Read the comments.

See Attached File: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Sand Creek Roadless Area in Wyoming is a wonderful example of a Roadless Area that my husband and I have explored multiple times. We are drawn to the roadless area for the amazing water quality that sustains an incredible fishery. My husband and I explored the Sand Creek area and found it to be a wonderfully peaceful and beautiful location that my husband and I enjoyed for hours, catching Brown Trout and then releasing them back to the water for others to enjoy. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places. le(s)

See attached file: My Personal Comment on the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Hermosa Roadless Area in Colorado is a spectacular example of a high-elevation rocky mountain ecosystem. It is a location that my husband and I stumbled across on a trip. We drove to and then walked into some streams to fish. I remember with vivid recollection a beautiful walk, enjoying it with our dogs (off leash) and fishing in some small, clear streams and catching many fish. They were not big fish, but they were so healthy and bright in color. I can still feel the excitement of catching them and enjoying a day together. Those memories will stay with me forever! My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background, I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Togwotee Pass Roadless Area in Wyoming is a neat “saddle” like area that seems to separate the Wind River and Absaroka Mountains. It is some of the “flatter” ground you may find in these mountains, yet it contains some amazing ecosystems. I personally love to walk through the Whitebark pine forests and to know that Grizzlies are around, looking to feast on the nuts. What a critical food source. Having these large roadless area intact landscapes is critical for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Yet having these roadless areas does not deter motorized activities like snowmobile use. This activity is hugely popular and helps to contribute to rural communities outside the typical summer tourist season most people think about for the Yellowstone area. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Middle Fork, Little Popo Agie, Canyon Creek, and Pass Creek Roadless Areas in Wyoming are areas my husband and I adored while living and working in Wyoming. We would pack up our lunches and drive up to a point where we could then walk to streams where we could fish. The water quality and solitude rewarded us with an incredible supply of cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and brook trout. After all these many years, the memories from those trips are so vibrant and elicit such happy memories. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for wildlife viewing, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Wapati Valley South and Wapati Valley North Roadless Areas in Wyoming are an incredible wildlife viewing corridor, lying adjacent to Wilderness areas on the Shoshone National Forest. I have traveled this corridor so many times that I have lost track. It is one of those places that, no matter where you look, you will find large wildlife that makes your heart skip a beat with excitement. I have seen Big Horn sheep, bears, moose, foxes, cougars- you name it, these areas have it! As the busiest or one of the busiest entry points into Yellowstone, keeping the large, intact landscape intact is important for the wildlife and for those visitors who travel to experience it and spend money in rural communities to engage in this wildlife viewing experience. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a viable wildlife population depends on healthy watersheds and large intact landscapes. IN addition, Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My wildlife viewing, fishing, and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for exploring, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Tumacocori Roadless Area in Arizona is a spectacularly rich and diverse landscape. It is by no means a desert wasteland, as many uneducated people would want those unfamiliar to believe. The desert is rich with wildlife, specifically birds. To wake up in the morning and sit calmly and just listen is an amazing experience. An additional experience is to enjoy the Chiltepin, a native wild chili pepper. It is a small red round berry that delivers incredible flavor and heat. Grind it up and add to your favorite food – incredibly delightful! My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a healthy ecosystem depends on healthy watersheds and large intact landscapes. IN addition, Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My wildlife viewing and exploring experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026). When I choose a roadless area for exploring, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Tenmile Roadless Area in Oregon is such a unique roadless area; an ocean sand dune ecosystem. I was living in Oregon at the time and traveled to this area to ride ATVs in the dunes with my family, who were visiting from Wisconsin. What an incredible ecosystem, ever-changing, resilient through nature’s elements. A trail then one day and gone the next. On a work trip to the area, I recall walking into some isolated islands to gather Port-Orford Cedar cones so they can be collected and grown in a nursery for future plantings. However, the primary need was to search for a resistant strain to the deadly root disease. The main populations are heavily impacted largely due to the spread of the disease through water/mud, and the primary transfer is via roads from one drainage to an unaffected drainage. Here, there are no roads, and so the hope still exists that the genetics persevere or at least a resistant version exists. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My decades of exploring roadless landscapes have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for wildlife viewing, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The South Fork Roadless Area in Wyoming is a magnificent wildlife viewing corridor. It is adjacent to Wilderness areas, and thus contributes to large intact landscapes. Although my parents and I were traveling to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, we are also astute about planning for side trips to incredible places in national forests. This is one of many we visit. In our most recent trip this year, we sought wildlife and were able to spot moose, bighorn sheep, and foxes. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that abundant wildlife viewing depends on healthy watersheds and large intact landscapes. In addition, Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My decades of wildlife viewing, fishing, and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Copper Mountain and Grassy Knob Roadless Areas in Oregon are representative of a temperate rain forest on extremely steep slopes. Slopes so steep they should be cliffs but are just not quite meet that criteria. These slopes funnel the plentiful near-daily rain into numerous streams that connect in a short distance to the Pacific Ocean. Streams are historically full of salmon such as spring & fall Chinook, coho salmon, and steelhead. I worked in the Oregon Coast Range and fished for steelhead but also listened to other sport and commercial fishermen and communities who were also embedded in the peak of clear-cut logging. Neither better nor worse, but what is critical is sustainability. The practices of that era were not sustainable, as I watched/listened to the fact that salmon runs were declining and visually observed mid-slope logging roads washing out and sending streams of sediment into the rivers and turning streams/rivers that are typically crystal clear into streams/rivers that are the color of chocolate milk. Jobs and healthy economies are important, but they cannot be done at the cost of losing our forest, rivers, and ecosystems. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Salt River Range, South Wyoming Range, and Lake Alice Roadless Areas in Wyoming are some of the neatest remote areas I have visited. My husband and I feel in love with exploring these areas while living and working in Wyoming. Likely the best memory I have is our pursuit of the Wyoming Cutthroat challenge and visiting the Lake Alice area to catch the last cutthroat species to complete the challenge. The location was beautiful! My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Little Bighorn Roadless Area in Wyoming is the coolest example of the Rocky Mountains rising out of the Great Plains. Living in South Dakota, my husband and I enjoy the ability to travel from South Dakota to enjoy the public lands of Wyoming. We have stopped in to fish the Powder River Canyon multiple times. The area requires a drive to a trailhead and then a wonderful walk. Although we have not hiked the trails to hike, we have hiked the trails to get access to the river to fish. The scenery is amazing, a beautiful canyon that contains clear mountain water that sustains a healthy cold-water fishery. Although road construction would be difficult/expensive, it would be roads built in other parts of the roadless area could greatly impact our fishing experience. The fisheries are spectacular, and it is a popular gem for both locals and people like us who hear about it through word of mouth. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for wildlife viewing and exploring, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Peloncillo Roadless Area in Arizona and New Mexico holds incredible potential for Jaguars. To think of seeing jaguars is exciting, and to know that seeing and photographing them is possible. For that possibility, jaguars need access to water, abundant prey, and isolation from human populations. Large intact landscapes are critical, and that is where our roadless areas can supplement Wilderness areas to provide large intact landscapes. We know the potential to see jaguars exists, and that habitat just 130 miles from the border holds canyons and tributaries with perennial water and many square miles of rugged terrain with no roads. I worked in this area, but not long enough to be so lucky as to see a Jaguar. Similar to the grizzly bears of Wyoming and Montana or the Brown Bears of Alaska that draw in so much tourism in the hopes of seeing one. Someday I hope I can s ee a jaguar and, better yet, more than one! My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My exploring, wildlfie viewing, fishing, and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for exploring and hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Meadow Creek and Sawyers Peak Roadless Area in New Mexico holds amazing native American history amongst the Pine-Juniper and cliffs of the Gila Mountains. The native American history is easily confirmed by exploring these amazing areas by walking or riding a horse. I rode in on a trip and was consumed by the solitude, the history, finding Mimbres-era pottery shards, seeing cliff dwellings, and rock art. The experience is so very humbling. These very roadless areas are adjacent to Wilderness areas named in honor of great conservation leaders like Aldo Leopold, who fought and defended against the very pressures that we are facing today. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that native american history depends on large intact landscapes and healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My exploratory, wildlife viewing, fishing, and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Cloud Peak Contiguous Roadless Area in Wyoming is a spectacular high elevation conifer forest with numerous meadows and riparian areas. Already roaded on top, the roadless areas are important to keep intact landscapes in functioning order to allow capture and delivery of the snow melt that is so critical for re-supplying lakes, streams, and municipal watersheds. The Big Horn National Forest could benefit from updating their roadless areas that, in fact, do have past management and roads. Likely initial inventories were not well done, so I can understand a re-evaluation. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My exploring, wildlife viewing, fishing, and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Franc’s Peak Roadless Areas in Wyoming is an incredible place to visit. My husband and I adored our fishing trip into this area creating incredible memories from stream crossings to massive hail storms. While living and working in Wyoming we traveled to this area to fish and caught native cutthroat trout. Yes, those fish contributed to our Wyoming Cuttslam Challenge. After all these many years, the memories from this trip is still so vibrant. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My exploration, wildlife viewing, fishing, and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.

See attached file: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). My husband and I lived and worked in Oregon for many, many years. In those years we personally observed clear-cutting and road construction BUT more importantly we noted the lack of road maintenance in the temperate rainforest of the Oregon Coast Range. These streams and communities thrived on salmon runs yet sedimentation from these management activities significantly impacted water quality and salmon runs. What is critical is to work to retain these large intact landscapes, as the pressures to “log” is knocking at the door. With these pressures how do we assure our salmon runs and large intact landscapes wildlife species are viable as directed by National Forest Management Act (NFMA). My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My exploration, wildlife viewing, fishing, and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places.