Read the comments.

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.

To the USDA Forest Service: I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and to ask that it be kept in place in full. I am an engineer and a father, and I want to be clear about where I stand. I do not believe any of our public lands should be taken away. These places belong to all of us, and most of all to our kids. Taking them back now, acre by acre, is something I cannot support. I will be honest: the outdoors is fairly new to me as something I lead my own family into. For much of my life it was not a big part of what I did. Over the last couple of years my wife and I have started taking our two kids out into the woods ourselves, and it has changed us. This coming summer we are planning to head out west and spend real time in our public lands and national parks. As an engineer, I plan things carefully, and the single biggest reason those plans are even possible is that this land is public, open, and undeveloped. I am trying to give my kids everything I can, and some of the best of it costs nothing and cannot be bought — it only has to be protected. Last year our family took a trip through the Black Hills National Forest and down into Colorado, and without question the time we spent in the forests was our favorite part of the entire trip. Being in nature was what we all remembered most. The Black Hills is one of the most beautiful places we have ever seen, some of the finest country in all of South Dakota, and it holds roughly 13,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas. It is one of the forests specifically named as losing protection under this proposal, and we do not want it stripped. Standing among those granite spires and pine forests, it is impossible to understand how anyone could look at that place and decide it needs more roads instead of more protection. That backcountry is exactly the kind of land this rescission would open to road building and logging, and we are saving for a small travel trailer for one reason: to reach more places like it while our kids are still young. I have looked at the reasons given for this change, and as someone who works with evidence for a living, they do not hold up. The wildfire argument is the one that bothers me most. A 2026 peer reviewed study of more than thirty years of national forest fire records found that ignition density was about four times higher within 50 meters of roads than in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and concluded that building roads into roadless areas is likely to result in more fires (Aplet et al., 2026). That matches plain common sense: most human caused fires start where people and vehicles can go. The current Rule already allows fuel reduction work where it is genuinely needed. What it stops is new road building and commercial logging. Calling more roads a fire solution gets the engineering backwards. There is also the matter of cost and water. Research found that watersheds shaped by roadless areas supply drinking water to at least 25 million Americans (Olden et al., 2026). At the same time, the Forest Service already carries a multibillion dollar maintenance backlog on roughly 370,000 miles of existing roads. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is not a responsible plan. No engineer would sign off on expanding a system that is already failing its upkeep. Sincerely, Luke Weber Apple Valley, Minnesota References Aplet, G. H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M. S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology, 22, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538

Hello, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration's proposal to rescind the nation's landmark roadless rule. This misguided action would open nearly 45 million acres of pristine national forests to road construction, logging, and other destructive development. The consequences of this decision would be far-reaching and devastating for our environment, wildlife, and communities. The roadless rule has been instrumental in preserving biodiversity and protecting our water resources. These untouched forests provide critical habitat for over 500 imperiled species and serve as the headwaters for major rivers that supply drinking water to more than 60 million people across 33 states. By allowing road construction, we risk introducing significant water pollution to these vital water sources. Contrary to the administration's claims, rescinding the roadless rule would actually increase wildfire risk. Scientific studies have shown that wildfires are four times more likely in areas with roads compared to roadless forest tracts. This fact directly contradicts the justification being used to push this harmful proposal forward. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a notice of intent with only a 21-day public comment period on issues to be considered in the proposed rule. This short timeline is inadequate for such a consequential decision. I urge you to advocate for an extended public comment period and to oppose this proposal when it comes before you. The final decision on this matter is anticipated in fall 2026, but action is needed now to prevent irreversible damage to our national forests. These forests are not just ecological treasures; they are also economic assets, supporting outdoor recreation industries and providing natural buffers against the impacts of climate change. I implore you to stand against the rescission of the roadless rule. Protect our national forests, endangered species, clean water, and the interests of the millions of Americans who benefit from these pristine wilderness areas. The legacy of our public lands and the health of our environment depend on your action to preserve the roadless rule. Thank you, Lindsay Born and raised in the Black Hills National Forest

To the USDA Forest Service: I am against the Proposed change to the Roadless Rule. Under the Summary of potential impacts, subtitle Recreation, I see mentioned the loss of quiet, remote, and self- reliant recreation. In the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota, the existing roads are overrun with ATV vehicles and jeeps. There are not enough employees to supervise the roads that we already have. Roads that regular 4 wheel drive vehicles could use several years ago are used down to bare rocks that are now impassable except by the ATVs that made it happen. The public needs roadless areas in the National Forests. These special lands of ours along with their wildlife inhabitants need to exist. I think the end of the Roadless Rule will bring loss of non-vehicular recreation and loss of wildlife habitat and loss of wild, quiet spaces for all of us. Thank you

In case you’ve forgotten your own founding principals, as Gifford Pinchot so aptly stated “WHEN CONFLICTING INTERESTS MUST BE RECONCILED, THE QUESTION SHALL ALWAYS BE ANSWERED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE LONG RUN”. These forests, rangelands, and natural areas belong to all of us - not just those who’s engines roar out through the forest quiet the loudest. Our National Forests are national treasures, and they deserve to be treated as such. If you want to see how roads impact a forest - look at the Black Hills NF. Fires, noxious weeds, land torn up, wildlife disturbed, water quality impacts, and the list goes on and on. There is no quiet in the Black Hills. There are no places untouched by tires. No day in the woods can be spent without the distant roar of UTV’s. What was once a wild place to be enjoyed by many, has been instead taken over by the few rich enough, lazy enough, and disconnected enough to think that the way to experience a forest is running a gas engine over a muddy trail. I want our children to know wild places. To hike, and hunt, and fish, and camp, and explore. All of these uses are lessened by opening our public lands to unfettered UTV and Jeep use. Our public lands are OURS. They are ALL OF OURS. They need to be protected for ALL OF US and the generations to come. We urge you not to roll back the roadless restrictions on our National Forests.

Re: Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66, Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation I live in Rapid City, South Dakota, and the Black Hills National Forest is my home forest. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed rescission of 36 CFR part 294, subpart B, and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full effect (the no-action alternative). Roadless land is scarce here. The agency's own inventory lists about 80,000 roadless acres in South Dakota, under 4 percent of the National Forest System land in the state. The Black Hills is already heavily roaded and logged. These few remaining acres hold the intact habitat, quiet backcountry, and headwaters that the rest of the forest has given up. Rapid City draws its drinking water from Rapid Creek, which rises in this forest. The economics in the proposed rule argue against the change. The agency estimates $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in new revenue to the Treasury and the Forest Service, against about $6.1 million a year in lost recreation benefits. The same agency reports a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for existing roads and bridges. New roads add to a system the agency already cannot afford to maintain. The wildfire rationale also falls short. The 2001 rule already permits cutting small-diameter trees to reduce fire risk and building roads where public health and safety require it. Most wildfires start close to roads, so more roads mean more ignitions. Forest plans change with every revision cycle. A national rule gives these areas durable protection, and it has done so for 25 years. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Rule. Megan Werpy Rapid City, South Dakota

I am a longtime resident of Hot Springs, South Dakota, and since I was a child, nature has been one of the most important and guiding forces in my life. Everywhere I have lived and everywhere I go, my connection to the natural world has been foundational to how I experience life. The forest, the mountains, the water, and wild places are where I feel safest, most connected, and most at home. I hike, walk, explore, and spend time on public lands, and I value them not only for recreation, but for the clean water, wildlife habitat, quiet, beauty, and sense of connection to place they provide. The Black Hills are home, and I believe we have a responsibility to protect the remaining places where forests can function with as little human disturbance as possible. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66). Roadless areas are some of the last places where wildlife can find relatively intact habitat and where natural ecological processes can continue without roads and the fragmentation, noise, traffic, and development that come with them. Once a road is built into a previously roadless area, the character of that place changes permanently. The loss is not simply the road itself. It is the access, disturbance, erosion, habitat fragmentation, and increased human activity that follow. Here in the Black Hills, roadless areas are already limited. The Forest Service's own records identify inventoried roadless areas within the Black Hills National Forest. These remaining intact areas are especially valuable because so much of the surrounding forest is already accessible by roads and subject to human use. We should be protecting what remains, not making it easier to fragment these places further. I am also concerned about the impact on water. The Black Hills are an important source of water for communities throughout the region. Forested headwaters and undisturbed landscapes help protect water quality and natural watershed function. Building roads into remote areas creates unnecessary risks of erosion, sedimentation, and disturbance to streams and wildlife habitat. I understand that the Forest Service faces real challenges, including wildfire, forest health, and changing climate conditions. But rescinding a nationwide protection for roadless areas is a blunt response to problems that vary greatly from place to place. If specific management actions are genuinely necessary to protect communities or restore forest health, those actions should be evaluated carefully and transparently without eliminating protections for all remaining roadless areas. I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and, where appropriate, consider stronger protections for remaining roadless lands. I also ask the Forest Service to extend the public comment period and hold meaningful public hearings so that people who live near and depend on these public lands have a real opportunity to be heard. These forests belong to all of us, including the generations who will come after us. Once roadless places are opened to roads and development, we cannot simply put them back the way they were. Please protect the wild and intact forests we still have. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Rajni Lerman Hot Springs SD

IN RE: FS-2025-0001; RIN-0596-AD66 I am against repealing 36-CFR-294 SUBPART B. The area I live in specifically concerns roadless areas in the Black Hills Region including Inyan Kara, Sand Creek, and Beaver Park on the Black Hills National Forest, and Indian Creek, Redshirt and Chalk Hills Roadless Areas on the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. I was born and raised in the foothills of the Black Hills over 70 years ago; and for the past 30 years have lived in a residential strip in the Black Hills National Forest where all houses along each side of the road back to National Forest land. I have witnessed the changes to land use in terms of the regulations; and of the attitudes of people in how to use the land. Overwhelmingly, for business purposes there is a desire to profit financially without regard for sustainability of resources - referencing primarily lumber, mining and recreational-driven businesses. I belong to the Norbeck Society which closely monitors the predominant lumber company in the area - which company routinely ignores the limits of trees to be taken by contract, and takes more than allotted. Over the decades I have been aware of the results of mining or exploratory companies who come initially to explore for minerals and then to mine or to flip the land to a mining company. I know that the Town of Keystone at fairly recently gave permission for exploring for gold and within a very few months had to shut down the exploration due to toxins seeping into the aquifer that provides town residents with water. I know of a spring-fed fountain built into a wall along a road by the CCC which had to be shut down in the 1980's due to poisoning by giardia due to grazing by cattle on National Forest land. This is both ground water and aquifers. Poisoned. I personally suffer almost year round the screaming noise of ATV's that roar down my residential road on their way to the back roads - to continue with their loud intrusive noise and sheer presence through the homes, the living rooms, the bedrooms, the grocery stores of the other flora and fauna for which the National Forests lands were set aside to live protected from our own species depredations. These ATV's drive the roads when wet, creating deep ruts and searching for the streams and bogs to splash through. Our tax dollars are spent yearly re-grading to re-level the roads and make them again drivable. The animals, fish and water plants all are trampled by parades of these ATV's which nearly always travel in large groups piling Pelion on Ossa.. I watch the parades return to the rental business down the road at the end of the day where ground water is then used by the hundreds of gallons to hose them clean. We all live on well and septic and, given global warming and droughts, we worry about our own well water drained dry to serve this one business - that's just our neighborhood out of many in proximity to this type business. I know how relatively few tourists visited the Hills in my childhood versus the enormous numbers who now travel today. The burden of learning more about our planet is outstripping the planet's ability to sustain this education and waste by people who never really learn about our species place here. Yes, I think it could be better if local National Forest offices had more control over their own areas to address the individual issues and characteristics. However, over the decades of my witnessing and following these decisions, I see that the local offices here bow all to easily to the almighty dollar and the desire of the businessmen who do not give a hang about the environment which they destroy with their business endeavors. They are in denial or choose to ignore this knowledge; much less take responsibility. Already more roads were built specifically for ATV's to plunder the land. I continually hear reports of other Hills area residents who witness the off-roading that extends beyond these roads. Lumbering roads decimate the land and assist with stripping the land of trees. Mining requires more access roads. All of these activities require staging areas that increase the acreage that gets scraped down to house equipment, working space, and open undesignated camping sites. I bear witness to the huge daily proliferation of our species out there over-running the fragile ecosystem. Therefore, I sadly insist that there by a central control over local regulation to help those who, in fact wish to curb this desecration of what sustains all, including our own lives. We need: clean oxygen, clean water, food to survive.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Bulldog section of the Centennial Trail is a fan favorite, and I know why: despite sitting inside a roadless area, it is easily accessible, and the descent after a hard-earned climb up is a ton of fun to ride down. I ride the Centennial Trail frequently, and I am writing because the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put that experience, and the land that makes it possible, at serious risk. Beaver Park, a 5,010-acre inventoried roadless area in the Black Hills National Forest, is the kind of place that earns its reputation quietly. Runners, hikers, and equestrian users all share this section of the Centennial Trail alongside mountain bikers. The views of Bear Butte are unbeatable, the fall colors are striking, and the peace the place carries is not incidental, it is the point. Additional roads in this area would interrupt the beauty and flow of the trail. That is not a small loss. Once a road goes in, the solitude and the natural rhythm of the landscape do not come back. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement undercuts the wildfire rationale offered for this rescission. The record 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 ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those findings and 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 economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own 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." Against that, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million. The Forest Service road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I ask that the agency explain on the record how an action whose own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding that system further. South Dakota holds 8 inventoried roadless areas totaling 79,597 acres, and across the Rocky Mountain region, which includes South Dakota, 325 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Bear habitat in these forests also carries documented sensitivity: the agency's record draws on the federal grizzly bear recovery plan to note that increased contact and conflict from open roads can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and that shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. These are the agency's own findings, and they deserve weight here. The regulatory flexibility analysis fails the small businesses actually working in these areas. The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities even while its own DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected, and its Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification was reached by spreading expenditure losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the potentially affected roadless areas. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on those specific businesses, not a national average that dilutes the real harm. Finally, this comment is itself a reliance interest. The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. Under established administrative law, an agency reversing course must account for the reliance its prior policy created. People who chose trails, planned trips, and built their outdoor lives around land protected by the Roadless Rule have done exactly that. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before proceeding further. Sincerely, Brittany Neiles Rapid City, SD

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

Prior to 2001, several studies had identified road construction and commercial logging activities to be the leading causes of permanent habitat fragmentation. In an effort to preserve remaining wild areas, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule – also known as the Roadless Rule – was proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and eventually passed. The specific goal of the Roadless Rule was to protect drinking water watersheds, preserve wildlife habitat and biodiversity, protect threatened and endangered species, maintain and preserve scenic areas and recreation opportunities, and to reduce recurring controversy over the management of roadless areas, but the primary purpose was to prohibit the construction of new roads while the agency already had a large maintenance backlog. The proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule states “the 2001 Roadless Rule's prohibitions have limited mechanical thinning options and some fire control tactics in inventoried roadless areas. Substantial acreage within potentially affected inventoried roadless areas has a relatively high likelihood of burning under high intensity conditions that are difficult to manage or could pose a risk to communities, infrastructure, or drinking water sources.” If the objective of federal government is to reduce the risk of wildfires in roadless areas of national forests, the only approach that should be entertained is an amendment to the existing Roadless Rule to allow for a wider range of hazardous fuels treatments rather than the construction of more roads. Currently, about 2 million acres (14%) of Inventoried Roadless Areas have received hazardous fuels treatments to reduce fire risk. Since 78% of human-caused wildfires originated within half of a mile of a road, increasing the number of roads in these areas will proportionally increase the number of forest fires. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, “Stormwater and road runoff are increasingly recognized forms of pollution that can contain chemicals harmful to fish and other aquatic animals.” Car tires contain a chemical known as 6 p-phenylenediamine (6PPD) that is integral to the life of car tires; however, 6PPD readily reacts with air to form a variant known as 6 p-phenylenediamine-quinone (6PPDQ) that is released into the environment as tires wear down from driving. Runoff and stormwater carries this compound into nearby bodies of water where fish and other aquatic animals are exposed to it. Two recently published studies have linked the presence of 6PPDQ in waterways to premature deaths in native coho salmon populations. Genome analysis suggests that 6PPDQ may cause arteries, veins, and the barrier between the blood and brain of the fish to be more permeable. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will increase the surface area of watersheds containing this harmful chemical and will further increase the likelihood of negatively impacting native fish populations. As any environmentalist would be quick to point out large-scale logging operations negatively impact forest health in both the near and long-term. During the life of a logging operation, forests are cleared, displacing wildlife and increasing soil erosion. After the operation has concluded, several studies – including a study on Exotic plant responses to large-scale commercial logging in ponderosa pine forests of the Black Hills National Forest – found that the number of noxious weed species drastically increases in the years following large-scale commercial logging operations. Many people remember the predatory and aggressive logging practices of the 1900s that decimated much of the remaining old-growth forests in the contiguous United States. Since its formation, the National Forest System has worked to preserve and protect the habitat for numerous species at have been or would be affected by large-scale commercial logging efforts. The rescission of the roadless rule potentially puts these species and their protected habitats in harm’s way. America is one nation, under God and we have been appointed with the stewardship of His creation. Preserving the natural beauty and resources of these roadless areas is our God-given duty, a duty that should not be left to the whim of corporate lobbying and greed; therefore, a firm, all-encompassing rule must remain in effect to continue to protect these lands from further habitat destruction. Do not rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Americas natural beauty has always played a major role in my life. Growing up, I went on countless trips with my family that involved visiting national and state parks. So far, Ive been to Badlands National Park, Black Hills National Forest, Custer State Park, Yellowstone National Park, and Denali National Park and Reserve. Its hard to deny that the United States is a beautiful country. When people talk about America the Beautiful, theyre talking about real forests and wildernesses that are protected under the Roadless Rule. For the sake of current and future generations, lets keep America beautiful. 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 have lived near the Black Hills National Forest my entire life- 56 years and counting. I grew up in these Hills and want them to stay as they are-roadless. I’m asking the U.S. Forest Service to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. I value our national forests and roadless areas for recreation, wildlife, clean water, and the wild landscapes they protect. I do not support rescinding the nationwide protections on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas. Please retain the Roadless Rule.

I support Alternative 1, leaving the 2001 roadless rule in place. I live near the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) which is 1,253,308 acres in size of which only 14,000 acres is designated as roadless. There are about 3,800 miles of roads with the BHNF. This area as well as other National Forests have road access to much of the area. Rescinding the rule will result in negative impacts on wildlife, increased construction and maintenance costs, more wildfires with the associated costs, and lost opportunities to find solitude for hikers, hunters, fishermen, and horse back riders.. The Forest Service has not been able to maintain the existing roads and trails and should not be tasked with maintaining new roads.

I have been a regular hiker in National and State Forests for over ten years. During that time, I have been a resident of California, Utah and Wyoming, experiencing firsthand the results of different state's forest management policies as well as federal policy. I have also seen personally taken before-and-after photos of the results of logging, and spoken to people in the industry. There is no doubt in my mind that we desperately need to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. To protect and preserve our National Forests as the priceless treasures that they are, we must reduce fire fuels and enable and maintain the necessary road access. Secondarily, though also important, National Forests are a public resource whose stated purpose under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, under which most national forests were established, is: "No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States…" Rescinding the Roadless Rule is a return to the integrity of the purposes for which National Forests were instituted. ref: https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/aboutus/histperspective.shtml I 100% agree with Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz when he said, “Active forest management is not an option. It’s essential. More than 40% of inventoried roadless areas, primarily in the West, have high or very high wildfire hazard potential. And only 5% of those areas have received hazardous fuels reduction treatments since 2014." Approximately 35% percent of national forest land is available for regularly scheduled timber harvest, and about ½ of 1 percent of those trees are harvested in any 1 year. This is just one example of how the planned and intended reduction of wildfire fuels in the forests is far below original calculations. ref. https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/releases/usda-acts-remove-roadless-rule-restrictions-exacerbate-rising, https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/aboutus/today.shtml Recent White house Administrations and misguided environmental groups have sought to limit human interference with the forests. Leaving the caretaking to Nature results in catastrophic wildfires, Nature's way of clearing out the forests of deadwood. Unfortunately, everything else in and near the forest will burn, too - animals, insects, birds, people, and homes. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, between 1983 and 2000, no single year had more than 7.4 million acres burned by wildfire in the U.S. After the Roadless Rule took effect in 2001, at least 13 years had burns exceeding 7.4 million acres, and three of those years exceeded 10 million acres, a heartbreaking 35% escalation in devastation. (see US Wildfires chart) To put these numbers in perspective, before the Roadless Rule, from 1989 to 2001, wildfires scorched 46 million acres in the U.S. In the 12 years from 2012 to 2024 - with the Roadless Rule "protecting" our forests for more than 20 years - the number of acres burned MORE THAN DOUBLED to almost 93 million acres destroyed by wildfire. ref. US Wildfires chart Those who blame climate change for increased wildfire devastation should be the loudest proponents of rescission of the Roadless Rule. If rising temperatures are literally fanning the flames, our mandate to act with proven stewardship strategies is that much more imperative. Aggressive thinning, controlled burns, and responsible harvesting are the sustainable, environmentally responsible paths to preserve our national forests. Proof that the Roadless Rule is, actually, groundless, can be found in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota and Wyoming. (see photo of the Black Hills National Forest) The areas inside the yellow lines in the photo were thinned in 2005. The areas outside are being devoured by beetles that were unable to penetrate the thinned areas. The thinned areas stand resilient, their canopies green and unbroken. Outside the thinned area is pestilence and death, brought to you by the policies and fallacies in the Roadless Rule and its supporters. ref: Black Hills National Forest photo To sum up, I love our forests. They are a source of solace, a respite from the cacophony of the digital world, and majestically beautiful. To continue to let them burn in the Roadless Rule's foolish pursuit of preservational purity would be ignorant and backwards - completely counterproductive to the goals of conservation. I support the USDA and the Forest Service in the rescission of the Roadless Rule.

I strongly oppose revisions to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We have very few natural areas remaining in our shared public spaces. The roadless rule is the best tool to ensure that these natural areas are preserved for future generations. By allowing the construction of roads for logging operations, increased motorized recreation, or for any other reason, these already very limited conservation areas will unquestionably be reduced and harmed. Natural spaces are a gift to humanity and to our nation; they were here long before we took stewardship of the land, and we have a profound moral obligation to ensure that we preserve them. Permitting logging or increased motorized access is incredibly short-sighted - it puts the interests of a few current stakeholders above the interest of the billions in future generations who will inherit these lands. We already have 149 million acres of national forest that are not subject to the roadless rule. The 44 million acres of protected forest is a tiny percentage of the land in our nation. The moment we introduce roads to these vanishingly few natural ecosystems, we will disrupt enormously complex ecological systems, further endangering already threatened species. We will also rob future Americans of the opportunity to witness undisturbed natural environments. These spaces are irreplaceable. We cannot undo the impact of disruption. I reject arguments that the introduction of roads to these spaces will allow local agencies to better manage healthy forest. I also strongly reject the notion that giving autonomy to local agencies is in the best interests of the nation. I live very near the Black Hills National forest in South Dakota and regularly spend time recreating in those spaces. I also value the contribution of the regional logging industry to our local communities and economy. However, the economic pressures and incentives that drive the logging industry are not always aligned with the best interests of future generations. Without the protection of the roadless rule, we will lose our irreplaceable natural spaces. It will only take a small mis-step from a regional authority, a few bad actors in the logging industry with good connections and deep pockets. As James Madison once wrote, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. And the same principle is true here. This is too important to leave to chance. Preserve this rule for those who come after us.

Subject: Public Comment in Support of Proposed Revisions to the Travel Management Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001-223869) I am writing as a local resident and frequent user of the Black Hills National Forest to express my strong support for the Forest Service’s proposed revisions to the Travel Management Rule. The Black Hills have a rich tradition of multi-use recreation, and expanding access to our public lands is critical for local communities. The current 2005 restrictions have often created unnecessary barriers for everyday citizens who want to explore and enjoy these lands. Shifting toward a presumption that favors access on existing roads and trails is a common-sense update that respects the public's right to utilize our federal lands. I specifically support these updates for the following reasons: 1. Restoring Access for Gold Prospecting Hobbyists: The Black Hills have a historic legacy of small-scale mining and gold prospecting. Under current restrictions, local hobbyists face immense hurdles simply trying to access valid claims or traditional panning areas. Reopening existing roads and trails ensures that prospectors can transport their equipment and responsibly enjoy this heritage hobby without facing arbitrary closures. 2. Empowering Local Managers: Removing rigid, top-down national restrictions allows our local Black Hills Forest Service officials to make decisions based on our unique local terrain and community needs, rather than a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington. 3. Modernizing Trail Rules: The integration of modern recreation, specifically Class 1 e-bikes and updated off-highway vehicles (OHVs), ensures that families, elderly citizens, and individuals with varying physical capabilities can continue to access the deep woods and trail networks of the Black Hills safely and legally. 4. Supporting Rural Economies: Outdoor recreation is a major economic driver for our gateway communities in South Dakota and Wyoming. Clear, expanded access will boost local businesses, hospitality, and tourism. Public lands belong to the public. These updates strike the right balance by cutting through red tape and prioritizing the responsible use and enjoyment of our forests. Thank you for moving forward with these revisions and for considering the input of local recreationalists.

The elimination of the Roadless Rule threatens 45 million acres, much of which is wilderness, that are currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Among the precious areas which are protected by the rule are Sand Creek, Inyan Kara and Beaver Park in the Black Hills National Forest, and Indian Creek, Red Shirt, Cheyenne River, First Black Canyon and Jim Wilson Canyon in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. The Black Hills National Forest, much loved by sportsmen and recreationists as well as local residents, already has over 7500 miles of forest system roads. The forest would actually be well-served if some existing roads were retired; degradation of our existing roadless areas would be a tragic mistake. The Black Hills are sacred to many Native tribes, including the Lakota, Nakota, Dakota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Arikara, Hidatsa and Mandan peoples. In addition to providing areas for traditional religious ceremonies, the forest contains ancient (and fragile) rock art which would clearly be threatened by additional road construction. Eliminating protection for our roadless areas raises the threat of reckless over-logging, the destruction of wildlife habitat, popular recreation areas, and clean drinking water that much of western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming depends upon. Construction of additional roads will doubtless lead to more human-caused fires. The threat of off-highway vehicles (ATV’s, UTV’s, side-by-sides and dirt bikes) would inevitably increase conflicts among recreational users of the Black Hills. The Forest Service currently has difficulty enforcing necessary protections, and unauthorized OHV routes are already degrading the Black Hills with dust, noise, congestion and damage to existing trails. We do not need a regulatory change that significantly worsens these problems. There is an urgent need to protect clean drinking water at a time of increasing drought in our region. Groundwater in the Black Hills is an interconnected system, and the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers protect our environment and our quality of life. Undisturbed creeks in the Black Hills support our wild trout population. There is also a need to protect endangered species, and increased human access in motorized vehicles will threaten our elk, mule deer, mountain lion, bighorn sheep, wild turkey, northern goshawk and other vital species in our region. For all of these reasons, we implore our federal government to leave the Roadless Rule intact.

I have a cabin near the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. In early 2000 there was no road restriction and ATVsand 4Wheel drive pickups drove all through the Federal land. There were no elk or Mountain Lions in the area. The Forest Service begin to restrict some of this traffic and destruction to habitat and created trails for ATVs and UTVs. The wildlife have returned and the habitat is coming back. Please do not remove regulations that have served these shrinking wild places. The Forest Service should be making these decisions.

I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My husband and I regularly camp and hike in National Forests around the country. We enjoyed the Sawtooth National Forest this May and have returned to the Black Hills National Forest multiple times. The Black Hills is where I began paying much closer attention to wildflowers and the smaller details of an intact forest ecosystem. I have also backpacked extensively in California forests. I am not opposed to logging or active forest management. We frequently camp in areas where timber has been harvested, and I recognize that National Forests are working forests with multiple uses. But preserving some large areas without roads is also an important public use of these lands. Roadless areas provide an experience that cannot be recreated simply by closing a road after it is built. Walking into a landscape without roads provides quiet, remoteness, intact habitat, and the opportunity to experience nature with relatively little human alteration. For me, that also has a spiritual value. Seeing an intact forest—its trees, wildflowers, wildlife, streams, and terrain—is one of the few ways we can still see, as closely as possible, what God created rather than a landscape redesigned for human purposes. I am particularly concerned that the stated wildfire rationale does not justify eliminating protections nationwide. Research cited during this rulemaking indicates that wildfire ignitions occur at substantially greater density near roads than within inventoried roadless areas. The Forest Service should address that evidence and explain why opening currently roadless areas to additional road construction would reduce wildfire risk rather than potentially increase human-caused ignitions. The agency should also consider the cumulative effect of replacing a nationwide roadless protection with individual project decisions. A particular road may appear minor when considered separately, but repeated decisions over many years could gradually eliminate the very characteristic the Rule was intended to preserve. Once roads penetrate an intact landscape, restoring genuine roadlessness is much more difficult than allowing harvested trees to regrow. I recognize that some areas may require mechanical treatment, wildfire mitigation, or other active management. But that supports a targeted approach, not complete rescission. If existing exceptions are inadequate, the Forest Service should identify the specific management problems and adopt narrowly tailored additional exceptions where necessary. I therefore ask the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Rule and, before making any final decision, to: 1. **Analyze the cumulative loss of roadless character** that could result from replacing nationwide protection with individual forest-level and project-level road decisions. 2. **Address the evidence concerning wildfire ignitions near roads** and explain why additional road construction into currently roadless areas would advance the stated wildfire-reduction objective. 3. **Evaluate roadlessness as a distinct recreational, ecological, and experiential resource**, including quiet, remoteness, intact habitat, opportunities to observe natural systems, and the ability to travel through large undeveloped landscapes. 4. **Explain why targeted measures are insufficient**, including existing exceptions, additional narrowly tailored exceptions, or geographically limited treatment of areas presenting demonstrated wildfire or forest-health risks. 5. **Consider an alternative that preserves the general prohibition on new roads** while allowing necessary management in specifically identified high-risk areas. Our National Forests have room for logging, active management, roads, motorized recreation, and developed recreation. They should also preserve some places where the road ends.