Read the comments.

"I am writing as a public lands user and recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that Please leave the land to the people, stop making bad decisions. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Our lands Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a Civilian to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a Civilian, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a Civilian, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Climate change Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a widland firefighter to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a wildland firefighter, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that Overall, these zones are more safe without human interaction and need to remain wild. As a wildland firefighter, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I also want to emphasize that I firsthand deal with wildfires started by heavy equipment like the ones that would be utilized to construct the roads built in the wilderness. Furthermore, having access to these zones does not mean we will be better equipped to mitigate wildfires when they start because roads will be blocked by the heavy equipment that started them and that’s the reality. Additionally, more public lives will be at risk when they have access to these zones and fires start in these zones. Now it firefighters are committed to go and rescue said individuals who otherwise wouldn’t be there. I am particularly concerned about firefighter risk. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Aplet, Hartger & Dietz (2026) analyzed 32 years of contiguous-U.S. wildfire data and found ignition density of 7.99 fires/1,000 ha within 50m of roads vs. 1.97 in inventoried roadless areas These roadless areas are important to me because These areas hold so much value as wildlife habitats and contribute to the natural filtration of drinking water that flows downstream to thousands of people. Also, these zones provide wild sanctuaries that help people relief the stress of city life. We can’t forget we need wild places to escape to help reset our bodily systems. I also want to share this personal perspective: The areas described that would be potentially impacted by eliminating the Roadless Rule Act would not positively impact society as a whole. Let alone increasing wildfire danger by introducing more ignition sources, eliminating wildlife habitat and affecting clean water sources, it would eliminate wild places us as humans need to balance ourselves in this ever increasing busy and crowded world. It’s being forgotten that we as humans need to disconnect to reconnect from time to time. Let’s try and remember that by keeping it wild and roadless. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

Dear Secretary and Chief: The experience of moving through national forest that the 2001 Rule has maintained in its current condition has shown me, as an outdoor enthusiast, that the Rule's value is not merely symbolic — it is operational, categorical, and responsible for the specific landscape I access — and the Department should not rescind it without a demonstrably superior means of achieving the same protection. Areas like Benton Range, CA allow me to disconnect from the hustle and bustle of daily life, and to reconnect with nature and what matters - a clean environment that has biodiversity and provides an opportunity for all life to thrive. When an individual has to put effort into getting into the forest, they are rewarded far more - knowing that they had to plan and prepare to be one with the ecosystem. More roaded forest does NOT help our environment, nor do they help the human spirit. We are meant to put effort into adventures in order to be rewarded. Regarding the Benton Range in the Inyo National Forest, California: “National-scale analysis found 77% of roadless areas have potential to conserve threatened & endangered species, with strong concordance with grizzly recovery zones. — Loucks et al., 2003 (https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00528-070205) The 8.9-mile corridor between Benton Range and Glass Mountain sustains gene flow for 27 species, including Greater Sage-Grouse (G3), Owens Pupfish (G1), Pinyon Jay (G3). Road construction in either IRA severs this exchange, isolating populations that depend on movement between areas for genetic diversity and recolonization after local disturbance.” These lands have been protected for good reasons. The Department should let them stay that way. With appreciation, Rachel Grace CommentID: RLC-20261007-5ED64G

