Read the comments.

October 6, 2026 Dear Forest Service, Please do not repeal the roadless rule! A week and a half ago my son-in-law asked me if I would go deer hunting with him in the Manti-La Sal National Forest. Yes, we did use the National Forest road to take our camper up to the Manti Community Campground and from there we did use the National Forest roads to travel each day to get to our hunting areas. I do use and appreciate having some roads into the National Forest, even though some of the roads we used during the hunt were in terrible condition. We hit a rock so hard that I felt my back pop all of the way up to my neck. The Forest Service is already stretched so thin that you cannot maintain the roads that are already built-so please don't build any more. I like to hunt as far away from the main roads as possible. I spend hours looking at maps trying to find the remotest roadless areas I can find to hunt in. I hike or take horsed to get to these areas to hunt and fish. On this hunt we drove to the end of the road and hiked. Of course that means a lot of hard work to get a deer or an elk back to the road and to your vehicle if you are lucky enough to shoot one. However, I believe my chances of having hunting success go up the farther I am from a road. The road in the Manti-La Sal National Forest where my Father-in-law liked to hunt was closed by the Forest Service and I commend you people for that and would like to see more roads actually closed in our National Forests. Please CLOSE ROADS, don't build more roads. These forests are "National Forests," and so the nations public should have a say in how the government manages OUR forests and the majority of the "public" have again and again said they support the roadless rule. I have always lived a short distance from a National Forest and I love these beautiful lands to hike and hunt and fish and camp. I also had a job for over thirty years as a River Commissioner where I distributed the waters from the Uinta and Whiterocks Rivers to the water users along both of these rivers. These two rivers both originate in the Ashley National Forest in Utah's Uinta Mountain Range. I have spent many hours hiking, riding mountain bikes, skiing, snowshoeing, and riding horses for my job to get to reservoirs high up in the mountains. There are nine reservoirs owned by different irrigation companies. Of these nine reservoirs, only three of them had roads that you could drive to them. Even though it took eighteen miles of rough trail to access the farthest reservoir, I wouldn't want to see a road made to it. Roads DO NOT belong everywhere in the forest. Thank you, Shane Hamblin

I am writing to ask that the USFS does not rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect drinking-water supplies for more than 25 million Americans, provide economic benefits through recreation, and can reduce water-treatment costs by protecting high-quality watersheds. The record does not indicate that rescinding the Roadless Rule would reduce wildfire activity. IRAs protect more than 130,000 km of streams and rivers and are the primary protection mechanism for more than 100,000 km of rivers. These protections influence drinking-water supplies for at least 25 million Americans (Olden et al., 2026). Inventoried Roadless Areas in and near Ashley National Forest protect headwaters in the Upper Green River Basin, a major tributary of the Colorado River. Because Colorado River water supports communities and agricultural users throughout the basin and is delivered to Southern California, protecting these headwaters has downstream importance far beyond the forest’s boundaries. Degradation of watersheds leads to degradation of water quality through the loss of forest vegetation, which moderates streamflow and serves as a barrier to water-polluting land uses such as agriculture, development, and logging. Keeping forested areas intact helps keep streams cold, supports aquatic life, and keeps rivers clean, reducing costs to water-treatment facilities and, ultimately, consumers. IRAs overlap substantially with high-demand hunting and fishing areas and support aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. They also provide connected habitat, summer and winter range, and travel corridors for wildlife. In a peer-reviewed study, Sean P. Healey of the Rocky Mountain Research Station found that IRAs burned at rates broadly similar to the rest of the National Forest System. Contrary to the implication that roadless areas prevent fire mitigation, the study found that IRAs contained about 21% of National Forest System tree cover but accounted for 34% of fuel-treatment activities between 2001 and 2019. The study also found significantly fewer human-caused fires in IRAs. Human activity is responsible for a large share of wildfire ignitions nationwide (Healey, 2020). To prevent severe wildfires throughout the West, it is imperative to sustain resilient ecosystems rather than fragment them with roads. Invasive species such as cheatgrass and other grasses and woody vegetation can outcompete native plants and often contribute to increased fire activity. Just this year, I have been denied access on existing and open Forest Service roads well over a dozen times because of washouts and downed trees. That is in addition to the trees I was able to cut and move to the side of the road to allow travel, which has happened even more often. Why would we build more roads if we cannot maintain the roads we already have? A fiscally conservative approach would focus on maintaining the roads we have rather than building new ones. A 2026 technical white paper estimated deferred maintenance for the National Forest road system at more than $9 billion (WildEarth Guardians, 2026). It does not make sense to spend money building new roads—or arguing for the opportunity to build new roads—when the existing road system has such substantial maintenance needs. Our goal should not be to increase roads. Rather, it should be to maintain the roads we have, prevent the spread of invasive species, protect water quality, and protect wildlife habitat. Roads fragment habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Every deer, elk, and bear I have been lucky enough to take has been in either a wilderness area or an IRA. Roadless areas generally, and IRAs specifically, are islands of connected habitat, summer and winter range, and travel corridors for wildlife. I have had the opportunity to live near and explore several of these exceptional places. I have shared hunting and fishing experiences with my children in these places. My family is fed and watered by IRAs, and I ask, as a citizen in this great republic: please protect roadless areas. “The ‘greatest good of the greatest number’ applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.”

