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."

"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."

Dear Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street 1108, Washington, D.C. 20250-1124 I have lived and explored Wyoming’s most amazing forest service roadless areas for more than 45 years. I treasure the fact that these areas have been protected from development. They are important for protecting wildlife, air and water quality and maintaining the quiet and outstanding vistas of the mountains. With nearly 50% of all Forest Service lands open to development, Americans need to know that these special areas not roaded and not developed will be set aside for future generations. Roadless Areas In the Bighorn National Forest where I live, horse and back pack, camp, fish and paint must continue to be protected: Tensleep Canyon, Leigh Creek, Horse Creek Mesa, Little Bighorn River Canyon, Walker Prairie, Rock Creek of the Bighorns, Devils Canyon and more are spectacular landscapes. The Bridger Teton National Forest is an important wildlife, water and wild area: Roadless Areas that must be protected include: Commissary Ridge, Grayback Ridge, South Wyoming Range, Gros Ventre Mountains, including Spread Creek, Mosquito Lake, and the West Slope of the amazing Wind River Mountains. In the Medicine Bow NF Roadless Areas deserving continued protection include: French Creek, Rock Creek, Solomon Creek, Pennock Mountain, Sheep Mountain, Bear Mountain, Laramie Peak (where I camped and watched the solar eclipse!), Labonte Canyon, Buffalo Peak. The Shoshone National Forest which surrounds Yellowstone National Park and provides critical habitat for grizzly and black bears, elk, pronghorn, wolves, mountain lions, bobcats, lynx, and more has such important roadless areas justifying further protection include: The Beartooth Plateau, Franc’s Peak, Trout Creek, Windy Mountain, Wapiti Valley, South Fork,Telephone Draw, The Dunoir, Togwotee Pass, the Reef, Wood River. The Thunder Basin National Grassland also has important remnant roadless areas which need to maintain their protections: Duck Creek, Cow Creek and the Red Hills. I support the “No Action” alternative for the more than three million acres right here in Wyoming. The Roadless Rule needs to be in place not just for my beloved Wyoming areas but for all of America’s National Forests. Sincerely, Liz Howell 345 W. Whitney St Sheridan. Wyoming 82801 lizhowell345@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Schultz: These wild places are what has always offered me peace in way nothing else has. Here is where I am able to connect to nature, observe plants, animals and habitats in their natural state. Staying roadless keeps ecosystems intact for our generation and for our children who we also want to benefit from the type of peace and inspiration only found in wild places. Since moving to WNC 15 years ago my life has been transformed by nature connection. Through time in forests uninterrupted by roads, I am able to reconnect with myself on a deeper level. It’s here that my creativity and inspiration comes most alive and returns home to my human community. These places supply our water and many wild foods and medicine. It is here I reconnected with wisdom lost in recent generations and came to learn about deeply nutritious wild foods that feed my body and soul. I have worked as a wilderness guide in the past for kids and teens facing trauma recovery. In quiet roadless woods, we were able to reconnect with each other and nature without noise and distraction. It led to abundant healing for those children who will carry it forward into future generations and also brought such deep connection and healing to me. These experiences ripple out and change the mental health landscape of our culture and lead to a happier more fulfilled society. I fear the loss of species through the warming of waters a road brings. Bugs that feed fish and birds. Fish that feed bear and us. We need dense canopy to protect our waters and supply our food chain. I have a 6 year old who is obsessed with fishing. He is endlessly fascinated by different types of fish, which habitats they are found in, walking through streams with a pole and a net he learns so much about the natural world, life skills, science, etc. he is so young, yet even he knows waters are to be protected for the health of all. He knows this of land too. Please help him have at least the same amount of access to the wilderness as me. Don’t take these experiences, resources and joys away from our children! Regarding the Laurel Mountain in the Pisgah National Forest, North Carolina: Headwater Stream Integrity and Cold-Water Aquatic Habitat — The roadless condition preserves the hydrological function of major headwater systems including Mills River, Slate Rock Creek, Bradley Creek, and North Fork Mills River, which originate or flow through this 5,683-acre area. Intact headwater forests maintain stream temperatures, stabilize flow regimes, and protect spawning substrate for sensitive aquatic species including the Eastern Hellbender—a near-threatened salamander that requires clean, cold, fast-flowing water with intact riparian buffers. The absence of roads prevents sedimentation from cut slopes and stream-warming from canopy removal, conditions that would degrade the cold-water habitat these species depend on for survival. 31 Species move between Laurel Mountain and South Mills River for genetic exchange, demographic rescue, and seasonal resource access. Road construction fragments these movement pathways — severing the population connectivity that Bog Turtle (G2), Eastern Hellbender (T2), Golden-winged Warbler (G3), Gray Myotis (G3), Northern Myotis (G2), Pink-shell Azalea (G3), Rock Gnome Lichen (G3), Small Whorled Pogonia (G2), Swamp-pink (G3), Tricolored Bat (G3) and other shared species require to persist in both areas. The network connecting Laurel Mountain and South Mills River across 4.3 miles in Pisgah National Forest sustains 31 shared species, including Bog Turtle (G2), Eastern Hellbender (T2), Golden-winged Warbler (G3), Gray Myotis (G3), Northern Myotis (G2), Pink-shell Azalea (G3), Rock Gnome Lichen (G3), Small Whorled Pogonia (G2), Swamp-pink (G3), Tricolored Bat (G3). This connectivity function cannot be evaluated one IRA at a time — it emerges from the relationship between areas. The DEIS must analyze cumulative impacts across both IRAs or it mischaracterizes the ecological baseline. "Medium connectivity results in metapopulation dynamics, where local demography is largely independent among patches but recolonization balances local extinction events; high connectivity leads to high occupancy (recolonization and/or demographic rescue outweigh local extinctions) and little to no genetic differentiation. Severe fragmentation will leave patches isolated like islands, where local extinctions will no longer be counterbalanced by colonization." — Cheptou et al. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2017 The proposed rescission should not be finalized; the Roadless Area Conservation Rule should remain in effect for the good of all. All the best, CommentID: RLC-20261006-0USD0G

