Read the comments.

As lifelong Wyoming resident, hunter, angler and seasoned user of our national forests I have seen first hand how the Roadless Rule has conserved some of our nation's most intact fish and wildlife habitat, protected clean water and sustained outstanding backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities. I spend on average over 30 days annually in our national forests primarily in the western United States. I recently spent over two weeks hunting and camping in the Bridger-Teton National Forest and another two weeks in the Shoshone National Forest. Roadless does not mean unmanaged. The rule allows important management activities, including hazardous fuels reduction and habitat restoration, while keeping these lands open to hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation. Claims that wholesale rescission is necessary to address wildfire risk aren't true. The Roadless Rule already provides flexibility for fuels treatments and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. And recent research found that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely to occur near roads than in roadless forests, underscoring that more roads are not necessarily the answer to wildfire risk. The Roadless Rule also makes fiscal sense. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of roads and faces approximately $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance, with more than half attributable to roads alone. Adding new roads and long-term maintenance obligations won't solve that problem. I was appalled at the conditions of the existing roads in these national forests. On a recent hunting and fishing trip in September 2026 in the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests, most of the roads I encountered had not been adequately maintained for months. Some of these roads were nearly impassible in a four wheel drive truck. As a hunter, angler and user of our national forests I support active, science-based forest management to address wildfire, forest health and responsible access. But wholesale elimination of the Roadless Rule is not the answer - it would remove longstanding protections from more than 44 million acres of national forest backcountry across 37 states. The Forest Service must keep our roadless areas wild, productive and accessible for generations to come and support the No Action Alternative. As a hunter, angler and outdoor enthusiast, I support the No Action Alternative and recommend that the United States Forest Service adopts the No Action Alternative.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I grew up in Jackson Hole, Wy and now live in Montana and use public lands all the time to hike, climb, raft, and explore the lands that have been protected so that people can use them for exactly that reason and I could not imagine a world where I let alone everyone else no longer has access to these lands. Being able to recreate in the Custer Gallatin National Forest and the Bridger-Teton National Forest is very important to me. These areas also provide vital habitat for threatened and endangered species, and the rest of the wildlife living there that would no longer have an intact habitat if busy roads were built in areas that are currently Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that would no longer be protected if the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is rescinded. The areas also protect critical municipal watersheds and clean drinking water for Americans, which would be harmed by rescinding the rule. In addition to this the U.S. Forest Service already has nearly $9 million of agency wide maintenance backlog, and building more roads would strain public funds. Additionally claims that repealing the rule would lower wildfire risk are contradicted by studies that show more roads frequently increase human caused wildfires.

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.”

I am opposed to repeal of the roadless rule because I frequently recreate in National Forests that will be effected and recreation with the current amount of roads is completely sufficient to fulfill more than a lifetime of recreation in these places. It is worth noting that I often recreate in my overlanding vehicle, which is a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 with an AT Overland Atlas camping topper that is specifically designed for overloading, which is exploring backcountry roads (primarily in national forests) and camping. I often string together trips of 2-5 days overloading in various national forests. (I will provide my experience doing so at the end of this comment.) Due to the plethora of road options already available in National Forestland, which is enough to satisfy a lifetime of use, the addition or more roads is not a compelling rationale for this proposal. Specifically, these are the reasons I am opposed to repeal of the roadless rule. 1. Impact on nearby National Parks: National Forests play a critical role in the National Park System by often surrounding National Parks and thus serving as a buffer between pristine parkland and wilderness areas and human activity. This is the case for nearly all the major parks in the park system, including the Crown Jewels of the National Parks Service, which will be directly impacted by the recession of the roadless rule—Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, Mount Ranier, Yosemite, North Cascades, Olympic, Everglades, Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Redwood, Crater Lake, Shenandoah, Wrangell St. Elias, and Great Smokey Mountains. It is additionally the case for lesser known, but still important, national parks such as Theodore Roosevelt, Badlands, Guadalupe Mountains, Lassen, Pinnacles, Voyaguers, Mesa Verde, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, New River Gorge, as well as other national park units such as Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The impact on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem looks particularly acute. The GYE, which includes Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and several impacted National Forests — Custer-Gallatin NF, Shoshone NF, Bridger-Teton NF, Caribou-Targhee NF. Like the other National Parks mentioned above, Yellowstone greatly benefits by being completely surrounded by National Forest land. In fact, also like many of these other National Parks, it is impossible to enter Yellowstone without passing through a National Forest. Simply put — increasing roads and industrial motor vehicle traffic in national forestland will adversely impact the ability of people to get into the parks and will have an adverse effect on nearby wildlife and wilderness areas. 2. Impact on last remaining intact ecosystems Personally, when I camp and backpack, I do it in an intact ecosystem. Whether in/around Yellowstone, Tongass NF, Chugach NF, Superior NF / Boundary Waters, or other roadless wilderness areas, these areas are few and far between and provide solitude that is simply unavailable in forestland that permit roads. The personal benefits to me, my family, and my friends are significant. These areas provide time and space and silence for personal reflection and personal growth. Adding additional roads into roadless areas threatens this recreation. It is also worth noting that these areas are some of the last areas WITHOUT ROADS in the world, so the only areas that permit space for reflection away from modern society. These areas need to be preserved as is for this unique and limited experience. The estimated loss of $6.1M annually is a ridiculous underestimate that completely lacks support. The real total is far greater. 3. No definition of the “regulatory burden” that will allegedly be relieved. There is no real definition of what the exact “regulatory burden” that USFS claims is present. If this is just another way of stating that this current government just doesn’t like the rule, then that is not a persuasive reason to repeal it. Moreover, the rationale is full of vague, undefined justifications that do not hold up to scrutiny: - “Constrains responsible officials from exercising the timely, place-based discretion…” - “Evolving national priorities and changed conditions…” - “Removed important management tools for key areas…” - “Unique ecological, economic, and social needs of their communities…” These are vague, boilerplate terminologies for which no concrete examples are given in the rationale. Indeed, there are no examples given of any local forest service officials expressing desire for more “flexibility to address conservation and resource issues” by repealing the roadless rule. Absent any examples, the rationale for this repeal cannot stand. (To be continued - 1 of 2)