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and Human to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that I strongly oppose your plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and save forests. Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless. This rule is vital for protecting our national forests, water supply, and wildlife habitats. Allowing road construction and logging in these areas would have devastating environmental consequences for years to come. Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential forests. I am not letting our forests go without a fight. I urge you to uphold the Roadless Rule and protect these irreplaceable landscapes, the wildlife, habitats, recreational spaces and clean water that these beloved intact forests provide, and protect national forests for communities who rely on them and for generations to come. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I also want to emphasize that Rolling back the Roadless Rule will not protect communities from wildfire and may in fact lead to more wildfires. Wildfires are four times as likely to start in areas with roads than in roadless forest tracts and 90 percent of all wildfires nationwide started within half a mile of a road. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, climate resilience, recreation access, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.), Copper Mountain Roadless Area in Elko County roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that If we lose these public spaces, we may not get them back, and these ecosystems and landscapes will continue to be under increasing pressure and at risk. They are such a gift to society and a place of love and life - we need to help more people learn to steward these lands, not continue to extract from them. Long term humanity at stake in the values underpinning the direction we will go here. Please listen and fight for what is right. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Meanwhile, it would expose these already vulnerable aspects of the mountains to further degradation and extraction. We are in a time when our ecosystems and water resources are changing rapidly and the systems we depend on are fundamentally changing. We need to start paying attention, preserving landscape connectivity and fostering stewardship of these lands, rather than open them up to even more pressure and development - or we will lose fundamental life lines to human society, livelihood, and vitality These roadless areas are important to me because I've backpacked extensively through these areas and to lose these spaces to further development would be truly tragic. They are known across the world as some of the most beautiful mountain landscapes in the world. I am a graduate student studying vitality in the Sierra and interview after interview, I speak with mountaineers, explorers and scientists who reflect on the fact that there is no place like the Sierra. That when they are in other mountains, they are thinking of the Sierra. It is magnetic and has for centuries pulled people in from across the world and inspired people to develop a deeper relationship with the Earth. These landscape, this superpower, is essential to not just preserve, but harness with all our might right now. We are so lucky to know and serve this land, and it would be a historical tragedy to lose it. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The nine inventoried roadless areas I am writing about sit in California's national forests: Boundary Peak in the Inyo, Sespe-Frazier in the Los Padres, Paiute in the Inyo, Carson-Iceberg in the Stanislaus, Rincon in the Sequoia, Siskiyou in the Klamath, Coyote Southeast in the Inyo, Kings River in the Sierra, and Glass Mountain in the Inyo. I teach middle school science, and the reason these places matter to me is straightforward: I want my students, and the generation they represent, to have the same freedom to explore wild places that people have had until now. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects that. The proposal to rescind it does not, and I oppose it. The agency offers wildfire management as a partial justification for rescission, treating roads as a tool for fuels work. Its own prior record says the opposite. The agency's DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The areas I named, spread across the Inyo, Los Padres, Stanislaus, Sequoia, Klamath, and Sierra national forests, lie within California, which holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. Opening any portion of that landscape to road construction on wildfire grounds runs directly against the ignition data in the agency's own analysis. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and reconcile the rescission with the fire-density data reported in DEIS Table 21. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule. The agency's own record states: "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." That dissatisfaction was litigated. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the last time the agency attempted to replace the national rule with a state-specific framework and found it deficient. California's roadless areas are not interchangeable with one another, let alone with areas in other states, but the protection they carry under a national rule is the thing that has held. The agency has not explained how a successor state-by-state process avoids repeating the legal deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified. I ask that it do so, specifically addressing how local decision-making on an area-by-area basis does not incrementally erode the nationally significant values the rule was written to protect. The proposal also cites permitting complexity and administrative burden. The rule as written already accommodates exceptions. The agency's own description of it states: "It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The areas I listed include some of the largest roadless blocks remaining in California's national forests, places like the 210,884-acre Boundary Peak area and the 106,910-acre Sespe-Frazier area. The case for rescission based on administrative burden requires the agency to show which specific burdens the existing exceptions do not already address. It has not done that. The agency must identify those burdens by category on the record and quantify them, rather than asserting their weight without evidence. Finally, the proposal itself acknowledges that plan amendments and revisions following rescission "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," then declares those plan changes beyond the scope of this proceeding, then asks for public comment on them anyway. The agency's own description notes: "The proposed rule concedes that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions 'could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed,' declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them (91 FR 53830)." That is not a coherent procedure. The foreseeable consequence of this rescission is expanded timber harvest and road construction across inventoried roadless areas. In the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. An analysis that brackets the most predictable outcome and simultaneously solicits comment on it is not a serious environmental review. The agency must analyze the plan-amendment scenario, including expanded harvest and construction, as part of this action, not as a future contingency placed beyond the public's reach in this proceeding. Samantha Davidson, CA

"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. As a person fortunate enough to have a mountain cabin bordering Yosemite in INYO county. I can not stress enough the importance of leaving this land alone. It is a pristine place that should remain untouched except by anyone who can walk in carefully and thoughtfully. Have you not seen Ansel Adams photographs? This area is special and untouched for a reason. The beauty is unsurpassed anywhere else and protected for a reason. It is for future generations and our future selves who can return to these areas to see them again virtually unchanged. It is like visiting a loved one who is always there. Thinking of building roads in this area would require great destruction to what end? Ruining so much of the natural wonder would be a great loss. The roads would only lead to more destruction, let us not kid ourselves. These roads would have the potential to bring commercial endeavors to a wider stance and continue the destruction. These roads are not necessary or wanted. The protection created by Lincoln in 1864 creating the Yosemite Grant act to protect Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove for public use and preservation then became a national part in 1890 over one hundred thirty five years ago for the sanity of the human race. It was not to create destruction by building roads for some kind of made up fire use. We all know we can not trust this administration to do the right thing. If it is still necessary ten years from now we can reconsider otherwise there won't be a ten years from now to preserve for our world. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a business owner, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. These stats speak for themselves that a road could cause more unnatural wildfires. Please do not make roads into Yosemite! Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity, Really looking for natural resources when renewables elsewhere make more sense.. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about biodiversity conservation, wildfire safety, clean water protection, and climate resilience. I can not imagine having more access than already exists without destroying nature. Please do not touch Yosemite or nearby areas because these areas. They have increasing encroachment by man while Preservationists are here for a reason, to protect us from ourselves. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless area(s). Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the roadless area conservation rule. I am a 24 year old resident of mono county who has lived here her entire life. I love and was raised exploring the beautiful eastern sierra’s. Public lands matter to me because it’s our job to protect and care for them, if public lands fall into cooperate hands, that beauty will be seen as a commodity, to be destroyed for personal gain. Glass mountain is a roadless area near me and I love taking time to hike, mountain bike, and fish that area, it’s a place that feels truly connected to nature. Lassen national park is also a roadless conservation area I love that’s at risk, this area is not only teeming with natural life but also outdoor activities. On my last drive through lassen I noticed huge areas that were absolutely destroyed by logging companies, rescinding the roadless rule would only add to this devastation. The roadless rule protects the places I love most. I see first hand the effect that roads can have on a forest, drinking water, wildlife, and wildfires. Despite people insisting that rescinding the roadless rule will help fight wildfires by creating more access, This makes no sense when the data shows that 90% of wildfires start within 164 feet (50 meters) of a road. Rescinding the roadless rule means opening up our last few natural places for logging, mining, construction, and other practices looking to exploit our natural world for profits that won’t benefit the American people. For the reasons listed above, partially or fully rescinding the roadless rule under alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a colossal mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the roadless rule and support alternative 1, the no action alternative. Thank you.

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, Tribal member, scientist, Biologist, Horticulturist, Invasive Species and Forestry Expert to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, business owner, Pissed Off Citizen, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Devestating environmental consequences if this rule is rescinded. More invasive species in untouched areas. More roads means more people ergo more pollution means increased animal death from accidents or trigger happy rednecks. Roads mean development, that means gas stations and hotels and more water use, more pesticides, loss of biodiversity and on and on. I cannot express my anger and frustration with these facist capitalist cowards that want to see the earth and everything that calls it home destroyed if it means profit, and perpetuation of some bullshit evil white christian nationalist agenda. These people are evil cowards sent to do nothing but destroy and tear down everything decent and positive. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a Tribal member, community member, recreator, business owner, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. More roads will increase logging of our old growth which will means poorly managed matchstick forests that burn like gas. More logging means hotter temperatures from loss of shade. This will also increase flooding and water loss through evaporation. The ignorant scum to reverse this no nothing about it and they dont care to. All they see is the potential profit and none of the harm they are causing. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). SAVE THE ROADLESS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK MIKE LEE FUCK DONALD TRUMP FUCK JD VANCE FUCK MAGA. LOVE EARTH. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. You dont have the right to steal our public lands. You dont have the right to take that away from wildlife, and especially not to sell it off for corporate interests. Part of what makes our nation great is our stewardship over the beauty of this land, and repealing the roadless rule will be a knife in the heart of our country. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. As a citizen of the mountain west, every year the fires get worse and worse. We need to do everything we can to mitigate the human contribution to more of these starting. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about If we destroy these habitats the damage will be irreversible. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Rescinding the roadless rule will likely cause direct harm to sensitive and vulnerable plant, animal and human communities. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) roadless area(s). These areas are special they are home to many, and are places of peace and solace. They deserve to be protected. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The redwoods brought me here. Any old growth forest is something I would call sacred. I feel human there, and that feeling is the reason I am filing this comment opposing the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Docket FS-2025-0001. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, among them Boundary Peak in the Inyo National Forest, the Rincon area in the Sequoia National Forest, the Siskiyou area in the Klamath National Forest, and Orleans Mountain in the Klamath National Forest, along with many others across the state. These are the places I go to remember that we are just humans. I am asking the agency to keep the national rule that protects them. The agency has pursued this exact path before. The record shows that the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach." 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. That rejection led to state-by-state rulemaking, and the Ninth Circuit struck it down. The agency's own prior record acknowledged that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. The forests I care about in California, including the Sespe-Frazier area in the Los Padres National Forest and the Kings River area in the Sierra National Forest, would be governed by whatever replacement approach this proposal produces. I ask that the agency explain, in this proceeding, how the current proposal avoids every deficiency the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last tried to substitute state-by-state approaches for the national rule. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. The courts reviewed that question and held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness. The Paiute, Carson-Iceberg, Coyote Southeast, Glass Mountain, Fox Mountain, and Sawmill-Badlands roadless areas are real places, held by a real rule, upheld by a real court. The agency must state on the record what legal basis it has for a contrary position, and explain why this action survives the statutory authority analysis the Tenth Circuit already completed. The economic analysis accompanying this proposal cannot be squared with its own findings. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. People who make their living guiding others into these forests, and communities whose water supply depends on intact roadless watersheds, are not statistical abstractions spread across a national average. The agency must withdraw the small-business certification and conduct a genuine assessment of the outfitters, guides, and operators actually permitted to work in the specific roadless areas this proposal would open to new road construction. Finally, the agency opened a door it has not looked through. The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is such a reliance interest. I go to old growth forests because the Roadless Rule has kept them that way. The rule is the basis for expecting they will remain intact. An agency that changes course must account for what people and communities have built around its prior commitments. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests that commenters describe, including this one, before it proceeds any further. Sincerely, Zoe Pakledinaz An American citizen who I hope you remember