I am writing to ask that the USFS does not rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect drinking-water supplies for more than 25 million Americans, provide economic benefits through recreation, and can reduce water-treatment costs by protecting high-quality watersheds. The record does not indicate that rescinding the Roadless Rule would reduce wildfire activity. IRAs protect more than 130,000 km of streams and rivers and are the primary protection mechanism for more than 100,000 km of rivers. These protections influence drinking-water supplies for at least 25 million Americans (Olden et al., 2026). Inventoried Roadless Areas in and near Ashley National Forest protect headwaters in the Upper Green River Basin, a major tributary of the Colorado River. Because Colorado River water supports communities and agricultural users throughout the basin and is delivered to Southern California, protecting these headwaters has downstream importance far beyond the forest’s boundaries. Degradation of watersheds leads to degradation of water quality through the loss of forest vegetation, which moderates streamflow and serves as a barrier to water-polluting land uses such as agriculture, development, and logging. Keeping forested areas intact helps keep streams cold, supports aquatic life, and keeps rivers clean, reducing costs to water-treatment facilities and, ultimately, consumers. IRAs overlap substantially with high-demand hunting and fishing areas and support aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. They also provide connected habitat, summer and winter range, and travel corridors for wildlife. In a peer-reviewed study, Sean P. Healey of the Rocky Mountain Research Station found that IRAs burned at rates broadly similar to the rest of the National Forest System. Contrary to the implication that roadless areas prevent fire mitigation, the study found that IRAs contained about 21% of National Forest System tree cover but accounted for 34% of fuel-treatment activities between 2001 and 2019. The study also found significantly fewer human-caused fires in IRAs. Human activity is responsible for a large share of wildfire ignitions nationwide (Healey, 2020). To prevent severe wildfires throughout the West, it is imperative to sustain resilient ecosystems rather than fragment them with roads. Invasive species such as cheatgrass and other grasses and woody vegetation can outcompete native plants and often contribute to increased fire activity. Just this year, I have been denied access on existing and open Forest Service roads well over a dozen times because of washouts and downed trees. That is in addition to the trees I was able to cut and move to the side of the road to allow travel, which has happened even more often. Why would we build more roads if we cannot maintain the roads we already have? A fiscally conservative approach would focus on maintaining the roads we have rather than building new ones. A 2026 technical white paper estimated deferred maintenance for the National Forest road system at more than $9 billion (WildEarth Guardians, 2026). It does not make sense to spend money building new roads—or arguing for the opportunity to build new roads—when the existing road system has such substantial maintenance needs. Our goal should not be to increase roads. Rather, it should be to maintain the roads we have, prevent the spread of invasive species, protect water quality, and protect wildlife habitat. Roads fragment habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Every deer, elk, and bear I have been lucky enough to take has been in either a wilderness area or an IRA. Roadless areas generally, and IRAs specifically, are islands of connected habitat, summer and winter range, and travel corridors for wildlife. I have had the opportunity to live near and explore several of these exceptional places. I have shared hunting and fishing experiences with my children in these places. My family is fed and watered by IRAs, and I ask, as a citizen in this great republic: please protect roadless areas. “The ‘greatest good of the greatest number’ applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.” — Theodore Roosevelt, A Book-Lover’s Holidays in the Open (1916)

