Read the comments.

I am against rescinding the Roadless Rule. I own a small outfitting and guiding business in Wyoming operating on three national forests with extensive IRAs. The main draw for our clients to visit and recreate in this part of the country is the abundance of wildlife, especially large ungulates, pristine waters for fishing, healthy old growth forests, and wide open views - not roads built for logging and mining that the public can not often access. All of these recreational draws associated with roadless areas that support our local tourism industry (note that outdoor tourism is the second biggest contributor to GDP in our state) would be harmed, according to the government’s own impact statement. And the potential economic gains of timber or minerals extracted in these remote, high elevation areas is severely outweighed by the economic losses in our outdoor tourism industry. I wanted to give a recent, concrete example of what can happen with the construction of new roads for logging on National Forest lands. I guide in the vicinity of Camp Creek near the Clark’s Fork of the Yellowstone River. A new logging operation on Camp Creek has led to the creation of only two jobs. I’ve gotten to know these loggers well and I very much value their opportunity to work, but I have also seen the aftermath of their operation firsthand and do not believe the benefits outweigh the costs. First, the harvest of lodgepole pine does not seem to be of great value if only two loggers have been working. Second, the operation has greatly reduced the scenic value of the area for many years to come. Third, there has been a significant reduction in wildlife, especially elk, that we see in this area. Foourth, access roads have been created that are not professionally built and are already experiencing significant erosion and there are visible sediment deposits coming into Camp Creek and the Clark’s Fork (the only Wild and Scenic waterway in the state). Now, I believe the widely reported statistic that there is a much higher chance of wildfire near roadways, especially those used for logging, after witnessing this particular logging operation drop a tree on a power line that caused the Camp Creek Fire earlier this year and led to a multi day power outage for upper Clarks Fork communities and the town of Cooke City MT. This is just one local example, but I believe it is a predictor of what could become more common if we allow more roads to be constructed for extractive industries in IRAs. No doubt our forests need improvements and treatments but we’ve seen in northern Wyoming how these can be very successful in IRAs. In the last 5 years the Sheridan Municipal Watershed Project on Bighorn National Forest used mostly low impact lop and scatter treatments in 15000 acres of IRAs, and it’s my understanding that this strategy played an important role in reducing the long term damage associated with the Elk Fire. From what I’ve read from the BNF, those low impact treatments helped reduce the fire’s risk of harming critical water infrastructure and limited the amount erosion and sediment coming into the water supply compared to using heavy machinery. I would suggest instead of a wholesale rescission of the Roadless Rule opting for a science based approach to forest treatments that does not harm our local economy, our water, or our wildlife.

I wholeheartedly oppose rescinding or altering the roadless rule. If anything, I support *expanding* conservation and further limiting commercial logging and drilling in our wilderness areas. I have lived in Wyoming almost my whole life and have grown up around National Parks and wilderness areas. I have hiked and camped in Yellowstone National Park since I was a child, I have spent countless hours enjoying the Bridger-Teton National Forest as an adolescent (as it was only a few minutes by car from my childhood home) and have recently taken up backpacking in the Bighorn National Forest as an adult. Time and time again, I have heard tourists remark how special these forests are, how there is simply nothing like them in the entire world, and how fortunate we are to have them in our backyard. I completely agree, and it is beyond my comprehension that anyone who has ever marveled at the roadless wilderness in Wyoming could possibly have a hand in undoing this monumental conservation effort. However, politicians from Wyoming are doing just that. And only to serve corporate interests, not the will of Wyoming residents or the American people. According to Oregon Wild, "When the Clinton Administration first proposed the Roadless Rule back in 2000, it received well over a million public comments supporting the rule, more than any administrative proposal in US history at the time. When the Trump Administration initially proposed rescinding the Roadless Rule last September, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments urging that the Roadless Rule be retained." I have never heard one single Wyoming resident (except Hageman) advocating for the revocation of the Roadless Rule. Rather, by and large, Wyoming wants to protect our public lands and wildlife. In addition to ignoring the desire of the American people, altering or rescinding the Roadless Rule would also :-Increase wildfire risks: Studies show that fires are 4x more likely to start by a roadway rather than in a roadless area. I would like to emphasize that there is now common parlance to say that we do not have a summer in the West, we have a "fire season". -Endanger wildlife: Currently, the Roadless Rule protects intact complex ecosystems and sensitive species from the habitat degradation and fragmentation that they currently face in other parts of the world. Running roads through these fragile ecosystems with the intention to log or otherwise harm these habitats is antithetical to the spirit of American conservation championed by President Roosevelt and upheld by the American people. -Threaten drinking water: The Roadless Rule helps protect clean watersheds that provide drinking water to millions of Americans. Road construction, development, drilling, mining, and commercial logging are all threats to clean, drinkable watersheds. These are unacceptable risks to our way of life in Wyoming. For these reasons, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS is a huge mistake. Once again, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and of the 3, I ONLY support “Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.”