"I am writing as a public lands user, Mental Health Clinician to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, Mental Health Clinician, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Maintaining public land for the public is also suicide prevention. Access to public lands are critical to the mental health of community members from all walks of life and professions. Veterinarians who provide general and critical ER services to your animal companions are people who access the forest as part of coping with a career that increases suicidal risk. The same for human medical providers: doctors, ER nurses, emergency service workers, first responders, and especially to forest service workers who dedicate their lives to ensuring recreational access.As an individual having grown up in the midwest and east coast, there is no such thing as public land. What a shame to future generations, whose right it is to experience autonomy and freedom in the outdoors. The USA is one of few places in the world that offers wild camping, which folks from all over the world pay substantial currency in ecotourism to experience. The Roadless Rule will undoubtedly jeopardize the peace and freedom there is in the forest, and this will also be detrimental to wildlife species which are vital to human existence. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, Mental Health Clinician, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire increases risk of health issues through daily smoke inhalation, which will increase need for use of health insurance in a system thats already severely comprimised. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity, Because all human life relies on the millimons of other living organisms, aka the web of life, all of these values are at risk. One shift to one will ultimately shift all the others, nothing living is fully isolated. The impacts will show generations later,well after the decision makers today areno longer living.Approving the Roadless Rule should allow all future generations to form a class action suit against those making decisions today. Forward thinking and rationing resources that are not infinite is a noble act of humanity at large.. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about Future impacts this rule will have on future generations because all of our children and grandchildren are counting on us to think about whats left for them. I completed the Pacific Crest Trail in 201, and what a remarkable privilege it was to experience the migration from South to North, just like wild animals do each year as the seasons change. The Inyo National Forest and wilderness areas throughout are in comparison to the beauty of mountains in the Swiss and Julian Alps. Theres no other place in the country with the same rugged beauty as the Eastern Sierras. People travel worldwide to experience these forests and mountains, without roads.

"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, Park ranger to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a Park ranger, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a Park ranger, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. This would jeopardize watersheds . Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Front range and forest urban interface need the most attention not remote high altitude regions. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, clean water, soil erosion. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about Watersheds and the harm from erosion by building more roads. The Forest Service can’t maintain their current roads, how would building more help. To go into roadless areas, and be able to enjoy the beauty is a life changing experience. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."

"I am writing as a recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, clean water, soil erosion, recreation access, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about recreation access because privatizing our public lands for exploration mining and other commercial interests greatly limits access. I have recreated in these areas for many year; enjoying the solitude they offer. The public benefits greatly by having public lands available to hit ""reset"" on their otherwise busy lives. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."