Read the comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz, As a resident of Southeast Alaska, Roadless areas on the Tongass National Forest are essential to my family's way of life and our regional economy. The fishing and visitor industries collectively deliver $2 billion in economic impact and represent 26% of jobs in our region. Roadless areas are home to some of Alaska's most productive salmon and deer habitat, and are particularly important to rural communities that rely on abundant fish and wildlife for our livelihoods and food security. I live on Prince of Wales Island, where most of the economically-feasible timber has already been harvested by an industry that today represents less than one percent of our regional jobs. Meanwhile, our local salmon and deer populations are declining, and habitat loss is a concerning factor in these trends. That's why our best remaining fish and wildlife habitat should be managed to produce more salmon and deer. These are our most valuable forest products that will sustain our economy and culture in the long run, in addition to supporting the administration's goal of increasing domestic fisheries production. I urge USDA to maintain the Roadless Rule, which has broad public support. At a minimum, the Department should direct the Forest Service to ensure durable conservation measures are maintained for the most productive fish and wildlife habitat on our national forest lands, including in Alaska. Our rural communities depend on it. Thank you for your consideration.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My name is Cody Benkelman, and I live in Whitefish Montana where all three of my kids were born. I was born in Polson Montana, and have been a lifelong hunter and fisherman. I’ve been fortunate to hunt deer, elk, antelope, grouse, and pheasant, and fish the lakes and streams of western Montana. I’ve also traveled to Europe, Australia, and southeast Asia, and I’m a firm believer that our human impacts on Earth are reducing biodiversity and putting our future at risk. Many people that consider themselves environmentalists will argue for the protection of fish, bears, wolves, and many other species – and I typically agree with most of those policies – but too often I think we fail to acknowledge that the security of humanity itself is also at risk. We need biodiversity for our own survival. I know many people in this region depend on a stable forest products industry for their livelihoods, and I respect that. I don’t propose to shut down all logging and all development, but I have to believe we’ve already exploited enough of the planet. I feel we need to focus on proving that we can maintain our economy and ensure a stable future with proper stewardship of the vast areas of land that are already developed – the fraction of the Earth that has not yet been developed (or that is recovering from past development) is already small. I know that the existing roadless rule does still allow future development in roadless areas, but requires thoughtful review before proceeding. Let’s honor those existing rules and work together to manage the lands we are already using for human development, and continue to protect the roadless areas we have already set aside. This is especially important for the integrity and continuity of the various regional ecosystems that many animals depend on. Since many of the remaining roadless areas are so remote and include terrain that is very rugged, the financial cost of development is very high, and the severity of the changes required to add roads and enable development is extreme. I’ve hiked many times in the Jewel Basin hiking area between Bigfork and Hungry Horse Reservoir, and I’ve asked my kids to scatter my ashes there after I’m gone. As a graphic example of what our human activities have done to the terrain, I created the attached Powerpoint slides (for presentation to a high school class) that shows a hillshade of the original vs. developed terrain around Laguna Niguel, California. Development of the landscape for human use is not necessarily bad, but I feel we can afford to limit future development in our existing natural areas. Let’s please continue to protect our fragile and important roadless areas. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

I support rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I am a forest operator. My business and employees depend on forest management projects that can be safely reached, bid, and completed. We are the people who build and maintain forest roads, operate logging equipment, haul forest products, reduce hazardous fuels, plant trees, and complete restoration work on the ground. The current Roadless Rule can limit whether this work is practical or even possible. A project may be needed for forest health or wildfire risk, but it still has to have workable access, safe operating conditions, reasonable hauling, and enough economic value to get completed. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would not automatically approve logging or new roads. It would allow those decisions to be made through local forest plans and site-specific review instead of a broad national restriction. That is important to contractors. Local Forest Service professionals should be able to look at the conditions on the ground and decide what tools are appropriate. In some places, that may include thinning, fuels reduction, timber harvest, road reconstruction, temporary access, or other forest management work. In other places, no treatment may be needed. Forest conditions are not the same everywhere, and management should reflect those differences. I also want the Forest Service to consider the people and businesses needed to carry out this work. Federal forest management depends on a skilled private-sector workforce. Contractors need a steady supply of projects to retain employees, invest in equipment, train workers, and maintain the capacity needed for forest management and wildfire response. Removing unnecessary barriers can help the Forest Service design projects that are safer, more practical, and more likely to be completed. Please finalize the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule and give local forest managers the ability to make science-based, site-specific decisions about access and active forest management. Thank you for considering the perspective of the forest operators and contractors who perform this work.