Continued: 4. Fire is a part of the ecosystem. To the extent that the rationale is reducing fire, the rationale is wrong, as other commenters have pointed out and as the rationale points out, that more roads lead to more fire activity. But also the entire proposal is misplaced — because the most effective way to address fires of increasing intensity is to address climate change. That is the real national priority that needs to be addressed that the government is completely failing to address. Roads in forests are not a recognized wild-land fire management policy, as other commenters have pointed out. *** Put simply, the repeal of the Roadless Rule is a step backwards in public lands management. It effectively takes public lands out of the hands of the people they are set aside for — the American public — and hands them to special interests who are willing to pay for them. This is not the mandate that the USFS has been given by Congress. The mandate is the manage these lands for multiple uses. Creating new roads in forests prioritizes only one use, timber harvesting, over all others. *** My experience in this comment is drawn from recreating at the following USFS properties: Little Missouri National Grassland; Buffalo Gap National Grassland; BigHorn National Forest; Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest; Hiawatha National Forest; Ottawa National Forest; Huron-Manistee National Forest; Superior National Forest; Chippewa National Forest; Shoshone National Forest; Custer-Gallatin National Forest; Flathead National Forest; Bridger-Teton National Forest; Caribou-Targhee National Forest; Gifford Pinchot National Forest; Olympic National Forest; Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest; Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest; Colville National Forest; Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest; Arapaho National Forest; White River National Forest; Black Hills National Forest; Thunder Basin National Grassland; Unit-Wasatch-Cache National Forest; Sierra National Forest; Stanislaus National Forest; Lincoln National Forest; and Shawnee National Forest. My major takeaway from all these experiences is that these Forests already have more roads than most people could explore in a lifetime. There is quite simply no practical or logistical need, from a recreational perspective, for more under the rationales that the USFS has proposed in this rule change.

I grew up on the east coast in a suburban neighborhood and spent countless hours outside. However, no matter how far I walked or where I went, there was always a road or town nearby. This was all I had ever known, and before spending time in a roadless area, I had not known how incredible those areas could be. I frequently fish for Brook trout and it’s no coincidence that the best fishing is in roadless areas. Without roads, the streams can stay cooler and provide better habitat for our native fish. Areas like Shenandoah National Park, and the surrounding areas, have the highest concentrations of trout streams in my area because the forests are intact. This year, I went elk hunting in the Bighorn National Forest for the first time. It was a beautiful place that offered many forms of recreation. At the end of my hunt, I looked at all of the areas that I found elk sign and saw elk. It was pretty clear that the elk tended to stay a ways off the forest service roads where people would concentrate. It makes complete sense that elk, and all animals, prefer roadless areas that can be a sort of sanctuary to them. While the area I was hunting was not protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, I believe that the idea still applies. To me, a roadless area is more than just an exceptional place where there is minimal human disturbance. It is a place that can only be appreciated by exploration. Preserving the Roadless Rule will keep places protected so they can be difficult to access. I have always said that the harder it is to get somewhere, the more beautiful it becomes. I urge the Department of Interior to leave the current Roadless Area Conservation rule in place. I believe that our roadless areas are our greatest treasures, and I want to see them protected and preserved in perpetuity.

To whom it may concern: I routinely hunt, fish, hike, camp, climb, and ski in National forests across America. I have spent significant amounts of time in the Bighorn National forest, Tongess National forest, and many others across the West and AK. National forest inventoried roadless areas are important to me because it provides a uniquely American experience of wild landscapes and adventure that is not found in many developed parts of the world. I support retaining durable conservation measures while providing carefully defined flexibility for forest restoration, community safeguarding, and fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects. The Forest Service does not need to choose between healthy forests and conserving the intact backcountry landscapes on which hunters, anglers, wildlife, and communities depend. Rather than removing the national rule, which would create inconsistent management across the country and potential conflict, I recommend that the Forest Service finalize a durable national Roadless Rule that safeguards intact backcountry habitat while providing flexibility for necessary community safeguards and restoration. Please maintain a national Roadless Rule and draw from the full range of alternatives to develop a durable framework that retains management for inventoried roadless areas, while providing targeted flexibility for necessary fire management. Thank you sincerely for your review of all the public comments Americans are sharing on this topic. I have relied on these areas as a veteran, patriot, and outdoor enthusiast. Please support the pubic and the roadless rule.

My comments are specific to the Bighorn National Forest. I worked on the Bighorn National Forest for 31 years of my 39-year career with the US Forest Service. I believe the situation on other National Forests is like the Bighorn National Forest. The 2005 Bighorn National Forest Plan revision set a goal of reducing the miles of roads on the Forest by forty (40) miles. In 2015 the Travel Analysis Report (TAR) which took a detailed look at every road on the Bighorn National Forest. It again recommended reduction in the miles of roads on the Forest. I was on the review team for that effort. In 2004 a Mr. Wolf, Fellow, Society of American Foresters, authored a detailed white paper concerning roads on National Forests and the recent Roadless Rule implementation. In his report he explained that the National Forests were in serious need of reducing roads on National Forests due to lack of maintenance funding. Over this period these three studies have shown that National Forests cannot maintain the current miles of road let alone add additional miles. Any improvements, including roads built are a liability, not an asset! The National Forest has enough liability with the current road miles. Other public responses focus on the value of the current roadless areas in National Forests. I agree totally with them. Watershed protection, wildlife security, non-motorized recreational opportunities and not conducting money losing timber sales in the roadless areas. Over the last 70 to 80 decades if there was merchantable timber in these areas the Forest Service would have already constructed roads into the current roadless areas. I have also attached two files detailing the documents I mentioned in my comments. They provide in much greater detail the need to maintain current NFS roads. Not build new ones in roadless areas! And my more detailed comments from March 2026.

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

I welcome this opportunity to offer comment on the US Forest Service’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Proposed Rule to rescind the national Roadless Rule. The DEIS and Proposed Rule were released on August 20 for a one-month public comment period ending September 21. Summary As expected, the Proposed Rule would entirely rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule, removing protection from 44.7 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) currently covered by the 2001 Rule, including the 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. The Idaho and Colorado Roadless Rules would remain in effect. Our organization focuses on the Bighorn National Forest, which the Proposed Rule covers with more than 649,000 acres. The justification for rescission presented in the Proposed Rule and DEIS focuses on providing more local control and management flexibility. The Federal Register notice for the Proposed Rule states, “There is a need to increase local management flexibility and, where necessary, allow for active management to respond to changing and localized conditions, such as increasing wildfire risk, the spread of insect and disease infestations, and the need for community protection in the wildland-urban interface.” 91 Fed. Reg. 53828. The notice also cites recent Executive Orders to eliminate unnecessary regulations, expand domestic timber production, and maximize natural resource development in Alaska, including exempting the Tongass National Forest from the national Roadless Rule. The DEIS considers just three alternatives: Alt. 1 – No Action (keep the 2001 Rule), Alt. 2 - Full Rescission, and Alt. 3 – Partial Rescission. Alternative 3 would maintain Roadless Rule protection for 13 million acres of IRAs (29%), while removing protection from the Tongass, IRA considered to be in the Wildland-Urban Interface, and other IRA land within ½ mile of a road. I strongly advocate for Alternative 1- No Action, keeping the 2001 RCRA in place, without amendment.

I am writing with concerns about the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule, specifically regarding the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. Growing up in Sheridan, Wyoming, my family came to appreciate the mountains and the ecosystems surrounding them. I then lived in several states on both coasts and realized how unique and special our access is in Wyoming. I am concerned that rescinding this rule will open these mountains to several problems that are prevelant in these other states. First, the Bighorns are fully accessible via 1,200 miles of roads over 900,000 acres. My family enjoys the mountains with camping but also on ATVs and have never had a problem finding roads to ride - in fact, we haven’t even discovered 1/2 of them in over 20 years. So the comments from Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Stephen A. Vaden about ensuring that the public can access its forests, as well as the comment from USDA Natural Resources and Environment Secretary Mike Boren about ensuring the roads are open for public use, do not appear relevant to the Bighorns. In most all other states, camping is allowed only in campgrounds. In the Bighorns, we enjoy dispersed camping and have so many freedoms with this. The mountains are truly open for public use here. Furthermore, the comment from Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz about the extent of roads under Forest Service care only raises more concern. Currently, with personnel cuts and budget cuts, the Bighorn National Forest is struggling to keep up with its current road maintenance. Adding more roads and access would only add more load to an already overloaded system. Additionally, adding more roads and access would disturb vital wildlife, especially elk, that have specific migration patterns. Hunting has always been a vital part of so many families around this area, not to mention so many hunters from out of state. Lastly, the use of the Bighorns in my lifetime, about 50 years of camping/hiking/backpacking/riding, has changed dramatically. The number of ATVs and campers have increased significantly as well as the amount of backpackers. Unfortunately, this has brought a lot more damage, waste, and trash from human traffic. Then, with Forest Service personnel cutbacks, clean up from this has been near impossible. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will only open more areas to more traffic and damage. Making easier access will only make it easier for people and companies to abuse the land and natural resources. The Roadless Rule is working well and was thoroughly and thoughtfully drafted with over a million people involved. I encourage the Forest Service to not throw out this rule in its entirety. Thank you for considering my comments.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the full or partial rescinding of the Roadless Rule. I am a wildlife professional who lives near the Bighorn National Forest and this ruling negatively affects me and my community. When I visit the Bighorn National Forest, I enjoy the quiet, solitude, beautiful scenery, especially around Powder River Pass. I love to go birding in the forests and look for nesting birds and raptors like goshawks and warblers. That pursuit depends entirely on habitat that roads would degrade. The DEIS does not ignore this. It cites the findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. The agency has this science in hand and is moving forward anyway. I want to know how the agency reconciles that evidence with a proposal that will expand road construction into inventoried roadless areas, and I ask for a clear answer in the record. The agency's own document also states: "The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent." That range appears in the text and then disappears. No projection follows. The 40.1 million acres potentially affected by this rescission are never run through that calculation. A finding that broad cannot simply be cited and abandoned. I ask that the agency apply that fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment and explain what the resulting biodiversity loss would look like. Additionally, wildlife watching is an economic boost to our local community around the Bighorn National Forest, and the DEIS does not consider how the rescinding of the rule would impact such economies from reduced wildlife presence. The document also contains this: "The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat." The agency cites this finding about elk and roads and then produces no population-level projection anywhere in the analysis. Hunters and wildlife managers need to know what this proposal means for big game. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity before this rule is finalized. This has a significant impact in my local area for myself as an elk hunter and for the economic incentive it brings to our community. The DEIS does not address economic impacts from the rescinding of the rule would have on reduced hunting success due to a fragmented landscape. The most serious problem is this. The agency's 428-page draft biological assessment closes: "Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule will increase the likelihood of road construction and timber harvests occurring in locations previously considered inventoried roadless areas. In many cases the Forest Service anticipates this increased activity to adversely affect some ESA-listed species and their designated critical habitats." The DEIS tallies the determinations: "may affect, likely to adversely affect" for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats. The agency wrote that. The agency anticipates the harm. The proposal identifies mitigation for none of it. I ask that the agency disclose, species by species, how the likely adverse effects its own biological assessments identify will be avoided or mitigated, and that ESA consultation be completed and published before any final rule is issued. I want to see economic analyses provided for a reduction in wildlife species in local economies, a better endangered species analysis review, and how the issue of habitat fragmentation would be mitigated. Thank you for your consideration of my comment

