Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 To whom it may concern: I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them. Issue 1: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (hereafter “Roadless Rule rescission”) will result in increased habitat fragmentation, loss of habitat connectivity, and increased road-related mortality in a number of federally-listed species, including the Southern Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of fisher (Pekania pennanti), Bi-State distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae). Conservation assessments and strategies for these species have identified roads as significant sources of mortality and habitat fragmentation in these species. These significant impacts should be analyzed and addressed in the EIS, including in specific areas of concern – such as the Boundary Peak roadless area (Bi-state sage-grouse); Kings River, Dinkey Lakes, Black Mountain, and Greenhorn Creek roadless areas (Southern Sierra fisher); and San Joaquin and Hoover roadless areas (Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep). Additionally, I ask the agency evaluate impacts of the Roadless Rule rescission to big game populations, such as elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and moose. These impacts should be assessed to evaluate effects to habitat connectivity and population-level impacts in these species and how it may affect hunting and wildlife viewing activities by the public. Additionally, I ask that the agency evaluate impacts of the Roadless Rule rescission to federally-listed plant species, such as whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Lastly, I ask the agency to evaluate the impacts of the Roadless Rule rescission on species of conservation concern identified in revised Land Management Plans on national forests. Issue 2: I ask that the Roadless Rule rescission EIS evaluate cumulative effects of the proposed action with other recent agency-wide policy changes proposed by the U.S. Forest Service. In particular, these cumulative effects should include the proposed amendment to the existing Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) announced on August 21, 2026 on the agency’s website. It should also include cumulative effects of any other recent policy changes that broadly affect National Forest System roads, such as Land Management Plan revisions and amendments. Issue 3: The U.S. Forest Service’s own fire data shows that wildfire ignitions are closely associated with roads and road access. Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System lands against 3.0 fires per million acres inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024). The DEIS states that human-caused ignitions have increased in abundance with proximity to roads. The effects analysis itself concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. I ask that the agency quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. I also ask the agency to conduct a thorough evaluation of the effects of roads on wildfire ignitions on national forests and other federal lands using he best available science information. Issue 4: I ask that the agency please address effects of the Roadless Rule rescission on the potential spread of invasive species, such as cheatgrass, on National Forest System lands. Numerous scientific publications have linked roads and road construction to increased cover and spread of invasive plants and their potential to increase the frequency and rate of spread of wildfires in wildlands. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in my comment and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 Roadless Rule's protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Susan Roberts Mammoth Lakes, California

"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 to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). I help organize the Bay Delta Bioregional Regeneration Unconference, which brings people together to think and act at the scale of our watershed rather than our political boundaries. That work has taught me how completely California depends on one connected system. The Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers drain roughly 40 percent of the state, from the Sierra crest and the southern Cascades down through the Central Valley to the Delta and San Francisco Bay. Water from this system reaches about two-thirds of Californians and irrigates much of the nation's food supply. What happens in the headwaters does not stay in the headwaters. It shows up in every reservoir, farm, salmon run, and tap downstream. Many of those headwaters lie in national forests, and many of the most intact are protected because they are roadless. Unroaded watersheds deliver cleaner, steadier water at no cost to taxpayers. Roads do the opposite, sending sediment into streams and reservoirs for as long as they exist. Rescinding this rule would put the source waters of most Californians at risk to serve narrow, short-term interests. Regenerative stewardship means thinking in the timescales land actually operates on: decades and generations, not budget cycles or administrations. From that vantage point, roadless areas are among the most valuable things we hold in common. They are the last large, connected habitat for wildlife that needs room to move, and that room matters more as the climate shifts. They hold enormous stores of carbon in standing forests and soils, carbon that stays put only if the forests stay intact. And once a road goes in, none of this can be restored on any human timescale. I also want to respond directly to the claim that the rule is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction. The 2001 rule already allows fuel reduction and other necessary management where it is needed. Meanwhile, research has repeatedly found that human-caused ignitions concentrate along roads. Building more roads into remote backcountry adds new places for fires to start, along with miles of new infrastructure the Forest Service cannot afford to maintain. Fire risk is greatest where communities meet the forest, and that is where resources belong. These lands also belong to many people in ways that don't show up in timber volumes. They hold some of the best hunting, fishing, and backcountry recreation left in the country. For many Tribal nations, they hold cultural sites, gathering places, and traditional foods that have been cared for since long before the national forests existed. Those relationships deserve far more consultation and time than this process has offered. The public has said clearly and repeatedly that it wants these places kept whole. Stewardship means passing land on in better condition than we found it. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for all national forest lands. Kaliya Young Co-organizer, Bay Delta Bioregional Regeneration Unconference Oakland, California

"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."

Hi, I am a snow scientist, avid recreationist, and resident of Mammoth Lakes in the Eastern Sierra. I am writing today to tell you that I strongly oppose the proposed recission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). I am urging the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule by selecting Alternative 1. I urge the Forest Service to reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2, as well as any alternative that substantially weakens protections. As a snow scientist who works in water resources, I feel particularly qualified to mention that these roadless areas serve as critical sources of clean water for millions of Americans, protecting watersheds from sediment and pollution [Della, Sala (2011).] As a regular citizen, I am concerned because these roadless areas provide the quiet backcountry experiences that I value with family and friends. Many of these areas I have been hiking, skiing, climbing, fishing, and camping in since I was a child and I would be devastated to lose them: Wheeler Ridge and Pine Creek Canyon, Laurel and McGee, Nevahbe Ridge, Saddlebag and Tioga, The Hoover area, deep in the San Joaquin, and I live near the Sherwins in Mammoth Lakes. These areas support the outdoor recreation that sustains our local economy. The Roadless rule already allows important wildfire work - I believe I read that nearly 250k acres have been treated in California's roadless areas since 2001. Removing the national protections that have been in place for multiple decades now would open these last intact forests to new roads and industrial logging when, quite frankly, agency capacity for careful planning and public engagement is already stretched. I want my future children to be able to enjoy these areas as I did. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Selma California and frequently visit the Sierra and Sequoia National Forest to hike, camp and backpack. Shut Eye Peak, Kings River, Dinkey Lakes, San Joaquin River and Devils Gulsh are a few of the local areas that will be impacted. Local mountain communities depend on outdoor recreation economies far more than logging at this point. Roads are where fires start. Human-caused ignitions run higher on roaded national forest land, than roadless areas. Human caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads and road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. The Central Sierra has been devastated by recent wild fires. The Forest Service doesn't have the capacity to manage the roads that already exist or to create policy to protect the delicate ecosystems and water sheds that the Roadless Rule currently protects. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Sincerely, Ann

To the Forest Service, In 2012, I was lucky enough to hike the John Muir Trail in the Sierra Nevada of California with my future spouse. The trail runs through over 200 miles of roadless federal wilderness land. We hiked through the San Joaquin Roadless Wilderness Area. This hike was transformative to my life. It allowed me to lose myself in the wilderness and reconnect my soul with nature. The idea that such beauty could be destroyed by running roads through it saddens me deeply. Our public lands are the gemstones of our country. The destruction of wilderness and nature is becoming more and more prevalent each passing year due to threats like the one proposed here. We do not need these roads, but we do need places that our soul can be revived. Roadless wilderness are such places. Please do not take our wilderness from us, do not destroy these habitats, do not steal our birthright. Allow our kids to explore these places just as I did when I was young. Our roadless wilderness areas are priceless, they hold more wealth than Fort Knox, not economic, but spiritual wealth. Do not put roads through our roadless wilderness.

I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place exactly as it is, and to select Alternative 1, No Action. Like millions of Americans who have spoken out since 2001, I value our public lands and waters, including the 44.7 million acres of undeveloped national forest this rule protects. I am not writing in the abstract. I live in Alpine Meadows, at Lake Tahoe, and I use these forests year-round: backpacking multi-day Sierra routes, running ultra-distance trail events, and backcountry skiing and snowboarding through the winter. My eight-year-old daughter has backpacked with me in Desolation Wilderness, Yosemite, and the eastern Sierra out of Mammoth Lakes. More than 80,000 acres in the Tahoe National Forest and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit are inventoried roadless areas, close to a quarter of Forest Service land in the Basin. The Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water for millions of Americans. In the Sierra that means the headwaters of the Truckee, San Joaquin, Kings, and Owens rivers, and it means fine sediment control in the Lake Tahoe Basin, where two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars in public investment have gone toward restoring lake clarity. Roads are a principal source of the sediment that investment is fighting. Building more of them in the same watershed works against the public's own money. It provides habitat for threatened and sensitive species, including the Sierra Nevada red fox near Luther Pass, and it sustains old-growth and mature forests that function as carbon sinks. Just as importantly, it keeps these areas connected. The roadless lands between designated wilderness and park units are what allow wide-ranging species to move across the landscape instead of being stranded in islands of protection. It also protects access to climbing, fishing, hiking, backcountry skiing, mountain biking, and paddling, across more than 25,000 miles of trails. The communities around me run on that access. Truckee, Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes, and Bishop have recreation economies, not timber economies. The stated reason for rescission is wildfire risk, and the evidence points the other way. Ignitions are several times denser near roads than in roadless areas, and the Forest Service attributes nine in ten wildfires to human causes. Set against a projected $4.6 to $10.6 million a year in additional timber revenue nationwide, this is not a serious trade. Please keep the Roadless Rule intact and follow Alternative 1, No Action. Thank you, Theresa Smith Olympic Valley, 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 oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have spent extensive time recreating in our public lands, including in National Forest Roadless Areas. Some of the roadless areas most important to me are the San Joaquin IRA in Inyo NF and the Eagle IRA in Mt Hood NF. The American public supports wilderness areas and we will not believe the claims about needing to repeal the rule for better fire management. 90% of fires are started within 1/2 mile of a road, and analysis has found that Roadless Areas have not burned at significantly higher rates or severity than forest lands with roads (and in the most recent decade, they actually burned less). We already have 370,000 miles of forest roads with a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog - let's not create more.

**The comment deadline is today, October 6, 2026.** Comments on the proposed rule, *Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation* (91 FR 53827), must be received by October 6, 2026. You can submit at Regulations.gov, where the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement are posted. Here's a draft: --- **Re: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (91 FR 53827) – Opposition to Rescission** I'm writing to oppose the full rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Turlock, California, and I work and play across the San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra foothills, including Tuolumne County. The water, air, and wildlife that people in my community depend on start in these forests. The Forest Service says rescission is about wildfire. But the Roadless Rule already allows thinning and fuels work where it's needed. Its restrictions are on new roads and commercial logging. Building new roads into backcountry also brings more human ignitions, and the agency already struggles to maintain the roads it has. Adding more miles isn't a fire strategy. Our valley depends on clean, reliable water from Sierra watersheds. Roadless areas keep erosion and sediment out of the rivers that feed our reservoirs and irrigation systems. Handing roadless decisions to forest-by-forest planning, with no national floor, puts that at risk. I'm also concerned about the process. The original rule had more than 600 public hearings. This proposal had a 30-day comment period, later extended by 15 days, for a rule covering tens of millions of acres. That is not enough time for the public to review a draft EIS and a rule of this size. I ask the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule, to select a no-action alternative in the final EIS, and to respond individually to the substantive concerns raised in the record. Thank you for considering my comment. Andria Hernandez Turlock, CA

The Roadless Rule is an essential component of the preservation and conservation ideals that motivated federal public lands management in the first place. As it stands, it is difficult to find true wilderness, wilderness without a road within 5 miles. “Ecological impacts from roads may be the rule rather than the exception in most of the conterminous United States. We measured the proportion of land area that was located within nine distances from the nearest road of any type, and mapped the results for 164 ecoregions and 2108 watersheds nationwide. Overall, 20% of the total land area was within 127 m of a road, and the proportion increased rapidly with distance, so that 83% was within 1061 m of a road, and only 3% was more than 5176 m away. For forest land area only, the proportions differed by less than 2% for all distances. Regions with more than 60% of their total land area within 382 m of a road may be at greatest risk of cumulative ecological impacts from roads. These regions include nearly all coastal zones, as well as substantial portions of the southeast US and the basins of the Ohio, Brazos, Colorado, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Rivers.” https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/5325 As an American, I feel immense pride and love for the public lands we preserve and share with the world. These landscapes drive our tourism economies which communities depend on. In 2024 alone, visitors to national parks contributed $56 billion dollars to the US economy. (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/national-park-visitor-spending-contributed-%2456-billion-to-the-u-s-economy-in-2024.htm) We don’t need more roads, we don’t need more resource extraction, we don’t need more urbanization. We need to stay true and faithful to the intent behind establishing public lands- protecting them for future generations. What has always been the greatest threat to them is ourselves. Protect public lands. Attached is a photo of me and my husband, cherishing our time in our nation’s public lands and a photo of my sister and I, visiting the same place 20 years earlier.

As a PCT'19 alumni and wildands advocate, I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. There are 63 roadless areas along 288 miles of the PCT in California, Oregon and Washington. These miles represent roughly 11% of the trail. Roadless areas provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans. This also provides connected wildlife corridors and undisturbed natural connected ecosytems. These undeveloped lands are critical to our nation’s ecological health.  These areas store 20% of all carbon in U.S. national forests. Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hiking hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands. The outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. Roadless areas are crucial habitat for 1,600+ threatened species. We already have 370,000 miles of forest roads with a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Studies show wildfire ignitions are 4x more likely near roads than in roadless areas Please keep these roadless areas roadless! Deep Creek IRA—San Bernardino National Forest: On the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains about 60 miles east of Los Angeles. Starting at 6,200 feet above sea level, the stream through the IRA drops about 3,000 ft through dramatic canyons in its 22-mile course before flowing into the East Fork of the Mojave River. It includes deep pools and hot springs and is a popular spot for day hikers. South Sierra IRA—Inyo National Forest: On the PCT and near the South Fork of the Kern River. San Joaquin IRA—Inyo National Forest: Red’s Meadow is a beloved respite along the PCT and a starting point for horse packers at the Agnew Meadows Pack Station. Dardanelles IRA—Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: Nearly the entire PCT from Carson Pass to Echo Summit is in this roadless area. Granite Chief IRA—Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: Heading north from Barker Pass, the PCT, and the contiguous Tahoe Rim Trail climb to dramatic ridgelines, yielding dreamlike views of Lake Tahoe amidst red fir and hemlock forests. Further north, the trail enters Granite Chief Wilderness and intersects the Western States Trail. Areas between Granite Chief Wilderness and Donner Pass are within this IRA, jeopardizing views enjoyed by thru-hikers, day hikers, and even skiers who use Olympic Valley, Lake Tahoe’s largest ski park. Mount Eddy IRA—Shasta-Trinity National Forest: Just across the valley from Mount Shasta, Mount Eddy is the tallest peak along the Trinity Divide, and the tallest peak in CA west of I-5. This subrange of the Klamath Mountains features a unique landscape of towering granite spires, lush evergreen forests, and alpine lakes deep in glacier-carved cirques. The area is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and was established as a Research Natural Area (RNA) to study its ecological significance, serving as the headwaters for the North Fork Sacramento River. Grider IRA—Klamath National Forest: This is a popular area for campers and day hikers along the creek, which feeds the Klamath River. Severely burned in the 2014 Happy Camp Complex, the regrowing brush gives way to large stands of surviving trees, and the sound of rushing water is a constant along the trail. The area has already been the subject of a legal fight over logging. Norse Peak IRA—Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest: Next to Mount Ranier National Park, Sheep Lake is a picturesque alpine lake and a welcome destination for families for swimming, backpacking and camping. The hike to the lake is a gentle, 1.8-mile climb past summer wildflowers and red huckleberry plants in the fall, with great views of the Rainier fork of the American River, Mount Rainier, and Naches Peak. Liberty Bell IRA—Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest: Some 30 miles of the PCT from Rainy Pass to Harts Pass, including the popular day hike to Cutthroat Pass, are within this large IRA. Situated in the heart of the North Cascades, this area is home to the mighty Methow River, many alpine passes, and some of the highest elevation stretches of the PCT in Washington.

"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."

Date: October 5, 2026 To: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, U.S. Forest Service Subject: Oppose Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule – Docket FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service’s proposal to completely rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the agency to select the "No Action Alternative" and maintain uniform federal protections for our remaining inventoried roadless areas. As a resident of California who frequently visits and values our public lands, I am deeply concerned about how this decision will impact the iconic Sierra Nevada landscape—specifically the national forest lands that border and support Sequoia National Park, Kings Canyon National Park, and Yosemite National Park. The roadless areas within the neighboring Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests act as vital protective buffers for these parks. I oppose the rescission due to the following critical impacts on this region: • Disruption of Wildlife Corridors: The species that draw millions of visitors to Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon—including the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, Pacific fisher, and California spotted owl—do not recognize administrative borders. They require vast, unfragmented landscapes to migrate, forage, and survive. Allowing road construction and commercial logging on adjacent forest lands will fragment these corridors, isolating wildlife populations within the parks and accelerating habitat loss.Threats to Watersheds and Water Quality: The Sierra Nevada snowpack is California’s primary water source. Roadless areas in the surrounding national forests protect the headwaters of major rivers like the Merced, Tuolumne, San Joaquin, Kings, and Kern. Constructing roads and allowing heavy industrial machinery into these fragile upper watersheds will trigger severe soil erosion, increase sedimentation, and degrade the water quality that millions of downstream residents and fragile river ecosystems rely on. While the agency suggests that rescinding the rule will aid in wildfire management, data shows that human-caused wildfires are overwhelmingly likely to start near roads. Introducing new road networks into currently intact forest interiors will significantly increase the risk of accidental ignitions in a region already devastated by catastrophic fires. Furthermore, intact, mature forests naturally retain more moisture and are more resilient to fire than heavily logged, fragmented areas. I routinely recreate in and around Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks. The experience of stepping out of the parks and directly into the undisturbed backcountry of our surrounding national forests is irreplaceable. Protecting these bordering roadless zones is essential to maintaining the ecological integrity, quiet recreation, and natural beauty of the entire High Sierra region. A fragmented, forest-by-forest management plan cannot replace the durable protection of a nationwide rule. I strongly urge the Forest Service to reject the rescission proposal and leave the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact to safeguard the future of the Sierra Nevada. Thank you for considering my substantive feedback. Sincerely, Norma Jean Eggman Visalia, CA 93291

I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I base this comment both on my experience as a citizen concerned about our public lands and on 32 years with the National Park Service, including serving as superintendent of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and as a regional manager overseeing parks across California and Nevada. Roadless areas are among the last relatively intact landscapes in our national forests. They protect watersheds, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, opportunities for solitude, and recreation. Once roads penetrate these landscapes, their impacts extend far beyond the road itself. Roads fragment habitat, facilitate invasive species, increase human disturbance, and can increase the risk of human-caused wildfire. These impacts are often difficult or impossible to reverse. The stakes are particularly high in California. More than 650,000 acres of roadless lands in the Los Padres National Forest could be affected by changes that make road development and increased motorized access easier. These lands protect watersheds important to communities and agriculture, including those associated with Lake Lopez, the Santa Maria River and the Salinas River. They also provide habitat for imperiled species including California condors, San Joaquin kit foxes and Southern California steelhead. I support responsible public access and necessary forest management. But there is a fundamental difference between managing existing roads and opening protected roadless landscapes to new roads and motorized use. Doing so would permanently diminish the ecological and wild character that makes these lands valuable. The Roadless Rule reflects a public-trust responsibility to protect these lands not only for today’s users, but for future generations. Previous generations chose to preserve portions of our national forests in an undeveloped condition. We are beneficiaries of that decision—and stewards of that inheritance. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw the proposal and retain the Roadless Rule. Our remaining roadless lands are a finite resource. Once their undeveloped character is lost, it cannot simply be recreated. Woody Smeck