"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."

Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, hunter, and President of the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists, I am writing as an individual to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative and retain the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. I have spent many years exploring, riding, hunting, and helping maintain trails throughout the Bitterroot National Forest. Many of the trails and landscapes that I value most are located within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). These areas provide opportunities for primitive recreation, protect intact watersheds and wildlife habitat, and preserve large, relatively undeveloped landscapes for future generations. In the Bitterroot Valley where I live, many of the backcountry trails that I know and value are located within IRAs. Examples include trails in the Alan Mountain, Sleeping Child, Stony Mountain, Sapphire, Blue Joint, and Selway-Bitterroot Roadless Areas. These include trails such as Warm Springs Creek, Fire Creek, Porcupine Creek, Sleeping Child, Bald Top, Willow Creek, Bitterroot-Rock Creek Divide, Blue Joint, Razorback Ridge, Bare Cone, and Blodgett Canyon. These are not simply areas on a map to me. I have personally explored and helped maintain many of these trails, and I have seen firsthand the value of maintaining their relatively undeveloped character. The combination of dispersed recreation, intact landscapes, wildlife habitat, and a network of primitive trails provides an experience that cannot be recreated once roads and associated development fragment these areas. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would remove an important national baseline protecting these characteristics. I understand that rescission would not automatically authorize road construction or timber harvest in every roadless area; rather, management decisions would increasingly be governed by individual forest plans and other applicable authorities. Nevertheless, removing the national protections would create greater opportunity for future decisions that could introduce roads, timber harvest, and other development into areas that have remained largely intact. Road construction is particularly consequential because a road is not simply another type of forest management activity. Roads can fragment habitat, alter drainage and watersheds, facilitate additional development and motorized access, and change the character of surrounding trail systems and recreational experiences. Once an intact roadless landscape is fragmented by roads, its primitive character is difficult or impossible to restore. I also believe the value of these lands extends well beyond the communities immediately surrounding them. When I travel to other parts of the country, I actively seek out the primitive and relatively undeveloped landscapes protected by the Roadless Rule. These areas are part of a national system of public lands that provides opportunities for recreation, solitude, hunting, wildlife viewing, and other experiences that are increasingly difficult to find. I have focused on the roadless areas near my home because these are the places I know best. However, my concern is broader. I believe the remaining Inventoried Roadless Areas throughout the National Forest System represent an important national resource and should continue to receive consistent protection. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for considering my comments and for your stewardship of these important public lands.

My reaction to the proposed rescission of the roadless rule affects me deeply. The property where I grew up borders the Quigg Creek roadless area in the Rock Creek drainage of western Montana. I live on Ranch Creek, which is a critical coldwater fishery for endangered bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. I believe our roadless areas are very important for keeping ecosystems more in balance in an ever-changing world. I am strongly against taking these protections away from what remains of roadless country in America.

I am opposed to the proposed changes to roadless areas. As a mountain biker, I value opportunities to recreate on trails that are not used by motorists. Motorcycles and dirt bikes quickly deteriorate the quality of the trail, disrupt wildlife, and cause noise pollution, prohibiting me from seeing wildlife of my own. It also disrupts the hunting I do in these areas. Some of my favorite trails that fall into this category in Northwest Montana include the following: - Warm Springs Complex at Lost Trail Pass: Warm Springs Ridge, Colter Creek, Porcupine, Fire Creek, Warm Springs Creek - Palisades/Willow Creek - All of Rock Creek outside of Welcome Cr W - Carlton Ridge and Mill Creek - Petty Mountain and Albert Creek Rescinding the roadless rule in place would ruin the experience of the thousands of people currently accessing and maintaining these areas. Thank you for your consideration.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Spending time in nature is my way to appreciate God's good work. I hike and camp with family and loved ones. I share these places with my young child. I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) because what is at stake here is not abstract. The Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming holds inventoried roadless areas I care about directly: Piney Creek, Little Goose, Rock Creek, Walker Prairie, Grommund Creek, Sibley Lake, Bruce Mountain, Cloud Peak Contiguous, Bear Rocks, and Hideout Creek, together spanning hundreds of thousands of acres. Lost Water Canyon and Lost Water Canyon RNA in the Custer National Forest are in that same picture. These are the places my child deserves to know. The agency justifies this rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, and on that point the agency's own record answers the question directly. The 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." I think of the brave men and women who fight out of control wildfires. The agency's own data says roads make their work more dangerous and more frequent. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from this and must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The financial logic of this proposal does not hold up under the agency's own numbers. The agency's record acknowledges that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The most important thing is to take care of what we have first. If there is no money for maintenance, there is absolutely no money for anything new. The agency already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis. The proposal argues that state-by-state management can replace a national rule. The agency's own record quotes its prior position that the national rule embodied an "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach," 70 Fed. Reg. at 25,656, yet the Ninth Circuit rejected the state-by-state replacement that followed from exactly that reasoning. The agency has already made this argument, tried this approach, and lost. I want the agency to address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and to explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time a national rule was traded for state petitions. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit addressed 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 court found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA, and found it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must address that holding and state plainly on the record what legal basis supports a contrary position now. As parents, we strive to give our kids more than we had. Wanting the best for our children is not only about college funds or belongings. It’s about their protections, their safety, their freedom. They deserve to know and see these untouched places. They deserve to appreciate them in the way you only can from the saddle of a horse, or the satisfaction after a long hike. The Custer and Gallatin units form the northeastern wall of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, sheltering grizzly bear, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, wolverine, elk, and bighorn sheep. Across the Rocky Mountain region, 325 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean fresh water is the direct source of life for towns. The ecosystems these roadless areas support are critical, not only to wildlife but to us human animals. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. My child should inherit more of these places, not fewer. Sincerely, A Proud Citizen of this Good Country

"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'm very concerned that a huge amount of mountain biking trails inlcuding the following at the bottom of this comment will be ruined or destroyed by this potential roadless change for these ares. Please keep the rule in place to not allow new roads, extraction or anything else that could destory these wonderful outdoor recreation areas. They offer solace to so many locals and also drive tourism dollars in each of these surrounding communities. If roads are allowed to run through these areas, it will be a big loss to all of us that enjoy them and economically to each of these small communities that depend on the tourism dollars. Warm Springs Complex at Lost Trail Pass: Warm Springs Ridge, Colter Creek, Porcupine, Fire Creek, Warm Springs Creek Palisades/Willow Creek All of Rock Creek outside of Welcome Cr W Carlton Ridge and Mill Creek Petty Mountain and Albert Creek Alpine 7 Thank you for listening,

To: USDA Forest Service From: Luke Anderson Location: East Missoula, Montana I am writing as an East Missoula resident, local trail volunteer, and year-round backcountry mountain biker to state my firm opposition to rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to adopt the No Action Alternative and keep Inventoried Roadless Area protections in place. For people who ride bikes in Western Montana, roadless lands are not an abstract policy concept. Under the Wilderness Act, mechanized travel is prohibited in designated wilderness. That means Inventoried Roadless Areas are virtually the only remaining public lands where mountain bikers can experience true primitive, self-reliant backcountry epics on singletrack. Around Missoula, within the Lolo, Bitterroot, and Flathead national forests, the rides that define this region depend entirely on unroaded landscapes. Just north of town, the backcountry terrain climbing up past the Rattlesnake corridor toward Mineral Peak and Stuart Peak provides high-elevation, technical riding with clean ridgelines and undisturbed wildlife corridors. Punching permanent or temporary timber haul roads through those upper slopes would fracture fragile soils, introduce cheatgrass and knapweed, and ruin the backcountry character of the entire basin. Further east along the Blackfoot and Clearwater drainages, remote loops like Spread Mountain, McCabe Creek, and Monture Creek give riders a chance to spend all day in primitive alpine terrain bordering the Swan Range and Scapegoat. These routes offer deep solitude precisely because they lack road development. South of Missoula, trails traversing the Sapphire Range out of Willow Creek, or routes cutting across high ridges near Carlton Ridge and the Lolo Peak Inventoried Roadless Area, rely completely on healthy, intact forest cover. Out west toward Ninemile and Fish Creek, the expansive unroaded terrain provides big backcountry loops that test navigation and physical endurance. Riding singletrack through the upper headwaters of Rock Creek and the Flint Creek Range is an experience made possible because those drainages have remained free of industrial road grids, which prevents heavy sediment runoff into premier trout streams and stabilizes the trails we ride. The claim that rescinding the rule is required for active management and wildfire mitigation does not hold up to operational reality. The 2001 rule already grants local managers clear authority to reduce hazardous fuels, execute treatments in the wildland-urban interface, and respond aggressively to fire emergencies. Building new industrial roads deeper into remote terrain does not make communities safer. It actually introduces new ignition vectors, creates corridors for invasive species, and spreads agency resources even thinner. The Forest Service already struggles to manage an enormous deferred maintenance backlog on its current road and trail network, so adding new road miles makes no fiscal or logistical sense. When an industrial haul road cuts across a remote singletrack or clears an intact canopy, that primitive backcountry experience is permanently lost. Please safeguard our public trails, our regional recreation economy, and these irreplaceable landscapes by keeping the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Luke Anderson East Missoula, MT

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My family explores the Cascade corridor from Mount Baker to the Sierra. We paddle lakes, rivers and streams. We photograph everything we encounter on our adventures. We visit for the beauty, peacefulness, uninterrupted landscapes, and the flora and fauna. A road is noise and sight pollution to ALL! I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We have visited Rock Creek in the Ochoco National Forest and its beautiful watershed. We explore South Paulina in the Deschutes National Forest for the beauty. We have hiked Lookout Mountain, since the early 2000s. North Paulina is beautiful, and our family has enjoyed exploring it for years. The birding at Green Mountain is phenomenal, and would be devastating to lose those creatures. Silver Creek is good therapy near a heavier population, and that matters too. These places shelter bears, elk, and deer. On elk, the agency's own cited research found that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. Elk avoid areas near roads and the agency's own analysis says ideal summer elk habitat is unroaded land with cover and forage. On deer, the agency's own record cites research finding that roads built for extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed. Roads disrupt migration and eliminate the unroaded security deer depend on. On bears, the agency's own citation from the federal grizzly recovery plan states that the increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. I ask that the agency explain in this docket how rescinding the rule can be squared with each of those specific findings in its own record. The agency's own record states that "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 proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a reason to rescind. That reasoning contradicts the agency's own ignition data. The agency must explain why it departs from those findings and reconcile this proposal with DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I am also not persuaded that the economics favor this action. The agency's own record states that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency should reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which cannot establish a net benefit, and explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog makes sense when the existing roads already need fixing. Why not pay to fix the current roads and avoid more debt? Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Preserving these fragile ecosystems is necessary for clean water in our future. The agency must answer, directly and specifically, how rescission protects drinking water downstream from the roadless areas we have walked and paddled. The agency has already tried replacing this national rule with a state-by-state approach. Its own record acknowledges 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." The Ninth Circuit rejected that approach. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies. On the question of statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit 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 agency must address that holding and state the basis for any contrary position it now takes. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. Future generations should not inherit fewer of these places than we did. Public land should be a safe and sheltered place from human exploitation. These places should be kept whole.

"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."