I am a 71 year-old man and a lifetime resident of Sheridan, Wyoming. I have lived in Sheridan my entire life, except briefly during undergraduate school in Tempe, Arizona; Billings, Montana; and Laramie, Wyoming (where I also attended law school). Since my preschool years and throughout my youth, and continuing throughout my adulthood until now, I have used and enjoyed the public lands of this country, in particular those comprising the Bighorn National Forest west of Sheridan, Wyoming. That use has included hunting, fishing, camping, motorcycle riding, snowmobiling, alpine and nordic skiing, and hiking. Also, my family has owned a cabin subject to a special use permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service since approximately 1960. Numerous members of my family, including but my spouse, children and grandchildren, siblings and nieces and nephews, continue to use that cabin extensively. Additionally, I served the Forest Service in the Bighorn National Forest as an undergraduate intern for one college semester. These numerous variable experiences on the Forest have educated and informed me well of the many different positive opportunities for many people who have had the privilege of enjoying these lands. Unfortunately, I have also seen the extensive abuses of that land by certain users who for some reason are irresponsible in their use of those lands by operation of motorized vehicles. I have personally witnessed extensive degradation of the National Forest lands by such irresponsible actions, and particularly many years ago before the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was promulgated. Based upon my personal experiences, the positive effect of the Roadless Rule in controlling and even stopping those abuses has been undeniable to me. As a result, my review of the USDA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) gave me grave concerns with the Alternative Actions proposed by the USDA other than the "No Action" Alternative 1, which is the only Alternative Action listed in the DEIS I support. I vehemently oppose proposed Alternatives 2 and 3, which I believe would completely remove the vital protections this Rule has provided since its promulgation for fresh drinking water, necessary wildlife habitat, and the many recreational uses afforded on these lands. In my personal experience over these many years, the Roadless Rule has been vital in providing those necessary protections against such abuses. The assertion by the USDA that the rescission of this Rule would allow more effective responses to wildfires is clearly misplaced, and is undeniably proven inaccurate by the extensive scientific studies which establish that the majority of wildfires ignite within a quarter mile of a road (for obvious reasons). Thus, such a rescission would actually aid in the start of more wildfires in remote forest areas. I am certain this is not something the residents of Sheridan, Wyoming, are interested in. The proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule also makes no financial sense, contrary to the arguments of the USDA. The current backlog of the United States Forest Service road maintenance nationally reveals a funding deficit for such of $9 Billion. I have personally experienced an unreasonable delay for the local Forest Service office (through no direct fault of its own) to provide needed repair or maintenance on the roads providing access to numerous permitted cabins. How would opening U.S. Forest Service lands to more motorized access through the construction of new roads make financial sense if they are not able to afford current road maintenance needs? In summary, I know the current Roadless Rule is strongly supported by most users of such federal lands. To rescind it as proposed is nonsensical and not in the public interest.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. As I understand it, part of the reason for establishing the rule is that it would be too expensive to construct roads to access timber in these areas. With declining USFS budgets and rising prices, this is likely even more true today. In the past 35 years, I've seen the current road system deteriorate, with what used to be well-graded roads now full of potholes or washboard. We were recently in the Bighorn National Forest on a main corridor road leading to a popular campground that was ten miles of bone jarring washboards. If the roadless rule is rescinded, then I fear that the existing roads will get even worse due to limited road budgets going to new roads versus maintaining the current system. Another major concern is that ATV damage will extend further into the forests. Some of my best grouse hunting used to be on closed / bermed roads on the Superior Nation Forest back when the primary ATVs in use were Honda three wheelers. As four-wheelers became more popular and increasingly heavy, what used to be an old road covered in clover perfect for hunting on foot turned into mud and ruts from side to side, making it too much of a mess to be able to walk. Additional truck and ATV access puts streams at risk from sedimentation arising both from stream crossings and from dirt entering streams due to erosion of roads during heavy rains. For those of us who hunt by foot versus from an ATV, the lands covered by the roadless rule are more accessible than lands designated as wilderness but still provide a remote-feeling experience without disruption from motorized vehicles. These areas also allow wildlife to move around freely without disturbance from motorized vehicles. These roadless areas provide buffers around important protected lands like national parks and wilderness areas to maintain a natural viewshed and quiet. Adding more roads that allow trucks and ATVs deeper into the forest risks creates more risk of human-caused wildfires. Access for fighting wildfires is listed as a reason for rescinding but any gain these is likely to be offset by more human-caused fires. I am not anti-logging. We all use forest products and providing timber and pulp is obviously a central role of the USFS. Allowing access to some timber stands via special permit, with protections in place, could help meet these needs without all the negative consequences of rescinding the rule. In closing, as a long-time and frequent user of USFS lands, I respectfully ask that this proposal be withdrawn and the roadless rule be left in place.

