024, https://www.alaskaseafood.org/industry/economic-harvest-data/economic-impact/. 3.Center for Biological Diversity report Spivak, Randi. Deadly Incursions: The Roadless Rule Protects Millions of Acres and America’s Rarest Animals. Trump Wants to Kill It. Center for Biological Diversity, Aug. 2026. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/. 3.Fire Ecology journal article Aplet, Gregory H., Phil Hartger, and Matthew S. Dietz. “Three-Decade Record of Contiguous-U.S. National Forest Wildfires Indicates Increased Density of Ignitions near Roads.” Fire Ecology, vol. 22, 2026, article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a resident of the Portland, OR, metro region, a nonprofit professional, and a citizen deeply concerned about the growing threat of climate change on our society. I believe doing away with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is a bad idea for many reasons. First, on a personal level, as someone who lives and works in an urban area, being able to retreat into nature for solitude and peace is very important to me. I deeply value my experiences going hiking or camping deep into the wilderness areas around Mt. Hood. I go into these areas to escape from the hustle and bustle of the city. There are so few areas remaining in our world today that are truly a way to escape from human impact. Second, I am very concerned about the negative environmental impacts that could come from rescinding the Roadless Rule. I am particularly upset about the narrative that adding more roads will help fight wildfires. That is demonstrably incorrect! Studies show that fires are 4x more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest, and logging can increase fire hazard (Aplet et al., 2026). Living in the Western U.S., I live under constant threat of wildfire. As our climate warms and droughts become more common, our forests are literal kindling for the massive fires we see today. I understand that we need to return our forest management to practices passed down by indigenous people of this land from time immemorial; using low-level prescribed burns to clear out old brush, manage invasive species and pests, and rejuvenate the soil (Adlam & Berger, 2022). As we emerge from the misguided era of full fire suppression and deal with the consequences, it is important to be guided by the science and by indigenous practices that successfully supported these ecosystems for a long time--not by bringing high-powered modern machinery into protected wooded areas without clearance. And the Forest Service can't even pay to maintain the roads and other infrastructure it already has (an $8.6 billion backlog as of FY23, according to its own website). Third, I am appalled that the Department of Agriculture is even considering partially rescinding a rule that had such broad support across our country when it was adopted. Twenty years ago, thousands of citizens across demographics voiced clear support of the Roadless Rule. I am a nonprofit professional with expertise in violence prevention and the growing political violence and polarization of our times. It is clear that we must look to our common values as a way to start to repair our society. Today, when so much divides us, public lands remain one of the few places that all Americans share. Why on earth would the Department of Agriculture want to take away something that so clearly unites? Now is the time to protect and defend what brings us together as Americans and, frankly, as human beings who are just one small piece of this planet. 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. Again, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Thank you. 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 Adlam, Christopher & Berger, Carrie. Prescribed fire: Why we burn. Oregon State University Extension Fire Program (2022). https://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/em-9339-prescribed-fire-why-we-burn

I believe the Roadless Rule should stay in place to protect the environmental health of its designated areas. The proposed changes are not well supported by US citizens and are rather unpopular. one of the rationales given by the USDA for this change is improved wildfire management due to increased flexibility in the decision making of local management agencies. There is evidence that the introduction of roads, and the human activity that follows, increases the risk of wildfire. The highest wildfire ignitions density occurs within 50m of a road (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). The USDA acknowledges this fact but in its proposal but does not include any plan to how they will mitigate this risk in their proposal. The proposal cites that this change is needed because of “changing national priorities”. I do not have confidence that this proposal will truly center the interest of local management organizations. Im afraid various actors will be able to take advantage of the absence of the Roadless Rule for their own financial interests and not in the interest of the local communities. The proposal states timber harvest as another rationale for taking away the Roadless Rule. Timber harvesting in these areas will harm the ecological health of these areas, including water quality. These areas must be protected not extracted. The USDA has not provided a plan that addresses how these concerns will be mitigated. These areas contain an intrinsic, historic, social, and ecological value to US citizens and that value should continue to be protected by the Roadless Rule.

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

I oppose repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Revoking this rule represents increased harm to public health, wildlife habitat destruction, increased spending on additional road upkeep at the taxpayer's expense, and jeopardizes clean drinking water for 24 million Americans according the the US Forest Service's own draft environmental impact statement. Introducing more roads into old growth forests will promote increased wildfires, not help to prevent them as is being claimed by this administration. Data shows that the majority of wildfires are started within 50 meters of a roadway through increased human activity (Aplet et al., 2026). More wildfires means poorer air quality for millions of Americans that will promote increased chronic disease. Increased activity from logging and mining ventures will increase soil erosion, sediment runoff, and pollution discharges into remote watersheds that supply drinking water for millions of Americans. At a time when we face increasing drought and competition with tech industry for clean freshwater, additional contamination from logging and mining would place even greater strain on clean drinking water for American taxpayers and agriculture.Damage to wildlife habitats, including endangered species, will be significant and will severely impact biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Lastly, the introduction of roads for use by industry into remote American old growth forests represents a sharp deviation from a long-held belief that our pristine wilderness is meant to be preserved, something that has always garnered bipartisan support. Additionally, the US Forest Service will be responsible for maintaining these roads at taxpayers' expense. Current reports from the US Forest Service show that there is already a multi-billion dollar backlog of road maintenance given the strained resources under current USDA and US Forest Service leadership. These strained resources are also insufficient to handle the increased number of wildfires that can be expected with opening up these forests to industry activity. The American people do not want this rule rescinded. I strongly oppose repealing the Roadless Rule for the reasons stated above. 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 Ecology 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2

To the USDA Forest Service: I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to ask that the Forest Service keep the Rule in place in full. Let me be direct about where I stand. I do not want a single acre given up. I am deeply disappointed by the broader pattern of public land being taken from the American people, including the shrinking of national monuments and other protections we have lost. I want more public land, not less. These are our children's lands, and I do not believe it is fair or right to rescind this Rule and take them away from the next generation. I am an elementary teacher, a graduate student in education, and a mom. My family's best memories happen on public land. On a spring break camping trip, my husband and I watched our two kids spend an entire afternoon kneeling in a creek on the Ouachita National Forest, holding quartz up to the sunlight and asking where it came from. There was no admission fee and no gift shop, just wild ground that belongs to all of us. That very forest, which covers most of the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma, contains about 35,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across six roadless areas. In other words, the backcountry my children explored is precisely the kind of land this rescission would open to road building and logging. We are saving for a small travel trailer for one reason: to see more places like that before our children grow up. Those places only stay wild if they stay roadless. I see the same thing in my classroom. When my students learn outside, the child who cannot sit still becomes the one who spots the animal tracks, and the quiet child starts asking questions. Research supports what teachers see every day. Kuo, Barnes, and Jordan (2019) reviewed hundreds of studies and found converging evidence that experiences with nature boost children's academic learning, personal development, and environmental stewardship. Roadless forests are the outdoor classrooms of the next generation, and once a road is cut, that classroom is changed for good. The wildfire justification for this rescission does not hold up. A 2026 peer reviewed study of more than three decades of national forest fire records found that ignition density was about four times higher within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares) than in Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 per 1,000 hectares). The authors concluded that building roads into roadless areas is likely to result in more fires (Aplet et al., 2026). Most human caused fires start where people and vehicles can reach. Presenting new roads as fire prevention asks the public to accept more ignitions in the name of fewer. The current Rule already allows fuel reduction work where it is needed. What it prevents is new road building and commercial logging. Rescission also threatens the water families drink. Olden et al. (2026) found that watersheds influenced by roadless areas supply drinking water to at least 25 million Americans and protect over 130,000 kilometers of streams and rivers. They concluded that rescinding the Rule may compromise drinking water quality and affordability, reduce recreation, and threaten freshwater biodiversity. Even in Arkansas, where my kids found their crystals, about 9.5 percent of the population depends on these watersheds. Meanwhile, the Forest Service already carries a multibillion dollar maintenance backlog on the roughly 370,000 miles of roads it has now. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is not stewardship. Finally, the process matters. In 2001, the Forest Service held hundreds of public meetings and received 1.6 million comments. This time, the public was given a short comment period and no federally hosted hearings. A decision this permanent deserves far more public input. Please keep the Roadless Rule, every acre of it. My students and my children are counting on these places still being wild when it is their turn to explore them. Sincerely, Kyrietta Weber Apple Valley, Minnesota References: Aplet, G. H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M. S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology, 22, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538

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.I live in a Massachusetts town traversed by the Appalachian Trail and just across the border from the beginning of the Long Trail. The beauty and wild character of our region is critical for our local health and well-being, as well as our tourism-driven economy. As this letter makes clear, the Roadless Rule plays a crucial role in preserving the rural character of our region.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). 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.In the context of the current biodiversity crisis, we should be doing everything in our power to preserve wild areas to support intact ecosystems and endangered species.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.AnneMassachusetts

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

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Our national forests are public lands held in trust for all of us. Once intact forests are opened to new roads and development, the ecological damage can extend far beyond the pavement. I urge the Forest Service to protect these landscapes rather than weaken one of the few safeguards that keeps them intact. Roadless areas are critical habitat. Dietz et al. (2021) examined 537 wildlife species of conservation concern and found that 308 species, or 57%, had suitable habitat within Inventoried Roadless Areas. These areas therefore provide meaningful protection for vulnerable wildlife. Roads also fragment habitat and disrupt ecological connectivity. Forman and Alexander (1998) documented road impacts including habitat fragmentation, barriers to wildlife movement, erosion, and altered hydrology. A road is not simply a line through a forest. It creates disturbance and access that can change how wildlife use an entire landscape. Fragmentation can prevent animals from moving between feeding, breeding, and seasonal habitats and can isolate populations that need connected habitat to survive. The argument that more roads will necessarily reduce wildfire risk is also not supported by the evidence. Aplet, Hartger, and Dietz (2026) analyzed more than three decades of national forest wildfire data and found approximately 1.97 fires per 1,000 hectares in Inventoried Roadless Areas, compared with 7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares within 50 meters of roads. Ignition density generally declined as distance from roads increased. Roads can improve firefighter access in some circumstances, but they also increase human activity and opportunities for ignition. Expanding roads should not be treated as an automatic wildfire solution. Road construction also has consequences for water and soil. Roads can compact soil, concentrate runoff, alter drainage, destabilize slopes, and increase erosion and sediment delivery to streams (Forman & Alexander, 1998). These impacts can degrade aquatic habitat and water quality far downstream. Protecting forests is also protecting the watersheds they sustain. Roads can further increase the spread of invasive plants. Healey (2020), using more than 15,000 forest inventory plots, found non-native plants were approximately twice as common within 152 meters of roads than farther away. Once invasive species become established, restoration can be difficult and expensive. I strongly oppose weakening the Roadless Rule because the burden of proof should be on those seeking to disturb intact public lands, not on those asking to preserve them. We already have roads and developed areas where infrastructure can be placed. We cannot recreate an old-growth forest, restore lost wildlife connectivity, or reverse decades of ecological change simply by deciding later that a road was a mistake. Protecting roadless areas does not prevent responsible wildfire management. Targeted actions can be evaluated where there is a demonstrated need without broadly opening protected landscapes to additional roads and development. The public has also demonstrated strong support for the Roadless Rule. A nationally representative 2019 survey found that 75% of Americans supported it, including majorities of Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and rural respondents (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2019). During a previous consideration of repeal, more than 625,000 public comments were submitted, with approximately 99% opposing repeal (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2026). Scientific evidence and public input point in the same direction: intact roadless forests are worth protecting. Public lands are a legacy we inherit and a responsibility we pass forward. I ask the Forest Service to reject the proposed rescission and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We should not sacrifice irreplaceable ecosystems for roads that can be built elsewhere. References: Aplet, G. H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M. S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology. doi:10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Dietz, M. S., Barnett, K., Belote, R. T., & Aplet, G. H. (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 Forman, R. T. T., & Alexander, L. E. (1998). Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 207–231. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207 Healey, S. P. (2020). Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness. Environmental Research Letters, 15, 104023. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba031 Pew Charitable Trusts. (2019). Americans Support “Roadless Rule” to Protect Remarkable Forests. Pew Charitable Trusts. (2026). U.S. Department of Agriculture Proposes Eliminating the Roadless Rule.