I urge you to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place exactly as it is. As a Utahn, I support the Roadless Rule and value our state's public lands, including the 4 million acres of undeveloped forests protected across Utahaccounting for roughly half of our total National Forest System land. The Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water for millions of Americans and locals by protecting critical mountain watersheds. It provides vital, unfragmented habitat for Utah's fish and wildlife while sustaining mature forests that serve as essential carbon sinks and natural filters. It also protects access to pristine, world-class outdoor recreation, preserving backcountry spaces for hiking, climbing, mountain biking, hunting, and angling in areas ranging from the high-elevation stands of the Ashley National Forest and the High Uintas to the southern pine landscapes of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. Please keep the Roadless Rule intact and help protect our legacy of public lands by following Alternative 1 (No Action). Sincerely, J. Meyer

I have lived in rural Uintah County since 1987. I believe that some of the greatest values come from land that remains undeveloped. A lonely fire tower overlooking the Uinta Mountains is a good place to contemplate that. I recently climbed Ute Mountain Fire Towernear Manila, Utah, the only fire tower still standing in Utah. I was rewarded with an awesome view of the Uinta Mountains of Ashley National Forest, in the area known as Uinta North Slope. Along the crest of the Uintas, I can see miles of rugged peaks separated by gigantic gouges where prehistoric glaciers carved into the north side of the Uintas. At the heads of these U-shaped valleys are lakes and meadows, while dark coniferous forests extend from the lake shores to timberline. The Uinta North Slope is uninhabited and roadless. Yet it is hardly inaccessible. Forest Service roads lead to Hacking Lake, Spirit Lake and Chepeta Lake,providing entry points for backpackers, hunters, anglers and horse packers. An adventurous soul could spend weeks exploring the network of trails without retracing their steps. The Roadless Rule shields these high-altitude watersheds from the impacts of road construction and logging. Such roadless areas remain roadless for a reason: they are steep, remote, and difficult to access. At the high elevations of the Uinta North Slope, the trees are small and sparse. Logging them would require the expense of building and maintaining new roads, plus taxpayer subsidies to the timber industry to completely cover their costs, and markets for lumber of limited value. After roading and logging, soil would erode into pristine creeks. Anyone who has driven a forest service road in the rain has seen the muddy water gushing down into the nearest stream. The real value of these roadless landscapes is far greater than any timber they might produce. The clean water flowing through irrigation canals around the town of Manila originates in these anonymous peaks. The economic value of hunting, fishing, and recreation is harder to measure but equally real. Recreational visitors support local businesses and communities throughout Daggett County. Claims that additional roads are needed for wildfire protectionare highly questionable. Most wildfires occur in the lower elevation wildland-urban interface (WUI), where human activity is concentrated along roads. We humans start the great majority of fires. The WUI zone is where fuels reduction projects should be concentrated, including selective logging and prescribed fires. Any fires that DO ignite in the Uinta North Slope mountain basins are usually limited by natural barriers. The high alpine ridges are covered by short tundra vegetation, where fire cannot easily spread. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Southwestern Colorado, and have spent years exploring much of the west. I work, recreate and live within areas that are currently protected by this measure, and cannot imagine the impact this would have on places I hold close. I worked for years in the Frank Chruch River of No Return Wilderness area, a place that truly cannot be described in words. The most amazing part of that place is that is it has no roads. I have also worked in the Six Rivers National Forest in Northern California, who’s endangered chinook salmon population would be at risk. Outside of work, I have spent countless hours in the Fishlake National Forest, Ashley National Forest, and Dixie National Forest in Utah. All of these places deserve to be protected in their current state. Rescinding the “2001 Roadless Rule” puts countless resources, ecosystems and recreation areas at risk. These places I’ve listed (along with all others affected by this potential measure) protect drinking water resources, preserve old growth habitats, store carbon and support wildlife that we all enjoy. These areas are crucial to local people, for water, food and shelter. Please do nott rescind this preservation measure.