Keep roadless rule in place and allow each forest to apply for exceptions. Our local Bighorn National Forest cannot adequately maintain the roads they have. Science: increase roads = increase fire starts. I hunt and fish and want roadless areas maintained and increased.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. I am an avid outdoor recreationist who regularly visits roadless areas in America's national forests. For the last 55 years I have camped, hiked and backpacked in most of Colorado's National Forests, doing many trips each year in the White River National Forest, Rio Grande National Forest, Arapahoe National Forest, Roosevelt National Forest, Pike National Forest, San Isabel, and San Juan National Forest. These are some of the main ones. I have also hiked, camped and backpacked in Wyoming's national forests such as the Teton National Forest, Bridger National Forest and Bighorn National Forest. I have also hiked and backpacked in much of southeast Utah. Most of my backpack trips are from 4 to 12 days covering 40 to 100 miles per trip. I have enjoyed all the beauty the National Forests have to offer such as the wildlife, fishing and clean water that is presently there. This is where I rejuvenate, refocus and clear my head. Logging and road building would spoil these untouched, pristine National Forests and they must remain roadless. The roadless National Forests help provide clean drinking water to downstream communities, are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. I believe that road building for logging in the National Forests would do long-lasting damage to these incredible public lands, to the wildlife, water and to communities that benefit from them. The financial gain would not justify the damage. As far as management goes what could be less complicated than managing all the national forests through one simple and clear mandate of the current roadless rural. Why fragment the management which would occur for each individual National Forest. Think of all the increased litigation that could result when each National Forest has its own management rules and is litigated separately. I strongly urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as-is, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places. Thank you for considering my thoughts Tom Lohaus Colorado