As a resident of Southeast Alaska who depends on roadless areas (notably on Douglas Island) to feed my family, I’m writing in strong support of retaining the roadless rule. As the fall harvest season comes to a close, it’s time for our annual reorganization of the chest freezer. As I donned insulated gloves and moved the oldest vacuum-sealed packages to the top last night, I was struck by how much of what my family eats comes from our backyard. There’s a section for deer (that still has some space!), another for salmon (both fresh and smoked), another for ducks and grouse. We are lucky to have a few exotics in there this year—my son got his first goat, as well as moose from up north—but year-in and year-out, we eat wild food from the Tongass National Forest. It’s literally who we are. As a chorus of voices from Southeast Alaska has emerged not just since the U.S.F.S. again proposed rescininding the Roadless Rule but in the decades since it was first proposed, locals support the rule. The Rule has helped conserve key areas of the Tongass from the predictable impacts of industrial old-growth logging, in the process supporting healthy habitat for the deer, fish, and birds that we put on the table. Given the ubiquity of similarly filled chest freezers, it’s not surprising that most Southeast Alaskans think the roadless rule is working. Commercial fishing groups have come out in force against the proposed rollback. Regional tribal groups, representing those who have been living off this land since time immemorial, have voiced strong opposition. The tourism industry has been outspoken; city assemblies are chiming in to let everyone know they think the Roadless Rule is working. Even long-time Forest Service leaders have proclaimed the rule to be effective. Save for the handful of employees of the last surviving old growth timber mill in the region, almost everyone agrees the roadless rule is working. It’s working because the Rule not only protects the fish and wildlife we rely on to feed our families in Southeast, but it also was set up in a reasonable way to allow our communities to conduct the development activities we need. Small hydro-projects, roads to connect villages to regional electrical grids, small timber sales, mining exploration projects—all are totally possible under the current Roadless Rule. In fact, every single one of the 58 proposed exemptions to the rule for similar projects has been permitted. What isn’t possible under the current rule is industrial-scale clearcut logging in the small but ecologically critical remaining portions of old growth that matter most for producing robust populations of deer, healthy runs of fish, and that constitute the amphitheater for my favorite forest performers, the spring-hooting sooty grouse. The proposed Alaska exemption to this rule is simply an effort to revive an old growth logging industry that cost taxpayers millions in subsidies during the late twentieth century hey-day of tree cutting and that has been kept on government-sponsored hospice care for the last two decades. Logging only works here in our temperate rainforest with tremendous financial inputs from taxpayers like you and me. (Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates that we subsidized the Tongass timber program in excess of $30 million per year or over $600 million over the past 20 years). While I believe sustainable timber harvest is not only possible but necessary for the Tongass, the roll back of the Roadless Rule does not mark a path toward this important goal. As others have stated so clearly, the trees—like us, literally made of salmon—are far more valuable as a cornerstone link in an ecosystem than the forest products that could be harvested. Retaining the Roadless Rule is the best action for family chest freezers throughout the region. Kevin Maier 570 Seater Street Juneau AK 99801 (907)957-0357 kevinkmaier@gmail.com

I am vehemently opposed to the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Rule. Sam Knob in Pisgah National Forest is a place that my family explores, recreates, and stewards. It’s a place full of delicate native plant life, animals, and trails. I have spent many years dedicated to learning about the biodiversity of this region and the ins and outs of native plant and animal life. I am a former student of the UNC botany program and a 4 year volunteer with the national parks service, where I act as a citizen scientist by gathering wildflower phenology data alongside a dedicated team of volunteers like myself. I live nestled amongst the Great Smoky Mountains, Nantahala, and Pisgah National Forests and I consider all three an extension of my own backyard. Our state is already overrun with unregulated development and urban sprawl. Wild spaces are sacred not only to North Carolinians, but to human civilization as a whole. Wild land like this is essential for our long term success and happiness. There is substantial research showing that logging is not beneficial to our forests. There is a three decade long study that shows correlation between logging and increased wildfires. Ultimately, logging will not help decrease wildfire numbers, in fact it would have the opposite effect. Building roads and disturbing ground leads to the spread of invasive, non native plants. These species can choke out and eventually annihilate native vegetation that supports a healthy and thriving ecosystem. This is also land that locals have fished, hunted and foraged for generations. We were predated by the Cherokee. This agency has obligations under the Constitution, treaty rights and federal law "to protect and preserve the inherent rights of American Indians into perpetuity," including access to lands, use of forest products, freedom to practice traditional religions, and protection of sacred sites. These are binding obligations. The last thing our area needs after Hurricane Helene is MORE destruction of our natural resources. Our land is still healing, and it cannot survive more disruption. The Forest Service should uphold this 25 year old ruling and protect our national forest for all North Carolinians and Americans.

I’m writing today to express my support for repealing the roadless rule. As a lifelong resident of Washington State, I have spent significant time recreating in the Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. This forest has provided myself, family, and friends the opportunity for mountain biking, hiking, skiing, backpacking and many more activities that are a large part of my life. However, inaction by the Forest Service has decreased access across the Forest, especially following the December 2025 rainstorms which destroyed numerous stream crossings and roads and left many areas inaccessible including Hidden Lake Lookout, Watson Lakes Trailhead, the Suiattle River Road. These are all places I attempted to visit in the last year and could not. Funding provided by active management and deregulation of policies set in DC such as the Roadless Rule would only expedite maintenance of these places. Furthermore, the roadless rule is an arbitrary policy that doesn’t always ground itself in the reality of the landscape on the MBSNF. Scrolling around the map of areas included in the roadless rule, there are multiple areas around Darrington and Jackman Creek (Skagit county) which have been logged and are included in the roadless rule. From personal experience in these areas, the stands here are overstocked and create fire danger near marbled murrelet habitat and should be thinned. I hope to see more thinning and active management in the MBSNF in order to support access and reduce fire danger and other active management issues. Finally, we should support returning management to our local forests and support a local forest products industry rather than relying on interests and parties outside of Washington State. Washington State has some of the most well conserved forest management in the world (in terms of percent of forests by acreage conserved) and we should support making forest products here, especially with how well our state grows trees. I urge policy setters to repeal the Roadless Rule and support active management in national forests in Washington State.

October 6, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination U.S. Forest Service Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Docket FS-2025-0001; RIN 0596-AD66 To Whom It May Concern: I live in Deer Lodge, Montana, have worked in Montana’s forest products industry for about 15 years, and serve as a volunteer firefighter. I am submitting this comment in my personal capacity. I support rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule and adopting Alternative 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In communities like Deer Lodge, timber supports steady employment for mill workers, loggers, truck drivers, mechanics, electricians, and many other skilled trades. Those businesses also support local suppliers, families, and public services. Losing a mill means losing much more than one employer. It can weaken the entire network needed to harvest timber, manufacture wood products, and carry out forest treatments. Rebuilding that capacity after it disappears is difficult. A dependable supply of economically usable timber is essential to keeping that infrastructure in Montana. Decisions on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Helena-Lewis and Clark forests are particularly relevant to my community. Timber can be abundant on the landscape and still be unavailable because access is restricted or the cost of reaching it makes a project impractical. Removing the Roadless Rule could allow better project boundaries, more practical access, and more efficient haul routes where forest plans permit them. Even incremental improvements can matter to a rural mill and the contractors who supply it. I recognize the limits of this proposal. Many roadless acres are steep, remote, or otherwise unsuitable for economical harvest. Rescission would not guarantee a large increase in timber production, eliminate litigation, or solve agency staffing and budget problems. My support is based on giving land managers the opportunity to evaluate workable projects on their merits. A modest increase in accessible timber, or a better-designed project that becomes economically feasible, can still provide meaningful local benefits. As a volunteer firefighter, I also want forest managers to have practical options for addressing hazardous fuels and providing safe access where conditions justify it. Strategically located roads can provide access and useful control points for suppression. Mechanical treatment and prescribed fire should be considered where appropriate to the forest type, terrain, and management objectives. I am not suggesting that every fire can be prevented or that every forest should be treated. I support evaluating those tools locally, with firefighter safety and community protection among the considerations. Access comes with responsibilities. Road construction and maintenance can affect water quality, habitat, and erosion, and public access can create additional ignition risks. Projects should account for those effects through careful location, maintenance, drainage, and appropriate access restrictions. Providing access for forest management does not require opening every road to unrestricted public travel. I value Montana’s wildlife, watersheds, recreation opportunities, and undeveloped landscapes. Rescinding this rule would leave applicable forest plans, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other legal protections in place. It would not remove congressionally designated wilderness protections. Those safeguards provide a framework for deciding where management is appropriate and where protection should remain the priority. Local conditions and public input should guide those decisions. I ask the Forest Service to consider the importance of retaining the mills and logging businesses needed to implement its forest-management objectives. National estimates of additional timber volume can obscure the value of a workable project to a particular community. Please evaluate benefits in terms of feasible treatments, affordable access, and timber that can actually be harvested and delivered. If the rule is rescinded, implementation will matter. The Forest Service should identify practical opportunities with local communities, Tribes, landowners, and industry; provide the staffing and resources to develop them; and track results beyond acres planned or timber sold. Communities need to understand what work can proceed, what remains constrained, and what has actually been accomplished. I support full rescission because it would remove an additional nationwide restriction and allow forest managers to make decisions suited to the lands and communities they serve. That flexibility would be a useful step toward sustaining Montana’s timber infrastructure and improving the options available for responsible forest management. Thank you for considering my comments. Christopher T. Anderson Deer Lodge, Montana

Hello. I live in Haywood County North Carolina. Forty (40) percent of our land area is made up of national park or national forest. These areas are vital to our economy in many ways, not least of which is outdoor recreation and the forest products industry. The main road from my house to Waynesville abuts access to Cataloochee Valley, a large mulch yard, a hardwood floor company and a timber frame home business. My home county is sustained by forest resources in many ways. I believe that the current status with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule intact is the best path forward. It already seeks to balance interests of the forest industry and environmental protection with its restrictions and exemptions. The argument of the rule being a burden doesn't make sense. One of the original intents of the rule was to relieve administrative burdens. These would return in its absence. For these reasons as well as the overarching and increasing importance of protecting our public lands and waters, I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I appreciate your consideration of my comments.

I am writing to oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Rescinding this regulation would allow road construction, reconstruction and timber harvesting in largely unfragmented areas of National Forest that serve as critical habitat for over 300 threatened and endangered species (p. 160). The introduction of infrastructure to previously roadless areas will not only decrease the health of populations through habitat fragmentation and degradation (road-building and logging decrease soil, water and nutrient quality p. 111, 118, 128) but will also create new entry points for the spread of non-native species, including pathogens, which can have devastating impacts on forests, forest products, and the biodiversity they support (p. 151). The addition of roads of previously roadless areas will also increase the incidence of human-wildlife conflict (p. 151) as well as human-caused fires, with the proportion of human-caused fires in roadless areas often less than half of that in other NDS lands (p. 86, 89; Aplet et al. 2026). Especially in areas with high fuel buildup due to fire suppression activities and inadequate thinning, increased human ignitions will inevitably result in high-severity wildfires that endanger human lives, infrastructure and ecosystems. Beyond direct impacts on biodiversity, the repercussions of this rescindment may negatively impact fish and game species and cause irreparable damage to the few remaining natural areas that facilitate outdoor recreation and ecotourism (e.g. hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing) which bring in $1.5 billion/year and $419 million/year, respectively (p. 214). The harvest of timber on currently roadless lands, which is expected to generate $2.2-$11.4 million annually, will not fully compensate for the projected loss of $9 million annually from reductions in recreation and ecotourism, assuming just a 1% loss in visitation (p. 220), nor will they be sufficient to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining new roads associated with this project (p. 45). Finally, rescinding this rule may degrade or reduce access to cultural resources which violates indigenous sovereignty (p. 201-202). As an professor of Ecology who has recreated and conducted research in roadless federal lands, I am acutely aware of the irreparable damage that will inevitably result from the rescindment of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, particularly with ongoing reductions to the Endangered Species Act under the current administration. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the rescindment of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, as this action jeopardizes the ecological and economic functionality of these public lands.

October 5, 2026 Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft EIS - RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director, The Custer Gallatin Working Group is a collaborative that works to develop agreements around priority areas and approaches for project work on the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The CGWG represents a wide range of stakeholder interests including County Commissioners, representatives of conservation NGOs, the ski industry, agriculture and ranching, recreation, hunters, anglers, outfitters, mining, and the timber industry. We support active and balanced approaches to public land management based on common sense, credible research and the values and priorities of the public. We support forest restoration, fire risk reduction, commercial harvesting, and timber stand improvement that can help sustain the forest products industry at the same time protect healthy wildlife populations. We also support a variety of recreational opportunities in our national forests, both motorized and quiet. And we believe the Forest Service must be fiscally responsible in recognizing their deferred maintenance backlog and the need to maintain their roads to standard. We do not see these things in conflict with one another. Based on our experiences we believe there are opportunities to strategically modify the management of Inventoried Roadless Areas, to better enable the Forest Service to increase active management in areas where it makes sense and retain protections for priority backcountry roadless areas. However, the approach to Roadless Rule modifications in Alternative 3 is not adequate. Revisions to the rule should be informed by hosting public meetings and listening to local stakeholders. Affected communities should have a say in decisions to increase access to some roadless lands, while balancing the important natural values of these lands. For example, communities should have the opportunity to apply craft locally-informed boundary adjustments that met the needs and interests of affected communities. Rescinding the rule with no public meetings and a three-to-four-week comment period is insufficient for our groups, who primarily meet monthly, to review and understand the DEIS and to craft meaningful comments that members can support. Therefore, we request the Forest Service to offer a longer comment period for this DEIS, public meetings, and other forms of stakeholder engagement. We also would suggest that instead of relying on expensive and time-consuming forest-by-forest updates to Forest Plans, that the Forest Service reconsider the merits of state-level rulemaking. A Montana Roadless Rule, guided by a non-partisan committee of scientists and forest stakeholders, could build on the good work being done through state Stewardship Agreements, the Good Neighbor Authority, and the long history and experience of collaboration occurring across the state. We know from experience that differing perspectives can find common ground on forest management when conversations are grounded in shared values and time is invested in working to build consensus. We encourage the Forest Service to reconsider its approach to this process and follow the examples set by the successful forest collaborative movement in Montana. Sincerely, John Prinkki, Chairman, Custer Gallatin Working Group

We do not need more roads to protect and enhance our federal lands. We do not need more forest products -- saw timber prices are already too low. Future generations need us to protect these forests. I strongly oppose this proposed action!

This comment expresses strong opposition to the proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, since it is not aligned with the US Forest Services' mission and responsibility to citizens of the United States of America, as explained below, and I express my strong disagreement with the proposed rule and the process used to develop it. Adoption of the proposed rule would be neglect of the Forest Services' duty to manage National Forest for many uses in for the benefit of the citizens of the United States of America. Scientific evidence shows ROADLESS AREAS preserve clean water, clean air, species of importance, the health of areas with roads, and the value of forest products. The proposed rule is contrary to 16 USC 1604(a) and (b) regarding development of landscape-level management plans. The economic impacts described in the proposed rule are vague and incomplete. The proposed rule will increase bureaucracy, cost and regulatory burden on citizens and private enterprise by requiring hundreds of different local land management plans and is not in the interest of the people of The United States of America. Roadless areas prevent clear cutting instead of selective logging which increases fire risk. Roads are not required for selective logging and road construction money, and the cost of construction and maintenance is not calculated directly in the "Timber" section of the proposed rule. Elimination of the current rules governing roadless areas, under a single national blanket, will promote a return to pre-2001 abuses of National Forest in which large areas were clear-cut allowing densely forested areas to grow back with increased fire risk.Furthermore, contrary to the proposed rule's statement that "rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would increase opportunities for hazardous fuel treatments," it would provide for greater likelihood of human-caused wildfire ignition and growth of the wildland-urban interface. The Forest Service needs funding to restore the health of areas that have been used for commercial logging using selective logging and other best practices to assure multiple use and sustained yield of National Forest System products and services and include coordination of outdoor recreation, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. The proposed rule jeopardizes all of the above products and services by reducing prices of forest products, polluting water sources, eliminating critical habit for wildlife and fish, eliminating wilderness quality land, and reducing opportunities for non-motorized recreation. In 2001, the current ROADLESS AREAS RULE (66 FR 3244) was adopted after extensive study and agreement by stakeholders to balance the use of National Forests for human and environmental health and commerce. The proposed rule will negatively impact the health of citizens of the United States, public infrastructure, and the value of commerce. Firstly, the proposed rule would eliminate protection for ROADLESS AREAS in National Forests and therefore endanger human health and well-being by polluting water sources, spreading invasive species, and emitting greenhouse gases and other pollutants that promote climate change and its negative impacts on the health, wealth and happiness of citizens of the US, including wildfire. Secondly, the proposed rule is not a result of scientifically based study nor of rigorous cost-benefit analysis that accounts for the costs of road construction and maintenance, impacts of water pollution, and reduction in price of forest products due to increase in supply subsidized by the government in competition with the free market price. In addition to the reasons given above, since, the proposed rule is not based on sound environmental or economic analysis implementation of this rule is not in the interest of the people of the United States of America and constitutes dereliction of responsibility of the US Forest Service and its administrators.

To whom it may concern in the USDA and USFS, I am writing today to declare my opposition to the proposed recision of the Roadless Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule should be upheld. America’s national forests and expanses of pristine wilderness are part of what makes America great. In the purpose and need for action section: You cannot claim that you are turning these tracts of roadless land over to management by local forest service officials, all while cutting the forest service’s operating budget and firing 15% of its employees, so that they don’t even have the resources to manage that same forest. You also cannot claim that this would be informed locally by tribes when the majority of tribal governments and the NCAI condemned this proposed recision in the first place. It doesn’t cost the U.S. anything to keep these pristine national forest lands roadless. It does cost the U.S. money to build roads into remote places, especially to maintain them. According to the US Forest Service’s website, it currently has an infrastructure maintenance backlog of 8.6 billion dollars. We clearly cannot afford to add to that number, especially with the budget cuts that are being made to the USFS. To me it seems this proposed recision seems like it is primarily about increasing logging and forest management to prevent wildfires. But it doesn’t make much economic sense. According to the USFS website, U.S. forest products industry generates 288 billion dollars annually and according to Vertical IQ, logging and timber alone generates roughly 15.7 billion dollars in revenue. According to your own statement on this document in the “Summary of potential impacts” section, you state it would generate 5-11 million dollars for the U.S. treasury, and 4.6-10.6 million dollars for the timber industry. Even if we achieved the upper bounds of the projected timber revenue as a result of this repeal, it would be a fraction of a percent of the U.S. total revenue, .07% (7/10,000ths) to be exact. That is a tiny number compared to the yearly revenue of the entire U.S. timber industry. That tiny fractional revenue is simply not worth jeopardizing these areas which help supply drinking water to 25 million Americans (Olden et Al, 2026 in PLOS Water), protect endangered iconic species that rely on undisturbed contiguous forests (such as grizzly bears, salmon, trout, and even bald eagles), and contain old growth forests which are ecologically vital biodiversity hotspots, that provide water filtration and flood and drought mitigation to surrounding areas. Logging in these areas would destroy habitat, and pollute our waterways with eroded silt and sand, as well as herbicides sprayed to aid timber recovery. Furthermore, if we’re talking about fire prevention, fires are 4 times more likely to start near roads than they are in pristine roadless forest areas (Aplet et Al, 2026, in Fire Ecology). Building more roads will increase ignition risk. Furthermore, logging increases fire risk over a decades long period. The way the U.S. typically deals with forest recovery in the wake of a clear cut or a wildfire, is by planting monoculture timber trees (or a few different species but still a relatively small diversity) and then spraying herbicide on the soil to kill any competing shrubs to ensure quickest timber growth for future harvests. However, this leads to a less biodiverse, conifer-dominated forest which is much more flammable and susceptible to devastating pest infestations. Forests that naturally recover from wildfires or cutting have greater biodiversity, and feature species that retain water more efficiently than conifers, making those forests more resistant to fires. Logging and replanting in these areas will cause the future forests that grow back there to be more flammable in the coming decades as well. This proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule would de-regulate these forests on a national level, but local agencies have not been given the financial support they need to steward them either. It effectively throws our beautiful forests, rivers and wild public lands to the wolves of industry. And all for a measly portion of profit. The recision would not help with managing fires, and in fact would likely make it worse. It is for these reasons that I am petitioning that the 2001 roadless rule must be upheld in its entirety. Thank you for your consideration and time to review my comment.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. As I understand it, part of the reason for establishing the rule is that it would be too expensive to construct roads to access timber in these areas. With declining USFS budgets and rising prices, this is likely even more true today. In the past 35 years, I've seen the current road system deteriorate, with what used to be well-graded roads now full of potholes or washboard. We were recently in the Bighorn National Forest on a main corridor road leading to a popular campground that was ten miles of bone jarring washboards. If the roadless rule is rescinded, then I fear that the existing roads will get even worse due to limited road budgets going to new roads versus maintaining the current system. Another major concern is that ATV damage will extend further into the forests. Some of my best grouse hunting used to be on closed / bermed roads on the Superior Nation Forest back when the primary ATVs in use were Honda three wheelers. As four-wheelers became more popular and increasingly heavy, what used to be an old road covered in clover perfect for hunting on foot turned into mud and ruts from side to side, making it too much of a mess to be able to walk. Additional truck and ATV access puts streams at risk from sedimentation arising both from stream crossings and from dirt entering streams due to erosion of roads during heavy rains. For those of us who hunt by foot versus from an ATV, the lands covered by the roadless rule are more accessible than lands designated as wilderness but still provide a remote-feeling experience without disruption from motorized vehicles. These areas also allow wildlife to move around freely without disturbance from motorized vehicles. These roadless areas provide buffers around important protected lands like national parks and wilderness areas to maintain a natural viewshed and quiet. Adding more roads that allow trucks and ATVs deeper into the forest risks creates more risk of human-caused wildfires. Access for fighting wildfires is listed as a reason for rescinding but any gain these is likely to be offset by more human-caused fires. I am not anti-logging. We all use forest products and providing timber and pulp is obviously a central role of the USFS. Allowing access to some timber stands via special permit, with protections in place, could help meet these needs without all the negative consequences of rescinding the rule. In closing, as a long-time and frequent user of USFS lands, I respectfully ask that this proposal be withdrawn and the roadless rule be left in place.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule is important to New Hampshires economy. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects undeveloped national forest lands from new road construction and most commercial logging. In New Hampshire, the rule protects approximately 235,000 acres of roadless land within the White Mountain National Forest. The rule supports New Hampshires tourism economy. The White Mountains attract more than 6 million visitors annually, many of whom come specifically for hiking, camping, skiing, fishing, and scenic recreation. Visitors spend money on hotels, restaurants, gas, outdoor equipment, and local attractions. Forest Service research shows that visitors to national forests spend anywhere from about $36 to more than $740 per trip, depending on the type of visit. When multiplied by millions of visitors, that translates into hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into New Hampshires local communities. The outdoor economy contributed $3.9 billion in 2023, representing 3.4% of the states GDP. It also supported nearly 32,000 jobs and delivered $1.7 billion in wages. I dont believe the outdoor economy can coexist with industrial lumber extraction and development in the White Mountain National Forest. Its important to note, the White Mountain National Forest produces only 3% of the forest products in New Hampshire the other 97% comes from private land. The rule also benefits local communities such as North Conway, Lincoln, Gorham, and Conway. Many businesses in these towns depend on visitors who come to hike, camp, fish, ski, view fall foliage, and enjoy wilderness experiences. If roadless areas were developed or fragmented by new roads, New Hampshire could lose some of the natural character that makes the region a destination for millions of visitors each year. In addition, protecting roadless areas helps preserve clean water, wildlife habitat, and scenic landscapes that support recreation-based businesses over the long term. Unlike timber harvesting, which provides a short-term economic benefit, tourism and recreation generate economic activity year after year when the forest remains healthy and attractive to visitors. The Sacco and Ammonoosuc rivers, whose headwaters are in the White Mountain national Forest, provide drinking water to New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The value of this clean water must be considered. Development could seriously jeopardize water quality adding cost to the down river states. The White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) sequesters an estimated 150 to $200 million worth of carbon annually, based on conservative federal damage estimates for Co2 and the region's robust tree growth rates. The roughly 800,000 acre forest holds well over 100 million metric tons of stored carbon across its biomass and soils. This value would be seriously reduced if the roadless rule were rescinded. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.

Dear Director, My name is Birgit Graf, and I am writing in response to the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). I have lived in Montana for decades, and feel very fortunate having had the opportunity to spend time in places like the Bob Marshall and Great Bear Wilderness, the Swan Range and the Badger-Two Medicine Area. I have enjoyed the beauty and serenity of these undisturbed, quiet places, which make Montana unique, as large intact connected landscapes are increasingly hard to find. I am very concerned about the future impacts of the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule. Whereas Glacier Park, the Great Bear Wilderness, the Bob Marshalls enjoy protections from industrial development due to congressional designations, the integrity of places like the Badger-Two Medicine, the Swan Range or the Crazy Mountains is only protected by the Roadless Rule. Without that protection the likelihood of industrial development with accompanying negative impacts is very high. Therefore I strongly support the "No Action" alternative (Alternative !). !.The negative ecological impacts resulting from road building include wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation, loss of important migratory corridors, decrease in species diversity, soil erosion and stream pollution, harm to threatened and endangered species, increase in invasive insects and weeds, also a significant increase in noise and air pollution. 2. The economic consequences include loss of revenue due to declining tourism, as many out-of-staters visit the State esp. because of its magnificent scenery and wild beauty, as do many Montanans (like me), who enjoy hiking, boating, fishing and other recreational activities, which support local businesses like outfitters, guides, tour operators etc. 3. While the proposal for rescission does not mandate road-building and timber production and other industrial activities, according to the USDA, it is alligning with Executive Order 14225 "Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production" and EO 14154 "Unleashing American Energy" of 2025. Considering the 2025 congressional OBB Act, which mandates yearly increases of timber production on USFS administrated land as well as on Bureau of Land Management land, the quota can only be met by industrial-scale operations, and road building in the currently inventoried roadless areas seems inevitable. Besides moving the USFS Wildland Fire Operations over to the Department of the Interior, creating a new US Wildland Fire Service, and proposing more widespread budget cuts and the elimination of several offices (like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program), the released USDA FS proposed budget for FY 2027 seeks to refocus the Forest Service on its core land and ressource management mission through timber production. This goal is reflected in the fact that the line item for forest products is more than quadrupled. The result is very limited room for multi-use. 4. A major reason for the rescission of RR is, according to the USDA, that the rule prevents efforts to improve forest health, by aiding over grown forests, and to effectively deal with increasingly severe and long lasting wildfire seasons. It has been well established that roads actually increase the likelihood of wildfires. According to the National Park Service almost 85% of wildfires are human- caused, and ignite in close proximity to roads. The challenges of community protection in the wildland-urban interface, fuel reduction, and strengthening the resilience of forest ecosystems can be and has been successfully met within the framework of the Roadless Rule. Furthermore, it is difficult for me to understand how the aim of improving the federal response to wildfires, as stated in 2025, can be achieved, considering the major budget cuts and reductions in wildfire-certified staff and other essential workers in the same year. 5. In 2024, a group of Montana researchers found that the common quick suppression of low and modest intensity wildfires actually leads to larger more intense fires. These scientific findings are in line with tradidional tribal fire management practices, based on the knowledge that frequent, low intensity fires on the landscape are not just important to reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, but are essential for forest health and resiliency. I am encouraged by the over 60 co-stewardships that were signed in 2024 between Tribal Nations and National Forests. Also in 2024 the Forest Service published a draft amandment to the Northwest Forest Plan, which manages 245 million acres across California, Oregon and Washington. Over half of the amendment involved tribal stewardship. I hope very much that the new Wildland Fire Service at the BLM builds on these partnerships. And as we have great responsibilities, I pray that decisions will be made with the well being of the future generations in mind. Thank you!

Keep the Roadless Rule and Do Not nullify it. For the love of forests, future generations, our most precious preserved and protected habitats, please do what is right to protect our planet from being developed with roads. If we nullify the roadless rule, we open the door to monstrosities nobody wants - Hyperscale Data Centers, mining companies, power lines, overpriced condos and resorts, and devastation to every living being on Earth. We the people stand against the nullification of the roadless rule - overwhelmingly the comments are FOR preserving and defending the Roadless Rule. I am a 42 lover of the outdoors, Wisconsinite, and someone who has spent a small fortune exploring our national forests throughout his life. I went to every national forest in the country before I was 18. We the people do not believe nullifying the roadless rule is about protecting forests from wildfires. Congress passed H.J. Res. 140 via the Congressional Review Act to overturn a 20-year federal mining ban, opening over 250,000 acres of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness watershed in northern Minnesota to sulfide-ore copper and nickel mining. Tom Tiffany and others in Congress like him voted to pass H.J. Res. 140 - which opened the door to Boundary Waters to a Chilean copper mining conglomerate - Antofagasta - he and others are giving a Chilean conglomerate the gateway to extract copper and sell it to China. How the heck does that Make America Great Again? It doesn't. Tom Tiffany - and others in power who want to nullify the roadless rule, are doing it again by opening the forests to mining, deforestation, and it starts with roads. It's obvious to anyone, and especially so to use who have seen The Great Outdoors. Let's set the scene from this classic - John Candy and Dan Akroyd are sitting in up north Wisconsin, looking over a lake, with trees as far as the eyes can see. The elected officials and corporations pushing to nullify and exterminate the roadless rule are Dan Akroyd's character in this case. The people are John Candy's. John asks Dan to describe what he sees looking out in the distance - at the paradise of water, land, forests, and peace. Dan's character: "I see the underdeveloped resources of northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. I see a syndicated development consortium exploiting over a billion and a half dollars in forest products. I see a paper mill, and if the strategic metals are there, a mining operation. A greenbelt between the condos on the lake and a waste management facility, focusing on the newest rage in toxic waste: medical refuse. Infected bandages, body parts, IV tubing, contaminated glassware, entrails, syringes, fluids, blood, low grade radioactive waste, all safely contained, sunken in the lake and sealed for centuries. Now, I ask you, what do you see?" John's character: "I, I, uh, I see trees" Don't be Dan Akroyd's character. Defend the Roadless Rule. It protects our country from deforestation, development, greed, extractive industries, mining, pollution. We must keep our country habitable for all living beings - including humans. The forests keep our ecosystem stable. You are our elected officials, you work for us. Remember that. If you don't represent us we will not vote for you and you will lose your power. Mother Earth needs you to represent the people and not greed. If you're religious, whatever God you pray to is watching you at this pivotal moment in history. Do what is right - Defend the Roadless Rule. Keep it safe, keep us safe. Water is Life. Mni Wiconi.

WHY keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule: (Roadless rule):1. It needs strengthening to reduce loopholes2. Budget won't maintain all roads we have'3: Wildlife get killed by road obstacles. 4. People need quiet places to walk 5. More forest lands are eligible for protection as roadless It is high time to strengthen the roadless rule. There is no cause for rescission, but rather reinvigoration, tightening, and extension. That is what our American forests need now--those forests standing proudly in the federal domain and belonging to all Americans. There is now a vast and extensive road system in our national forests. Unfortunately, the Forest Service does not have the budget to maintain even HALF of this broad system of forest roads. Many existing roads should be restored and reclaimed and left as pathways for Americans taking walks in our forests. Roads on the other hand,-which all of us use every day and simply take for granted, so ubiquitous are they in our daily lives, prove to be absolute barriers to wildlife movements. And we now face, nationally and globally, a crisis of biodiversity; too many species are rapidly facing extinction, and the more roads our forests have, the faster these threatened species are likely to be pushed into extinction. More and more, many species of wildlife, from small frogs and the like, to large carnivores, need space to roam in, space where they will not risk getting hit by cars. It is not only wildlife who lose when roads impede their movements. As they desperately try to cross, fast-moving vehicles hit them and suffer great damage, up to complete loss of the vehicle and death of the driver and/or passengers. So reducing roads in our forests will increase the safety of Americans using our national forests and reduce lives lost by Americans to needles collisions with critters. The 2001 Roadless rule has been a great success, with forest users-- giving certainty and clarity on where to go, and ensuring that more excessive taxpayer moneys will not be put into carving needless roads into forests that are doing just fine without them. Although highly successful, still the 2001 Roadless Rule has not been protective enough. Its various loopholes allow some road-building, logging, and other industrial development under certain circumstances. In Montana, the U.S. Forest Service authorized nearly 40,000 acres of logging in inventoried roadless areas under the 2001 Roadless Rule--without adequate justification. Activities like this indicate why, rather than repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule, it should be strengthened to eliminate loopholes. Almost everyone loves our majestic, world-class forests, and we do not want them cut into unsustainable fragments by roads thrust through them. Already our present forest road system is MORE than adequate; it is widespread and sufficient. Private forest lands are ample enough throughout our nation to provide all our needed forest products.

I am a resident of Southeast Alaska, and I am concerned about your proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule areas, especially in the Tongass National Forest. I am a commercial fisherman and a personal use harvester. I am writing to implore you to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Act in place. PLEASE CHOOSE “NO ACTION” – RETAIN THE EXISTING ROADLESS RULE. Roads fragment wildlife habitat into small, isolated parcels that then contribute to declining deer populations, as is currently the case on the heavily-roaded Prince of Wales Island. Sediment runoff, especially from roads and logging on steep slopes, chokes salmon spawning beds. Wild places are the backbone of the southeast Alaska economy. According to the Forest Service, many of Alaska’s >2 million annual visitors come to the Tongass to hunt, fish and recreate, while spending over $350 million annually. The visitor industry contributes nearly $4 billion to the Southeast Alaska economy and provides some 7,752 jobs. The Tongass also produces some 40 percent of Alaska’s commercial salmon fishery worth an estimated $414 million in 2015. While all jobs are important to Alaskans, jobs in mining (<1000) and logging (<500) pale by comparison. It has been demonstrated in Southeast Alaska that logging and mining cannot provide sustainable economic gains for people and communities over the long-term. Therefore, when we develop logging or mining today, we must be careful to ensure that this development is not to the detriment of our salmon fisheries or to our access to personal or subsistence use hunting and fishing rights. Repealing the Roadless Rule would expose the Tongass National Forest to unsustainable logging, mining, and infrastructure development, and would pose an extreme threat to our salmon fisheries. All inventoried roadless areas in the Tongass National Forest should continue to be protected in the future. I live in Southeast Alaska and depend on these areas for commercial and personal use fishing/hunting. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and therefore it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would be fiscally irresponsible. The USDA itself has recognized that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed — 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. A note on logging: Logging is not a high-profit or sustainable industry in Southeast Alaska. Timber road construction on the Tongass costs over $250,000 per mile, which is why the Tongass old-growth logging program is completely dependent on millions of dollars in annual subsidizes paid by taxpayers that unknowingly bankroll controversial old-growth logging projects. A 2003 Department of Labor report explains that the long-term competitiveness of the Alaskan logging industry has been declining (due to the remote location and high costs of harvesting), overtaken by the increasing share of tree farming on the global market. Other evidence suggests that logging in the Tongass is so costly that if subsidies were removed, each tree would actually cost taxpayers money. There is no place for large-scale logging in Southeast Alaska’s economy. Our old-growth trees are most valuable when they stay in the ground. Rather than considering a repeal of the Roadless Rule, your agency should be creating a law that makes it illegal to export raw forest products to foreign countries. We have lost too much of our forests’ value to foreign countries. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Southeast Alaskans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support retaining the existing rule (the ‘‘No Action Alternative’’).

My name is Amber Petersen, a Forestry graduate and American citizen, and we need to keep the roadless rule intact. Our forests are not only home to an array of keystone wildlife species, rare plant and tree species, and offer boundless benefits to humans (clean air, clean water, recreation)...but they represent the wildness of the America spirit. I know that land management decisions are not based on emotion, so I will make a strong economic case here. First, we do not need to log existing forests to develop and expand American produced forest products. We have ample technology and advancements in Forestry practices that we can effectively utilized privately owned forests and fast-growing economically viable tree species like birch without jeopradizing national forests with operations that permanently alter and damage tree value, soil, and water quality. Another argument against the roadless rule is preparedness and management against wild fires. We know that the majority of wild fires are human caused, so it is ludicrous to believe that constructing roads would lead to less fires, when in reality, more access to the public would lead to more instances of fire. Natural fire return intervals will happen regardless and are crucial to ecosystem health. I am pleading DO NOT GET RID OF THE ROADLESS RULE.