October 5, 2026 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Attn: Roadless Rule Review Team Submitted via Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 Regulation Identifier Number (RIN): 0596-AD66 Rule Title: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (36 CFR Part 294) Subject: Public Comment Opposing the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule — Strong Support for Alternative 1 (No Action) As a hunter, angler, and fiscally conservative resident of Vernal, Utah, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt Alternative 1 (No Action) and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Living in the Uinta Basin, my backyard is the Ashley National Forest. I regularly hunt big game, pack into the backcountry, and fish across the unroaded drainages of the Uintas. While the congressionally designated High Uintas Wilderness protects the high alpine core, it is the surrounding Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)—including the Whiterocks, Dry Fork, and Lake Mountain roadless blocks—that make these world-class pursuits possible. Hunters like me do not want to drive a truck on every ridge. Packing in on horseback or hiking miles with a rifle and pack frame is the essence of backcountry hunting. That experience of grit, self-reliance, and solitude is central to our American heritage, and it requires large, unspoiled terrain without motorized disruption. Maintaining large, undeveloped blocks of public land is essential for wildlife and watershed health. Unroaded terrain provides crucial summer range, security cover, and migration corridors for Utah’s trophy elk and mule deer. Roads fragment habitat and push herds onto private lands, degrading hunting quality for everyone. The roadless drainages of the Uintas serve as the primary headwaters for our local communities and sustain sensitive cold-water trout fisheries. Industrial roadbuilding leads to chronic sediment runoff that ruins spawning gravels and compromises water quality downstream. From a fiscal and economic standpoint, repealing the Roadless Rule is fundamentally flawed: According to national industry analyses, the total economic output and retail impact of the hunting and shooting sports industry exceeds $107 billion to $133 billion, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs. With direct retail sales and economic generation around $45.2 billion—a figure higher than the individual annual GDP of roughly 121 countries—hunting is a proven, sustainable driver of real economic activity. In Utah, hunters pour money directly into local gateway communities like Vernal, buying fuel, groceries, sporting goods, lodging, and outfitting services season after season. In sharp contrast, the Forest Service's own estimates project an annual sawtimber harvest increase of just $5.2 to $11.4 million in revenue to the Treasury/USFS, and $4.6 to $10.6 million to the timber industry if the rule were rescinded. Jeopardizing high-value big game habitat that anchors a multi-billion-dollar sustainable recreation economy for a fraction of a percent in timber receipts makes zero business sense. Then there is the problem of increasing infrastructure maintenance liabilities. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of existing roads and faces an estimated $10.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog, with roughly 55% tied to roads alone. Building new road networks into pristine backcountry creates permanent maintenance obligations while diverting scarce funds from the decaying infrastructure the agency already cannot afford to maintain. Intact roadless areas are not economically "idle"—they are natural infrastructure powering a multi-billion-dollar hunting economy, sustaining clean drinking water, and sparing taxpayers from compounding infrastructure liabilities. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to protect these investments, adopt the No Action alternative, and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Respectfully submitted, Katherine M. Lawry

I am writing in support of Alternative 1 (No Action) and retaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a retired fish biologist. I have lived in Vernal, Utah since 1987 and enjoy trout fishing in the Ashley National Forest. The roadless drainages of the Uintas contain headwater streams that sustain sensitive trout fisheries. Maintaining large, undeveloped tracts of public land is essential for watershed health and maintenance of these fisheries. I respectfully urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt Alternative 1 (No Action) and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Respectfully Submitted, G. Bruce Haines

I am submitting these comments regarding the effect that rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule could have on the Ashley National Forest, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, Manila, Utah, and Daggett County. I request that USDA retain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule, or at minimum maintain equivalent or greater protections for inventoried roadless areas in and around Daggett County and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. I spend a lot of time in and around Manila and Flaming Gorge and have personally observed that the undeveloped character of the surrounding National Forest is one of the area's defining qualities. Visitors come here for Flaming Gorge, fishing, hunting, wildlife, camping, hiking, scenery, and access to relatively undeveloped public lands. For a small rural community like Manila, these scenic and recreational resources are economic infrastructure. Their long-term value should be weighed against any projected short-term benefit from additional timber, mineral, development, or road access. The lands surrounding Manila and Flaming Gorge derive substantial value because large portions remain undeveloped, scenic, intact, and connected. Forest Service planning documents recognize approximately 119,511 acres of inventoried roadless areas within Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and recognize the area's scenery and recreation as important drivers of tourism and the local economy. Roadless areas of particular concern include Sheep Creek West, Sheep Creek East, Hideout Draw, Bare Top, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge. This is particularly important around Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek, Carter Creek, Goslin Creek, and their tributaries. Protecting intact watersheds should remain an important preventative management tool for maintaining water quality, reducing erosion, and protecting vegetation and wildlife habitat. Greater road access can also increase human-caused wildfire ignition and reduce the quiet, remote recreational character that makes these lands valuable. Around Manila, recreation associated with Flaming Gorge, the Green River, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, camping, hiking, and scenic landscapes is an important part of both the community's identity and economy. Permanent fragmentation could exchange a long-term renewable recreation asset for short-term development benefits. Roadless protection should also not be confused with Wilderness designation. Disagreement over formal Wilderness designation should therefore not be used as justification for eliminating roadless protections. At minimum, I request that USDA retain existing protections for roadless areas surrounding Manila, Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek, Bare Top, Hideout Draw, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge unless a location-specific analysis demonstrates that removing those protections would provide benefits exceeding the long-term costs to scenery, recreation, wildlife habitat, watershed integrity, wildfire risk, road maintenance, and Daggett County's recreation-based economy. I request that USDA retain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule, or at minimum retain equivalent roadless protections for inventoried roadless areas in and surrounding Daggett County and the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. I ask USDA to evaluate the cumulative effect of losing national roadless protections across these adjoining areas rather than evaluating future roads one project at a time. Once roads are constructed, the effects are not limited to the physical roadbed. Roads can fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion and sedimentation, increase invasive-species pathways, change recreation patterns, increase human-caused ignition opportunities, and permanently alter scenic and undeveloped characteristics. For these reasons, I request that USDA select the alternative that retains the 2001 Roadless Rule, or establish equivalent or heightened protections for the Ashley National Forest and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area in Daggett County, Utah.

I am submitting these comments regarding the effect that rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule could have on the Ashley National Forest, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, Manila, Utah, and Daggett County. I request that USDA retain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule, or at minimum maintain equivalent or greater protections for inventoried roadless areas in and around Daggett County and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. I spend significant time in and around Manila and Flaming Gorge and have personally observed that the undeveloped character of the surrounding National Forest is one of the area's defining qualities. Visitors come here for Flaming Gorge, fishing, hunting, wildlife, camping, hiking, scenery, and access to relatively undeveloped public lands. For a small rural community like Manila, these scenic and recreational resources are economic infrastructure. Their long-term value should be weighed against any projected short-term benefit from additional timber, mineral, development, or road access. The lands surrounding Manila and Flaming Gorge derive substantial value because large portions remain undeveloped, scenic, intact, and connected. Forest Service planning documents recognize approximately 119,511 acres of inventoried roadless areas within Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and recognize the area's scenery and recreation as important drivers of tourism and the local economy. Roadless areas of particular concern include Sheep Creek West, Sheep Creek East, Hideout Draw, Bare Top, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge. USDA should evaluate the cumulative effects of losing roadless protections across these adjoining areas rather than considering future roads only one project at a time. Roads can fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion and sedimentation, spread invasive species, change recreation patterns, increase opportunities for human-caused wildfire ignition, and permanently alter scenic and undeveloped landscapes. At minimum, I request that USDA retain existing protections for roadless areas surrounding Manila, Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek, Bare Top, Hideout Draw, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge unless a location-specific analysis demonstrates that removing those protections would provide benefits exceeding the long-term costs to scenery, recreation, wildlife habitat, watershed integrity, wildfire risk, road maintenance, and Daggett County's recreation-based economy. I request that USDA retain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule, or at minimum retain equivalent roadless protections for inventoried roadless areas in and surrounding Daggett County and the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. The roadless areas of particular concern in Daggett County include Sheep Creek West, Sheep Creek East, Hideout Draw, Bare Top, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge. These areas collectively form a significant portion of the undeveloped landscape surrounding Manila and Flaming Gorge. I ask USDA to evaluate the cumulative effect of losing national roadless protections across these adjoining areas rather than evaluating future roads one project at a time. Once roads are constructed, the effects are not limited to the physical roadbed. Roads can fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion and sedimentation, increase invasive-species pathways, change recreation patterns, increase human-caused ignition opportunities, and permanently alter scenic and undeveloped characteristics. This issue is especially important around Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek, Carter Creek, Goslin Creek, and their tributaries. The Forest Service's Flaming Gorge planning documents recognize the importance of watersheds and identify erosion, soil displacement, reduced infiltration, and damage to vegetation and wildlife habitat as concerns associated with intensive use. Protecting intact roadless watersheds should therefore remain an important preventative management tool. At minimum, I request that USDA retain existing roadless protections for the inventoried areas surrounding Manila, Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek, Bare Top, Hideout Draw, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge until the Forest Service has completed a location-specific analysis demonstrating that removal of those protections would provide benefits exceeding the long-term costs to scenery, recreation, wildlife habitat, watershed integrity, wildfire risk, road-maintenance obligations, and the recreation-based economy of Daggett County. For these reasons, I request that USDA select the alternative that retains the 2001 Roadless Rule, or establish equivalent or heightened protections for the Ashley National Forest and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area in Daggett County, Utah.

I am submitting these comments regarding the effect that rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule could have on the Ashley National Forest, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, Manila, Utah, and Daggett County. I request that USDA retain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule, or at minimum maintain equivalent or greater protections for inventoried roadless areas in and around Daggett County and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. I spend significant time in and around Manila and Flaming Gorge and have personally observed that the undeveloped character of the surrounding National Forest is one of the area's defining qualities. Visitors come here for Flaming Gorge, fishing, hunting, wildlife, camping, hiking, scenery, and access to relatively undeveloped public lands. For a small rural community like Manila, these scenic and recreational resources are economic infrastructure. Their long-term value should be weighed against any projected short-term benefit from additional timber, mineral, development, or road access. The lands surrounding Manila and Flaming Gorge derive substantial value because large portions remain undeveloped, scenic, intact, and connected. Forest Service planning documents recognize approximately 119,511 acres of inventoried roadless areas within Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and recognize the area's scenery and recreation as important drivers of tourism and the local economy. Roadless areas of particular concern include Sheep Creek West, Sheep Creek East, Hideout Draw, Bare Top, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge. USDA should evaluate the cumulative effects of losing roadless protections across these adjoining areas rather than considering future roads only one project at a time. Roads can fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion and sedimentation, spread invasive species, change recreation patterns, increase opportunities for human-caused wildfire ignition, and permanently alter scenic and undeveloped landscapes. This is particularly important around Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek, Carter Creek, Goslin Creek, and their tributaries. Protecting intact watersheds should remain an important preventative management tool for maintaining water quality, reducing erosion, and protecting vegetation and wildlife habitat. Wildfire risk does not justify eliminating roadless protections. The existing Roadless Rule already allows appropriate management actions, including certain vegetation treatments and exceptions addressing imminent threats involving wildfire, flooding, public health, and safety. USDA should distinguish between targeted fuels treatment needed to protect communities and infrastructure and substantially broader road construction, reconstruction, timber access, or development. Those are very different management decisions. Greater road access can also increase human-caused wildfire ignition and reduce the quiet, remote recreational character that makes these lands valuable. Around Manila, recreation associated with Flaming Gorge, the Green River, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, camping, hiking, and scenic landscapes is an important part of both the community's identity and economy. Permanent fragmentation could exchange a long-term renewable recreation asset for short-term development benefits. The economics of new roads should also be fully considered. The Forest Service already faces substantial deferred maintenance needs for existing roads and infrastructure. Before allowing additional roads USDA should evaluate who will pay to construct, maintain, repair, and ultimately decommission them. Roadless protection should also not be confused with Wilderness designation. Disagreement over formal Wilderness designation should therefore not be used as justification for eliminating roadless protections. If USDA determines that additional local flexibility is necessary, a better approach would be to retain roadless protections while allowing narrowly tailored exceptions. At minimum, I request that USDA retain existing protections for roadless areas surrounding Manila, Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek, Bare Top, Hideout Draw, Mt. Lena, Little Hole, Roadshed, North Slope, Goslin, and Grizzly Ridge unless a location-specific analysis demonstrates that removing those protections would provide benefits exceeding the long-term costs to scenery, recreation, wildlife habitat, watershed integrity, wildfire risk, road maintenance, and Daggett County's recreation-based economy. Once these landscapes are fragmented by permanent roads, their roadless character is difficult or impossible to restore. That irreversibility warrants continued protection. I request that USDA retain the 2001 Roadless Rule or establish equivalent or heightened protections for the Ashley National Forest and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area in Daggett County, Utah.

As a hunter who has spent several seasons exploring and enjoying the Ashley National Forest (40.6009, -110.2912) in Utah; this roadless area repeal hits incredibly close to home. I strongly support Alternative 1 (No action). The greatest joys I have experienced outdoors have come from exploring where the roads end and elk trails begin. It is a uniquely American privilege to have access to so much land that in many ways remains as wild and untamed as it was a thousand years ago. We benefit greatly from the incredible foresight of staunch conservationists who could never of dreamed of having access to the scientific data that we do now. To repeal their work on the basis of a blatantly false pretense of reducing wildfires (90% of all wildfires start with 1/2 mile of road) with the obvious agenda of enriching a select few, would be a travesty and atrocity committed against future generations that could never be forgiven. I sincerely hope that those in charge of managing and protecting our public lands will stand strong in the face of intense political pressure and do the right thing for not only this generation of Americans, but the many generations to come.