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Bighorn and Snowy ranges are where I go to escape, to camp in the front country, backcountry, or simply boondock somewhere remote. I return to these forests for unparalleled solitude, natural beauty, and an abundance of wildlife, including moose, elk, mustelids, and birds of prey. I photograph charismatic mammals large and small and watch raptors and woodpeckers in the forest. At Libby Flats in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, I have fond memories with family taking in the views and the wildlife, from elk to marmots. I want to see this place protected for others in the future. I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Docket FS-2025-0001. Our public land should be managed for the benefit of the American public and their children, not for private for-profit interests. Access to solitude, wildness, clean water, quiet, and outdoor recreation is part of our heritage as Americans. Rescission of the rule puts all of that at risk across the roadless areas I named in this comment, including Sibley Lake and Devils Canyon in the Bighorn National Forest, Bridger Peak and Libby Flats in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, and Beaver Park in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. The agency's own record contradicts the wildfire justification for this rescission. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." If that finding is in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement, the proposal to open these areas to road building requires the agency to explain why it departs from those findings. On the question of permitting burden, the agency's own description of the existing rule notes that it already carries exceptions: "It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Before rescinding a rule that protects roadless areas across millions of acres, the agency must identify which specific burdens are not already addressed by those existing exceptions, including the ones for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection, and it must quantify those burdens with actual data. I rely on the watershed shaped and safeguarded by Black Hills National Forest. South Dakota holds 8 inventoried roadless areas totaling 79,597 acres, with 325 municipal water intakes across the Rocky Mountain region sitting in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. We need fresh, clean water in the west, not more roads. The agency has documented that roads and their facilities can produce a substantial share of the sediment from a timber sale; opening roadless areas to new construction is unreasonable. The elk I look for in these forests are directly addressed by the agency's own citations, and the record falls short. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. That finding appears and then stops. No projection of population-level effects on elk or other big game across the affected environment follows anywhere in the document. The agency must project those effects and their consequences for big game populations and hunter opportunity before finalizing any rescission. The same gap appears on habitat fragmentation. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The moose, elk, and birds of prey that draw me to these forests depend on intact, connected habitat. Citing that range without applying it to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment is not analysis; it is notation. The agency must apply the cited fragmentation range to the full affected acreage and show what the record actually predicts for the wildlife those acres support. The agency built Alternative 3 in direct response to commenters who asked it to protect big game habitat, fisheries, and wildlife connectivity, and then selected the alternative that protects none of it. That choice requires a reasoned explanation. What does the record show drove the agency away from the alternative its own process generated in response to public concern about wildlife? That question deserves a direct answer before this proceeding closes. Sincerely, Elizabeth L Custer, South Dakota

Tucker T. 9-28-2026 Roadless Rule Repeal 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66 Public Comment I am opposed to the proposition of the Roadless Rule being repealed. My family has been ranching in Colorado and enjoying the outdoors for four generations, and I am currently studying Wildlife Biology. I spend most of my time outdoors hiking and fishing, as well as hunting. Repealing the Roadless Rule does not benefit the American public as much as having the Rule in effect does. The Repealing of it would allow more logging to take place, which in turn increases the turbidity of the mountain streams where I love to fish. The trout such as cutthroat and others that live in these streams are extremely vulnerable to environmental changes, which would take place with more development of these protected areas. `In Bighorn National Forest, as well as Shoshone National Forest, there are areas that are designated as inventoried roadless area where construction or reconstruction is not allowed. Recission of the Roadless Rule would allow construction of roads in these areas, which would be allow more sedimentation of the many small streams within the areas. While the use of management plans by the Forest Service in place of the Roadless Rule may help conservation efforts, there will undoubtedly be more and more developmental efforts, which in turn must be paid for by the American taxpayer. Part of the reason the Roadless Rule was enacted the first place was the monumental cost of road maintenance, and in our current economical state American taxpayers should not have the added burden of even more taxes to upkeep the new developments this repeal will bring. As an American, and one who spends time on the landscape, I oppose this repeal. The demands of the nation do not say that we need to deface our public land with development. This administration has shown interest in the natural resources of our country that opposes what is best for the public, who own these resources. The federal government holds these resources in trust for the public and is currently not taking the right course of actions with the lands that belong to me and every other American. These actions are not benefiting the wildlife of the American West, and if this rule is repealed there will be consequences resulting in the destruction of even more habitat than has already occurred. Instead of repealing the Roadless Rule, the US Forest Service should focus on maintaining what roads are already in place. They should implement plans focusing on the wildlife and ecological systems of our public lands, without creating more access points for activities that lead to the degradation of our wild lands that the American West is known for. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/roadless-map-wyoming-high-resolution-fsmrs-072382.pdf

October 3, 2026 Comments on the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Docket # FS-2025-0001. My name is Suzanne DeVore and I live in Mosca, Colorado at zip code 81146. I am a voter. I am an avid hiker, walker, bicyclist, Nordic and downhill skier, camper and birder. I spend a ton of time every year recreating on public lands. It is my understanding that despite 99% public opposition to its rollback, the Administration moved forward with its intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule by publishing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I strongly support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. I love spending time in the National Forests near where I live in southern Colorado. Including the Rio Grande National Forest, the San Juan National Forest, the Gunnison National Forest and the San Isabel National Forest. I am fortunate to be able to walk to the Sangre de Cristo Wilderness from my home. I also spend weeks camping in the neighboring state of Wyoming. I particularly love the Medicine Bow National Forest and the dramatic Snowy Range in southern Wyoming. I also love to camp in the Bighorn National Forest and backpack in the Wind River Range. My husband is an avid fly-fisherman, so this determines a lot of the places we visit! We like to travel to the Coronado National Forest in Arizona for hiking and cycling during the winter. We particularly love the areas in and around the Chiricahua mountains. This proposal is just ludicrous for many reasons, but mainly because the current road system is stressed now! The U.S. Forest Service lacks the capacity, in funds and workforce, to support its existing roads, much less an increased inventory of roads. There are plenty of roads now. Roads cause excessive erosion and siltation to streams. Most of America's clean, fresh watersheds start in national forests. In this time of changing climate and severe droughts the current rule protects our valuable drinking water. Roadless areas help keep invasive species at bay and prevent pollution. The DEIS details many points on this topic. The current rule protects intact ecosystems for American wildlife. Roadless areas provide habitat for vulnerable wildlife species, including the Canada Lynx in our area. These roadless landscapes, often adjacent to other protected areas, like wilderness, are critical for habitat connectivity and health. Roads severely impact birds and wildlife. The DEIS cites the findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird variety and abundance. It is vital to avoid fragmentation of the roadless areas. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity. Wildlife tend to disappear when forest cover thins; many avoid roads used by winter machines. The DEIS notes that wide-ranging mammals like the grizzly bear “have suffered habitat loss and the extirpation or fragmentation of their populations.” It is false that building more roads will help fight wildfires. Studies show that more roads do not lead to better forest health through increased fire-management activity. Conversely, Wildfire incidents happen near roads. Studies show that 90% of wildfires happen within 1/4 mile of roads. If more roads led to more fires, this action would increase the number of incidents, not improve response, as suggested. Our National Forests sustain some of our nation’s last stands of old growth forest. Here in Colorado our nearby Rio Grande National Forest and all the national forests across the United States are an economic boon for tourism and for well-planned and regulated timber sales. No new roads are required to support these benefits of the forest. It is widely recognized that the purpose of changing the roadless rules has nothing to do with forest health as it is proclaimed to do. The purpose is to reduce regulatory burden and return decision making to local officials, not U.S. Forest Service experts with years of education and experience managing our forests for all U.S. citizens. This proposal is a callous, greedy attempt to provide access to our public lands for oil, mining, timber and other extractive industries! It’s sacrificing our forests to make a few wealthy elite people richer. It would bring short-sighted and short-term benefits to these few, while ruining long-term, irreplaceable lands that belong to all of us, the public. I completely oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and strongly support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Suzanne DeVore 113 Spring Creek Drive Mosca, CO 81146

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001. 50 years living in NCDE & Yellowstone Region has given me solace based in truth so cannot tolerate rescission in exchange for marketization of public lands. RR means protections not their removal.RR lands mean connectivity for species survival. Rescission displaces threatened species. ESA listed grizzly bear requires best science. Rescission shuns it and will prove fatal for grizzly populations. Cited lands mirror grizzly DPS compliance. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, specifically inventoried RR areas: Lost Water Canyon (9,251 acres), Custer NF, MTBurnt Mountain (10,698 acres), Custer NF, MT Black Butte (871 acres), Custer NF, MT Red Lodge Creek Hellroaring (17,210 acres), Custer NF, MTOkanogan-Wenatchee NF (1,006,000 acres), Okanogan NF, WAGifford Pinchot National Forest (213,000 acres), Gifford Pinchot National Forest, WAMt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, WALiberty Bell (108,495 acres), Okanogan NF, WACuster Gallatin NF (848,000 acres), Custer Gallatin NF, MTBob Marshall Wilderness Complex (1,483,000 acres),Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, MT Paine Gulch (7,875 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTMt. High (33,484 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTMcgregor - Thompson (27,211 acres), Lolo NF, MTDeep Creek (7,669 acres), Lolo NF, MT Trout Creek (30,851 acres), Kootenai NF, MTCataract (9,442 acres), Lolo NF, MTBlue Slide (17,505 acres), Wenatchee NF, WA Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF (415,000 acres), Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, WA , Okanogan NF,Pasayten Rim (17,074 acres), Okanogan NF, WASawtooth (15,693 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTwin Sisters (13,051 acres), Colville NF, WA Bridger-Teton National Forest (1,417,000 acres), Bridger-Teton National Forest, WyWest Pioneer (248,631 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTBear - Marshall - Scapegoat - Swan (344,022 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Bob Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan (334,275 acres), Flathead NF, MT East Pioneer (145,082 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTWest Big Hole (133,563 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTMadison (127,859 acres), Gallatin NF, MTSelway-Bitterroot (114,953 acres), Bitterroot NF,MTHoodoo (105,162 acres), Lolo NF, MTAllan Mountain (104,184 acres), Bitterroot NF, MTSnowcrest Mountain (97,649 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MT Freezeout Mountain (97,305 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MT Middle Mtn. / Tobacco Roots (96,487 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MTTuchuck (17,730 acres), Flathead NF, MTThompson Seton (52,235 acres), Flathead NF, MTMt. Henry (13,603 acres), Kootenai NF, MTOlympic National Forest (86,000 acres), Olympic National Forest,WASapphires (66,619 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF,MTBear Creek (8,123 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, MT MTLittle Bighorn (133,949 acres), Bighorn NF, WyoSleeping Child (x1074) (21,433 acres), Bitterroot NF, MT, Bitterroot NF, MTDry Canyon Breaks (4,821 acres), Colville NF, WANorth Absaroka (21,063 acres), Custer NF, MTCrazy Mountain (82,093 acres), Gallatin NF, MTBridger (45,059 acres), Gallatin NF, MTHyalite - Porcupine - Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area (143,991 acres), Gallatin NF, MTGallatin Fringe (51,571 acres), Gallatin NF, MT Cabin Creek Wildlife Management Area Ocd (35,048 acres), Gallatin NF, MTWAHellgate Gulch (16,821 acres), Helena NF, MTBig Snowy Mountains Wsa (88,003 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MTCastle Mountains (29,409 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Crazy Mountains (24,942 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Box Canyon (12,584 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- Big Snowies (9,258 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT North Fork Smith (8,444 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Tenderfoot - Deep Creek (85,614 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Eagle Park (5,912 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- Calf Creek (10,108 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- Pilgrim Creek (44,608 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Highwood Baldy (15,305 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Highwoods (24,378 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT- TW Mountain (8,388 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Granite Mountain (10,338 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Lewis & Clark NF, MT Middle Fork Judith Wsa (81,131 acres), Lewis & Clark NF, MT Bluff Mountain (38,060 acres), Custer NF, MtLine Creek Plateau (24,825 acres), Custer NF, MT, Custer NF, Mt Shoshone NF, WyoWilderness Study Area (51,961 acres), Targhee NF, Wyo- West Slope Tetons (47,448 acres), Targhee NF, Wy- Silver King (64,289 acres), Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, Montana, - Selkirks (95,967 acres), Idaho Panhandle NF, Idaho-Grizzly Peak (7,441 acres), Kootenai NF, Montana I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects threatened species and of climate change.I ask that the agency respond to each of them.I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. Dan Sullivan Chanhassen, MN

My name is Steven Simmons and I currently live in Oregon. I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Growing up in the 1970s, my dad took me all over the west on outdoor adventures, while stressing the importance of protecting and preserving public lands. I deeply respect our American heritage of public lands and wilderness. My late father would be deeply troubled about attempts to roll back protections that degrade this country's heritage. Road construction is expensive and fragments the environment. Some of my favorite national forests, like Mount Hood and Suislaw NF in OR, Bighorn NF in Wyoming, and Roosevelt and Arapaho NF in CO all would be negatively impacted. For these reasons I urge our federal government to maintain the Roadless Rule and to keep our public lands protected for the next generations of Americans, as my dad did for mine.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Spending time in nature is my way to appreciate God's good work. I hike and camp with family and loved ones. I share these places with my young child. I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) because what is at stake here is not abstract. The Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming holds inventoried roadless areas I care about directly: Piney Creek, Little Goose, Rock Creek, Walker Prairie, Grommund Creek, Sibley Lake, Bruce Mountain, Cloud Peak Contiguous, Bear Rocks, and Hideout Creek, together spanning hundreds of thousands of acres. Lost Water Canyon and Lost Water Canyon RNA in the Custer National Forest are in that same picture. These are the places my child deserves to know. The agency justifies this rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, and on that point the agency's own record answers the question directly. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." I think of the brave men and women who fight out of control wildfires. The agency's own data says roads make their work more dangerous and more frequent. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from this and must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The financial logic of this proposal does not hold up under the agency's own numbers. The agency's record acknowledges that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The most important thing is to take care of what we have first. If there is no money for maintenance, there is absolutely no money for anything new. The agency already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis. The proposal argues that state-by-state management can replace a national rule. The agency's own record quotes its prior position that the national rule embodied an "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach," 70 Fed. Reg. at 25,656, yet the Ninth Circuit rejected the state-by-state replacement that followed from exactly that reasoning. The agency has already made this argument, tried this approach, and lost. I want the agency to address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and to explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time a national rule was traded for state petitions. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit addressed that question and held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The court found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA, and found it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must address that holding and state plainly on the record what legal basis supports a contrary position now. As parents, we strive to give our kids more than we had. Wanting the best for our children is not only about college funds or belongings. It’s about their protections, their safety, their freedom. They deserve to know and see these untouched places. They deserve to appreciate them in the way you only can from the saddle of a horse, or the satisfaction after a long hike. The Custer and Gallatin units form the northeastern wall of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, sheltering grizzly bear, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, wolverine, elk, and bighorn sheep. Across the Rocky Mountain region, 325 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean fresh water is the direct source of life for towns. The ecosystems these roadless areas support are critical, not only to wildlife but to us human animals. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. My child should inherit more of these places, not fewer. Sincerely, A Proud Citizen of this Good Country