Read the comments.

Dear Secretary and Chief: As someone who loves her time in our National Forests and understands their value, I'm deeply concerned about how these forests will be degraded if there is a reversal of the 2001 Roadless Rule. If this rule is rescinded, I will lose the peaceful, quiet, and serene experience that I have had during backpacking trips in this part of the forest. More importantly, the flora and fauna that is native to the area will be adversely affected. Regarding the 09159 - Thornapple in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin: New road construction, reconstruction, and associated development fragment habitat, introduce disturbance, and eliminate roadless character. Roadless areas function as intact reference landscapes. Roadless areas retain levels of ecological integrity that roaded landscapes have lost. Watersheds with the highest ecological integrity scores tend to have high proportions of roadless or wilderness area (over 50 percent); watersheds with the lowest integrity tend to have low proportions of roadless area and high proportions of moderate-density roads (USDA Forest Service 2000; Talty et al. 2020). — USDA Forest Service, 2000 (https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/roadless/roadless-feis-volume1.pdf); Talty et al., 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288); Belote, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the 09159 - Thornapple, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. I think that rescinding the Roadless Rule is a careless and irresponsible proposal and will have negative lasting effects on this area. Thank you, Carol Gorzek

Comment in Opposition to Rescinding the Roadless Rule Oct 6, 2026 · @Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance Docket FS-2025-0001 (RIN 0596-AD66, 91 FR 53827) Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance opposes rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and asks the Forest Service to withdraw the proposal, including for Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. GLWA is a volunteer 501(c)(3) based in Madison. We work to protect wolves and other wildlife in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region. Wisconsin's roadless areas are small, and access is not the problem The proposal would remove protection from about 69,000 acres of the Chequamegon-Nicolet, less than 5% of its 1.5 million acres (Iron Mountain Daily News). The rule limits new road construction and logging. Trout Unlimited notes these lands are typically open to hunting, fishing and firewood cutting (Outdoor Life). The rest of the forest is already heavily roaded. The Forest Service has cited about 9,000 miles of Forest Service road on the forest, and said its road budgets were falling as maintenance costs rose (WXPR, 2014). The head of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association has said the rule has not limited timber supply or constrained logging in northern Wisconsin (WJFW). New roads are not needed for access. The science points one way: fewer roads, more wildlife Road density is the best-known predictor of where wolves can live. University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers found it was the best predictor of wolf presence in northern Wisconsin (Pratt et al., 2008). In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, wolf occupancy held steady below about 0.4 km of road per km² and fell sharply above it, with a threshold near 0.7 km/km², or about 1.1 miles per square mile (Journal of Wildlife Management, 2005). The Chequamegon-Nicolet is already past that threshold. Total road density, counting closed and primitive roads, was reported at 3.1 miles per square mile on the Chequamegon and 4.9 on the Nicolet, roughly 2.8 to 4.4 times the Michigan figure (Schienebeck testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee, 2024). The same testimony says the Forest Service's 2004 plan focused road closures on wolf pack areas and low-road-density areas. The 69,000 roadless acres are among the few large blocks where low road density remains. GLIFWC staff have also said these areas help maintain high water quality (Iron Mountain Daily News). What we ask of the Forest Service 1. Withdraw the proposed rescission of 36 CFR part 294, subpart B. 2. If it proceeds, require the final environmental impact statement to analyze road density and wolf and other wildlife habitat on the Chequamegon-Nicolet's roughly 69,000 roadless acres. 3. Consult GLIFWC and the tribes whose treaty rights cover the forest before any decision. Wisconsin tribal organizations have said they were not consulted (WJFW). We stand with them as allies and do not speak for them. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Smith, Executive Director and Founder, Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance 117 Ardmore Drive, Madison, WI 53713 · msmith@wiwolvesandwildlife.org · (608) 234-8860 October 6, 2026

Dear Secretary: For someone who has spent enough time outdoors to know what happens after road access opens in an area, the 2001 Rule reads as a hard-won, practically-grounded protection — not a regulatory formality. Regarding the 09186 - Shelp Lake in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin: New road construction, reconstruction, and associated development fragment habitat, introduce disturbance, and eliminate roadless character. Roadless areas function as intact reference landscapes. Roadless areas retain levels of ecological integrity that roaded landscapes have lost. Watersheds with the highest ecological integrity scores tend to have high proportions of roadless or wilderness area (over 50 percent); watersheds with the lowest integrity tend to have low proportions of roadless area and high proportions of moderate-density roads (USDA Forest Service 2000; Talty et al. 2020). — USDA Forest Service, 2000 (https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/roadless/roadless-feis-volume1.pdf); Talty et al., 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288); Belote, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the 09186 - Shelp Lake, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. Rescission of this rule would be a major step back for our country. It is very important that we protect the last of these natural areas that we have left. Stand by the Rule. