20 files. Counts as 150 — Counted from the files: The enclosed submissions were counted from the files themselves.
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Enclosed submissions
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
Own letter
The comment
Please accept and fully consider the attached comment letter on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Proposed Rule Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule), 91 Fed. Reg. 53,827 (August 20, 2026) (Proposed Rule), submitted on behalf of the following organizations: National Wildlife Federation, Connecticut Forest & Park Association, Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma, Conservation Council for Hawai'i, Conservation Federation of Missouri, Florida Wildlife Federation, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Indiana Wildlife Federation, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Montana Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Council of Maine, New Hampshire Audubon, Planning and Conservation League, Prairie Rivers Network, Sociedad Ornitológica Puertorriqueña, Inc., South Carolina Wildlife Federation, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Texas Conservation Alliance, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Virginia Conservation Network, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
We urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, which fosters multiple-use management of National Forest System lands while providing flexibility for the U.S. Forest Service to address public health and safety concerns such as wildfire risk. The rule has conserved inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) for a quarter of a century, providing clean water to tens-of-millions of Americans, protecting irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat, and increasing outdoor recreation opportunities. As USDA’s own analysis shows, removing the protections of the Roadless Rule would severely impact the ability of National Forest System lands to continue to provide these benefits. It would also be inconsistent with the Forest Service’s statutory obligations for managing these lands and their resources.