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.

For most of my youth and all of my adult life, I have spent many days, weeks, and years exploring and enjoying the Bridger-Teton National Forest as well as the nearby Shoshone National Forest. Hiking, camping, and marveling at the beauty of the landscape of these forests has been what I choose to do whenever I have the opportunity ever since I was old enough to make the choice. These trips were not only formative but continue to be life defining. Any loss of the natural beauty and outdoor access would be a loss in countless ways. Activities that support self reliance, curiosity, strength, and solitude are nearly impossible to find in modern times, and land like this is an amazing asset to the American people. It calls back to what Americans have been doing since they first established this country. Our most famous explorers and leaders all knew the majesty of this important landscape and strove to protect it. The Roadless Rule is currently the only safeguard we have to protect our American values, and our only chance to salvage the last frontier Americans have to practice our self-reliance and re-discover our history. I don't want to look at my children one day and shrug when they ask what happened to the forests. I don't want to live in a future where I can't give them the same life-enriching experiences that made me the proud independent American I am today. The Roadless Rule has to be protected. This is a matter of national security.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about these inventoried roadless areas: - Pyramid (24,347 acres), Eldorado NF, California - West Slope Winds (143,252 acres), Bridger-Teton NF, Wyoming 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 of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: The small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it I hike and camp in these areas, and the small outfitters and guides who work this same country help people like me get out there. They deserve a real assessment. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, and concedes some firms may lose these receipts. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Issue 2: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed I plan trips into these areas year after year, counting on the protection that keeps them what they are. That reliance is exactly what the agency asked commenters to describe. 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 Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is such an interest. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Issue 3: The agency's own fire data cuts against the proposal I hike and camp in this country, and fire shapes every trip I plan. If the agency's own data ties ignitions to road access, I want that weighed honestly. Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The effects analysis itself concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. I ask that the agency quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. Issue 4: Road sediment is quantified and then set aside I paddle water that starts in this country, and clean, free-running rivers are the whole reason I go. What roads send into a watershed lands directly on people like me. The DEIS: skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." The number appears in the document; no projection of sediment delivery follows it. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas. 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. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Maggie Phillips California

I am writing to oppose any revision to the Roadless Rule that would permit new roads, development, or commercial activity in the protected roadless areas of our national forests. I live in Maryland and travel regularly to national forests in other states to hike and backpack. Roadless areas shelter wildlife, protect clean water, sustain biodiversity, and store carbon. They also offer recreation and solitude that can't be recovered once development moves in. Two places in particular matter to me. I have backpacked on the west side of the Wind River Range in the Bridger-Teton National Forest [number of trips], most recently in [year]. [One specific Wind River detail.] The Bridger-Teton has roughly 1.43 million acres of inventoried roadless area that this rescission would affect. Closer to home, I hiked the Roaring Plains loop in West Virginia's Monongahela National Forest in 2025. It felt like raw wilderness, with abundant wildlife and some of the most diverse plant life I have seen on the East Coast. Together with neighboring Flatrock Plains, the Roaring Plains form the highest plateau in the eastern United States, yet when Congress designated the Roaring Plains West Wilderness in 2009, it protected only part of that high country. Roaring Plains North and Roaring Plains East still depend on the Roadless Rule. The agency's main justification for rescission is wildfire risk, but the 2001 rule already allows for that work. It permits cutting small-diameter timber to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, and it permits road construction when needed to protect public health and safety from an imminent threat of fire. If the agency believes these exceptions are inadequate, it should identify the specific fuels reduction projects the rule has prevented. Removing protections from nearly 45 million acres is not a proportionate response to a problem the agency has not documented. The effects of a new road reach well beyond the road itself. Roads fragment habitat, cause erosion, carry invasive species into new places, and bring more people along with more pressure for further development. Once an intact forest has been opened up, its wild character and ecological value are very hard to bring back. National forests belong to all of us and should be managed for the public's long-term benefit. I ask the agency to select the no-action alternative in the draft environmental impact statement, keep the current Roadless Rule in place, and reject any proposal that would weaken protections for roadless lands.

My name is Scott McGee, and I work on USFS lands and hold a concession permit with the Bridger-Teton National Forest, so Roadless Areas are integral to my livelihood. With about half of all National Forest land already open to drilling, logging, and mining, and less than twenty percent protected as Wilderness, remote Roadless Landscapes - and the clean air and water, intact habitat, pristine forests they, and the unparalleled opportunities for recreation they encompass - are a significant and integral piece to the wildland network here in Wyoming and across the country. Rescission of the Roadless Rule would expose these areas to timber extraction and other threats. Proponents of Roadless Rule rescission argue that doing so is necessary to expand timber and energy development to increase revenue, to more effectively manage wildfires, and to increase local control. Studies have shown, however, that invalidating the Roadless Rule and opening backcountry forests to new roads will do nothing to prevent wildfires, and will likely exacerbate the issue. Studies also show that the investment made by protecting these forests far outweighs the short-term monetary gain, if any, that would be made from extractive activities. And, as past public comment periods show, locals have clearly expressed their desire to keep roadless area protections in place. I strongly support the “No Action” Alternative 1 that would maintain protections for our Roadless Forests, and strongly oppose Alternatives 2 and 3, which would strip their protections. Roadless Areas are critical to fresh drinking water, animal habitat, and opportunities for recreational access. I call 'Baloney' on claims that this action is in order to better respond to wildfire using the science that the majority of wildfires start within a quarter mile of a road. I would like to remind the USDA that they cannot afford the roads already on our National Forest lands , making it irresponsible and nonsensical to build more. Out of a very lengthy list of reasons to keep the Roadless Rule in place, perhaps the most relevant and important argument is that it is what the American people, whose public lands it protects, are in overwhelming favor of!

Hello. I am an engineer for the energy industry who (in addition to my engineering degree) also holds a degree in Wildlife Biology from a top agriculture University. In addition to my professional credentials, I have also contributed thousands of volunteer hours to the exploration & mapping of caves across the U.S., including those in the Grand Canyon NP, Mammoth Cave NP, Tonto National Forest, & Fern Cave Federal Wildlife Refuge. I have also volunteered as a citizen scientist assisting the collection of microbes caves. Those microbes are studied at top universities by labs focused on novel drug discovery, material science, & carbon sequestration. My recreational interests are extensive -- I cave, rock climb, backpack, day hike, overland/off-road, etc. throughout the United States. In the last 10 years, I have travelled to several dozen National Forests for these activities including the Chattahoochee NF, Bridger-Teton NF, Daniel Boone NF, Monongahela NF, Petrified Forest NF, & Shasta-Trinity NF. While doing so, I strive to shop locally, dine locally, & support the small rural towns. For me, the biggest draw to areas such as this is the remote & unbroken environment. As any wildlife biologist can attest, habitats change dramatically when the continuous forest is interrupted by open space such as those created by roads. Additionally, as any caver can attest, some of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet can be hiding in plain sight (often just under our feet). I am especially concerned about sedimentation caused by building roads & logging in areas that would have otherwise been roadless. Not only can such activities degrade drinking-water supplies on the surface, but it can also destroy underground conduits of water such as those found in karst landscapes. This impact wields a double-edged sword: both the humans & the habitats that are reliant on the underground water supply are jeopardized. This impact isn't limited to a few rural towns or scattered populations, either. Nearly 40% of the drinkable groundwater in the U.S. comes from karst aquifers! Professionally, I am no strange to Federal documentation. I frequently write supporting documents for nuclear power plants that are reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I draw upon this experience when I review the documentation "supporting" the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule & I am deeply troubled by the gaps in supporting evidence as well as failures of adequate planning. Below is an example of such: The DEIS does not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. The USFS states this itself: "The alternatives evaluated in detail in this DEIS focus on the geographic locations (boundaries) in roadless rulemaking" (DEIS p. 34). Alt. 1 retains the 2001 Rule's prohibitions; Alt. 2 removes them nationwide; Alt. 3 "would continue the existing Rule's exceptions and provides for locally led boundary modifications" (DEIS p. 35). No alternative analyzed in detail varies the prohibitions & exceptions themselves according to stated resource criteria. NEPA requires "a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action... that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal," 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C)(iii), & the DEIS cites the parallel requirement at 7CFR1b.7(h) on the same page where it describes its own range as boundary-focused. The rest of this comment is attached as a file because the online portal's character limit is preventing the discussion of the matter in full.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Dear U.S. Forest Service Officials, I respectfully urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and reject the proposed rescission. Roadless lands are not idle land. They supply clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation to communities nationwide, and rescission would do far more harm than good. WHAT IS AT STAKE (Forest Service roadless inventory) - Deschutes NF, central Oregon: about 137,000 acres protecting the headwaters of the Deschutes and Metolius rivers. Oregon's roadless lands protect drinking water for about 800,000 people, including Bend. - Wallowa-Whitman NF, northeast Oregon: about 515,000 acres. Its mountain streams supply Baker City, one of only two Oregon cities whose water is clean enough to go unfiltered. - Gifford Pinchot NF, southwest Washington: about 213,000 acres. Its streams supply drinking water to communities and support threatened Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and the northern spotted owl. - Superior NF, northeast Minnesota: about 62,000 acres bordering the Boundary Waters, home to moose and threatened Canada lynx. - White Mountain NF, New Hampshire and Maine: about 235,000 acres, including headwaters of the Pemigewasset River, which forms the Merrimack, a drinking water source for Manchester, Nashua, and Massachusetts towns. - Bridger-Teton NF, western Wyoming: about 1.4 million acres at the headwaters of the Snake and Green rivers, feeding the Columbia and Colorado systems, with grizzly bears, wolverines, lynx, and native cutthroat trout. Nationally, roadless watersheds supply drinking water to about 25 million Americans. THE FOREST SERVICE'S OWN SCIENCE The agency's report Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information (PNW-GTR-509) found that roads contribute more sediment to streams than any other land management activity, and that most sediment from timber harvest is tied to roads. Forest Service research on Washington's Clearwater River found fine sediment making up 15 to 25 percent of spawning gravels in heavily roaded basins, smothering salmon eggs. That matters: the Columbia Basin once produced 10 to 16 million salmon a year, and logging and road building were among the causes of its decline, alongside dams. The current DEIS itself acknowledges that new roads and logging could bring more human-caused fires, sedimentation, harm to threatened and endangered species, and recreation losses. WILDLIFE Roadless areas cover about 2 percent of U.S. land but support roughly 25 percent of threatened and endangered species. In Idaho, 75 percent of Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat is in roadless areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has called roads probably the most imminent threat to grizzly habitat. Roads also fragment migration routes and push elk out of secure cover: in Wyoming, hunters in mostly roadless country harvest about one bull elk per 2.4 square miles, versus one per 25 square miles in heavily developed areas. THE COST OF ROADS The proposed rule anticipates permanent roads could be built across 18.2 million acres now protected. Yet the Forest Service already manages over 370,000 miles of roads with a maintenance backlog the agency puts at about $6.9 billion, and fewer than one in five roads is fully maintained. Neglected roads wash out, plug culverts, and send sediment into streams, and deferred repairs grow costly. Former Chief Mike Dombeck noted that reconstructing five miles of one road cost $1.4 million when $100,000 in earlier upkeep would have preserved it. The DEIS projects just $5 to $11 million a year in new timber revenue and admits this would not cover the cost of building and maintaining new roads. Adding roads the agency cannot maintain shifts the bill to taxpayers and downstream communities. WILDFIRE The rule already allows thinning and road access to reduce fire risk, and areas near roads have recorded nearly four times as many human-caused ignitions as roadless areas. I ask the Forest Service to keep the Roadless Rule in place and pursue any needed changes through targeted reform with full public input. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Marguerite Nico Allen, Texas

I strongly oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would directly degrade one of the most fundamental and unique expressions of American freedom: our privilege to explore some of the few remaining wild areas in our country. I am an avid climber, trail runner, and backpacker on public lands throughout the US. Although I live in Colorado, which is fortunate enough to have state protections, I recreate around Millcreek Canyon and the Wasatch Range in Utah, the Bridger-Teton National forest is an extremely special place for me and my family, I've hiked extensively throughout the North and Central Cascades in Washington, and just this spring I spent a week camping and climbing throughout the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. Sometimes freedom comes through restraint. Areas without modern development allow for a unique, key human experience. Preserving the wild backcountry for today's Americans and future generations is critical for our spirit and well-being. An area without modern development allows us to be free. It is the truest expression of liberty. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would needlessly impinge upon this freedom that has been preserved for so many Americans. The science does not show that more roads would lessen wildfire danger. In fact, studies suggest that roads directly increase the threat. And land managers already face a massive, costly backlog (over $6 billion) in maintaining the roads they already have. In the meantime, it would put additional negative pressure on wildlife already facing threats from climate change and development, threaten water quality for animals and humans alike, and more. The fact that the US still has these wild, untouched areas is extremely unique. Most countries do not. We are so lucky, and it's truly part of what makes America great. It just takes restraint to keep it that way. So for these reasons, I oppose fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule. I support the No Action Alternative.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Everyone deserves to have access to intact, beautiful landscapes; not just for recreation, but for the ecosystem services that these places provide. The implementation of the Roadless Rule has helped maintain these ecosystems by protecting intricate watersheds, swaths of forests, and a plethora of wildlife. The agency's proposal to remove the Roadless Rule will have long-lasting, negative consequences on unique ecosystems that bring so much enrichment to millions of Americans. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I fish for rainbow trout, bull trout, and cutthroat trout in the Salmon-Challis National Forest, including within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. Many of the places I fish are roadless or connected to roadless areas, and they boast relatively healthy streams because of it. The agency's own record states that roads and their skid trails and landings contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, and that sedimentation from harvest can promote excessive substrate movement and negatively impact fish such as bull trout. Although this area is not at threat due to Idaho's Roadless Rule, this forest's ecosystem and waters rely on the health of surrounding national forests in neighboring states like Montana. I can't imagine how many places such as this one will be lost if the Roadless Rule is rescinded. I ask the agency to explain on the record what specific finding it relies on to conclude that expanded road access will not increase sediment loads in streams that currently support bull trout, cutthroat trout, and the other native species verified in that forest and other forests outside the state of Idaho. I have hiked, camped, and photographed in the Bridger-Teton National Forest for a good portion of my life, since I grew up near it. I was there twice in the last 3 months. The Bridger-Teton is the western wall of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the largest intact temperate ecosystem in the world. It holds 19 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,417,499 acres. The elk herds that winter in the National Elk Refuge depend on summer range in these roadless mountains. The forest creates the habitat connectedness that grizzly bear, gray wolf, cutthroat trout, trumpeter swan, and sage grouse need to survive and thrive. It also supports the national parks it surrounds; when overcrowding limits access to Grand Teton and Yellowstone, the Bridger-Teton is where people like me still go. I go there to see beautiful, unique landscapes and wildlife that people have spent decades restoring and protecting. The agency built Alternative 3 because commenters asked it to maintain protections for big game habitat, fisheries, and wildlife connectivity, then chose the alternative that protects none of it. The agency must explain why it discarded that public demand. On wildfire, the agency's own text 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." Most human-caused wildfires are started near roads. More roads means more wildfires, which means more taxpayer money spent fixing preventable problems. The proposal invokes wildfire management as a reason to rescind the rule. That reasoning runs directly into the agency's own data. I ask that the agency reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence. The agency's own record states: "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." We should maintain the roads we already have, not spend money on new roads with no guaranteed economic benefit to the agency or local communities. Our public lands should be managed with the public's interests in mind. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write the rule. It has held none to undo it. I mourn the places I never got to see because of poor decisions made by previous generations. I want my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities I have had to enjoy these roadless areas. Clean water, intact habitat, and roadless country are not preferences of a special interest. They are what the public asked for, and the public has not changed that answer. Sincerely, Abbie Johnson Moscow, ID

Subject: Strong Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID: FS-2025-0001) – Support for the No Action Alternative Dear Secretary Rollins: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed total or partial rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I strongly urge the agency to select the No Action Alternative and preserve this critical nationwide conservation policy. My opposition is rooted in deep personal and professional experience, including my time as an outdoor recreation and tourism professional in Alaska, and as a former wildland firefighter on the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming. Having lived and worked in several states directly benefiting from the Roadless Rule—including Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, and California—I understand both the operational realities of wildland fire management and the irreplaceable ecological and economic value of intact backcountry ecosystems. I refute the fire suppression myth. The primary administrative justification for this rescission is that the 2001 Roadless Rule creates regulatory burdens that hinder effective wildfire risk reduction and fire suppression. As a former wildland firefighter, I know this insinuation is factually incorrect and misrepresents actual emergency operations. The 2001 Roadless Rule has never prevented wildland firefighters from effectively suppressing active wildfires. During an incident, fire management personnel possess the clear administrative authority to construct handlines, establish containment zones, and utilize heavy equipment—including bulldozers and chainsaws—on an as-needed basis to protect life and property. Emergency fire suppression actions do not require permanent road infrastructure, nor do they require the complete repeal of a foundational national conservation rule. In fact, constructing a permanent web of timber and resource roads into these pristine backcountry areas often increases wildfire risks. Roads act as primary corridors for human activity, significantly elevating the likelihood of human-caused ignitions. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens nearly 400 threatened and endangered species (along with nearly 3,500 sensitive species identified in Forest Service reviews) across nearly 45 million acres of national forests. Carving up these 44.7 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) will fragment vital contiguous habitats and directly threaten fragile, specialized ecosystems. Based on my time living across the American West and Alaska, I am deeply concerned about the specific species that will suffer if these protections are stripped away: •Wyoming & Colorado: Fragmentation of critical winter range and migration corridors for elk, mule deer, and the Greater Sage-Grouse. •Alaska (Tongass National Forest): Destruction of old-growth canopies vital to the Alexander Archipelago wolf and the nesting habitats of Bald Eagles. •Pacific Northwest & California: Degradation of pristine watersheds necessary for the survival of wild runs of spring Chinook salmon (such as those in the Klamath River Basin), Bull trout, and Steelhead, and all five species of Pacific Salmon. •Regional Apex Predators: Encroachment into core security habitats needed for the recovery of Grizzly bears and Lynx My conclusion is that the 2001 Roadless Rule is an incredibly successful, broadly supported policy that safeguards clean drinking water, native biodiversity, and remote recreation economies. Handing these wild spaces over to localized, piecemeal forest plans under the guise of fire safety is an operational mistake and an ecological tragedy. Protect our wildlands, support our firefighters with factual management practices, and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting the No Action Alternative. Sincerely, Nick Horras Frankfort, Illinois (Former Bridger-Teton National Forest Wildland Firefighter, former resident of Colorado, Alaska, and California)

I oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule. Please select the no-action alternative. I live on the edge of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. I backpack, fish, camp, hike, hunt, birdwatch, meditate and wander in its roadless areas, alone and with my family, all year. It has become a meaningful part of our lives and we want it preserved for the generations after us. I read the proposed rule. Its own findings don't support a nationwide repeal. Local management problems call for local fixes. You say wildland-urban interface overlaps 24 percent of roadless areas. The current rule already allows thinning for wildfire risk and emergency roads. So why repeal protections on the other three-quarters? Why not limit changes to the interface, or fix the exception process you say is too slow? You describe the new management opportunities as "modest and localized," and you admit more access can mean more human-caused fires. What is the net effect on wildfire risk? The proposal doesn't say. I spent my career as a professional investor, and these numbers don't work. Best case, by your own estimate, is $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue, and you call that case unlikely. Against that you list $6.1 million a year in recreation losses and a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on roads you already have. Who pays to build and maintain new ones? The 2001 rule existed partly because the agency couldn't maintain its road system. What has changed? You acknowledge new roads cost quiet, remote recreation. In a time of mental health decline, degrading these forests is a terrible idea. Does the $6.1 million figure count the health value of that quiet? If not, it should. You lean on forest plans to limit the damage, then note those plans can be amended to allow more roads and logging. What happens then? Which Bridger-Teton roadless acres does the current plan open? Keep the rule. Fix specific problems with specific solutions. I'd like a response to each numbered point in the Final EIS. Gregory Mattiko, Jackson, Wyoming

I respectfully urge the US Forest Service to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting Alternative 1: No Action. In 2001, As a citizen volunteer, I communicated with Montanans about their use of roadless areas and the potential benefits of a Roadless Rule to Montanans, to national forests in Montana and other large US forested areas. I worked with many others throughout our state. Along with the public participation in other states, a consensus was established that resulted in the Roadless Rule. Participation of the public at ground level was essential in establishing the Roadless Rule. Unfortunately, public participation, people communicating with each other and with the government at local levels is missing in this proposal. Due to its many benefits, people realize throughout the country realize that the Roadless Rule is even more valuable now than in 2001. Although one of the priorities of this proposal is building new roads in prevention of forest fires, the draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that new roads will lead to significantly more wildfires, not fewer, and result in increased risk of fires near communities such as many rural communities near roadless in areas in Montana and other states. According to Montana’s Senator, Tim Sheehy states, in his Aug 29, 2026, guest column in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, “The wildland-urban interface is the new front line.” Developing fire-hardened landscapes and investing in fire-safe infrastructure is the path forward. He also states we should centralize wildland-urban interface planning and suppression as a goal, focusing on areas that threaten population centers and prioitize life-saving action. Clearcutting forests to build new roads in roadless areas is the opposite of Senator Sheehy’s recommendations. Additionally, evidence shows that most wildfires are human caused and increased by drought, high wind, high temperatures, and low humidity. These factors are all on the rise. Besides increasing the risk of wildfires, wildfires cause sedimentation to increase which harms fisheries, spread weeds, and destroys wildlife habitat. New road construction would add to the already immense, costly backlog of UFS road maintenance projects that have been delayed for years. If the Roadless Rule were rescinded, about 6 million acres of wild national forest lands in Montana would be at risk commercial logging and road building. Nationwide that includes the risk for about 45 million backcountry acres. Backcountry roadless areas in Montana, including the Gallatin National Forest, Bridger-Teton National Forest, and Badger-Two Medicine are places where I walk, hike, cross-county ski and engage in birdwatching, wildlife watching, and other forms of quiet recreation. Roadless areas provide key connectivity areas and migration corridors for Montana’s iconic wildlife such as elk, mule deer, antelope, grizzly bears, moose and Canada lynx. Some of the most secure habitats for fish and wildlife exist in roadless areas. Roadbuilding and commercial development would lead to loss of habitat and increase the risk of human-caused mortality of wildlife. I oppose the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule because rescinding the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of wildfire, harm wildlife and wildlife habitat, and harm the public’s ability to recreate, hunt, fish, and fully enjoy the multiple uses of roadless public lands. I urge the Forest Service to follow established science and the will of the people by retaining the Roadless Rule.

I would like to write in to strongly oppose the proposed removal of the roadless rule. I live near the Bridger-Teton NF and work as a wildland firefighter. There is already a huge issue with inadequate funding and personnel to maintain the roads we do have. This backlog of maintenance should be a higher priority versus establishing new roads. Additionally, with the increasing use of aircraft on wildfires, roads are becoming less and less important for accessing lightning fires and often lead to more human caused fires. The wildfire issue is simply a red herring. As far as extracting resources and logging the financially viable timber on the Bridger-Teton is very low. The timber is generally low valley and mills far away. Timber near roads now is not being logged. Finally the explosion of off road vehicle use is a detrimental to our wild places and wildlife. I both snowmobile and dirt bike and do not see a need to more roads. It is becoming increased difficult to get away from UTVs when elk and deer hunting. Leave the wild places wild to be explored on foot or horse. The Roadless Rule should remain in place and it allows avenues through due process for new roads in specific cases that are needed.

I have enjoyed National Forest Lands my entire life and founded a hiking business, The Hole Hiking Experience, in Jackson, WY to share the pristine beauty of our protected lands. I know the importance of protection to allow nature to be in balance. We must protect clean air, water, wildlife habitats and our ability to experience solitude. Once changed, we cannot ensure protection of this amazing resource. Voices must be heard for the wildlife and future generations with NO CHANGE. I have shared the millions of acres of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the Shoshone National Forest and the Caribou-Targhee National Forests and changing this land would be a detriment to everyone. I support NO ACTION, Alternative 1 and stongly oppose Alt 2 and 3. Thank-you, Cathy Shill Jackson, WY

Public Comments Processing Attn: Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service Roadless Rule Review RE: Strong Support for Alternative 1 (No Action) Regarding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong support for Alternative 1 (the "No Action" alternative) and my firm opposition to any rescission or weakening of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. And in keeping with my support for the Roadless Rule I totally oppose Alternatives 2 and 3. As a resident living in the Bridger-Teton National Forest area, my daily life, recreation, and local economy are completely intertwined with the health of these public lands. I am an avid hunter, hiker, fisherman, and skier. Over the years, I have seen firsthand how the intact backcountry of the Bridger-Teton provides irreplaceable world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation and supports communities from here in the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean. Maintaining the No Action alternative is vital for the following reasons: 1. Wildlife Habitat and Hunting Access: The Bridger-Teton National Forest is home to critical migration corridors and winter range for iconic big game species like elk, moose, mule deer, and bighorn sheep. Roadless areas provide the security habitat these animals need to thrive under heavy hunting pressure. Fragmenting these lands with new roads would disrupt migration routes, degrade habitat quality, and permanently harm the quality of public-land hunting. 2. Watershed Protection and Fishing: The pristine, cold-water streams in our inventoried roadless areas serve as essential spawning grounds for native cutthroat trout. Keeping these watersheds road-free prevents erosion, sedimentation, and thermal pollution. This protects both the exceptional fishing opportunities we enjoy and the clean drinking water relied upon by downstream communities. And the benefits extend far beyond my neighbors and I having clean drinking water. The wild forests of western Wyoming and Idaho are the sinks that provide irrigation water to the vast farmlands surrounding the Snake River. If we break those forests, we break the hydrologic cycle: goodbye cheap break and potatoes. I don't want to pay $10 for McDonalds French Fries. 3. Wildfire Risk and Forest Management: Building new roads into backcountry areas significantly increases the risk of human-caused wildfires, as the vast majority of human-ignited fires occur near road corridors. Furthermore, the Forest Service already faces a massive multi-billion-dollar road maintenance backlog. It is fiscally irresponsible to build new roads when we cannot afford to maintain the infrastructure we already have. The 2001 Roadless Rule has successfully protected the wildest portions of the Bridger-Teton National Forest for a quarter of a century. Choosing Alternative 1 (No Action) is the only path forward that respects the values of local residents, safeguards our outdoor recreation economy, and ensures future generations can hunt, hike, fish, and ski in a healthy, intact forest. Thank you for your time and for considering my comments. Sincerely, Aleck Ross-Frye

I am writing to oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Grand Junction, Colorado and recently retired from a 30-year career as a Park Ranger and Outdoor Recreation Planner with the Bureau of Land Management. In addition to my vocational connection to public lands, I am a lifelong beneficiary of the settings, activities, and experiences offered by America’s public lands, including many areas administered by the U. S. Forest Service. Starting in early childhood, National Forests in Colorado, including Arapahoe, Routt, White River, Rio Grande, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison, have been the places I’ve gone to hike, backpack, fish, bike, and ski. They provide a place to disconnect from the stresses of modern life, reconnect with nature, spend time alone and with family and friends, improve my physical fitness and nourish my spirit. Another special place for me and my family is the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming. Since I was seven years old, I’ve experienced the Bridger Wilderness on week-long backpacking and fishing trips nearly every summer. Those trips and others in roadless areas of the Bridger-Teton, and Colorado National Forests have been essential to my quality of life. Accessing and participating in outdoor recreation often requires roads and trails. And I am grateful for the road system that provides access to our Forests. I also appreciate the broad spectrum of opportunities and experiences that our public lands provide – from scenic highway drives to OHV recreation, equestrian outings, mountain biking adventures, hiking on developed trails, and exploring wilderness areas where there are only primitive trails or no trails at all. The U.S. Forest Service currently manages approximately 380,000 miles of roads and nearly 160,000 miles of trails. For twenty-five years, the roadless rule has kept 44.5 million acres of America's wildest national forest off-limits to new roads. This rule, and subsequent roadless rules like those enacted in Colorado were the result of extensive public involvement (over 1.6 million public comments). Rescinding the rule now would largely negate years of collaboration, negotiations, and agreements between diverse stakeholder groups. A Pew survey (Feb 2026) measured 76% voter support for keeping the rule — bipartisan, across every region of the country. Protecting our remaining roadless areas will allow recreationists like me to continue to enjoy ample opportunities for road and trail-based recreation like mountain biking and OHV use, while preserving the opportunity for solace and the challenge of primitive backcountry experiences. Rescission of the Rule would open the door to actions that could permanently deprive me personally, and our society collectively, of the activities and experiences provided by roadless landscapes. Preserve the Roadless Area Conservation Rule by selecting Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative of the draft EIS. Fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake.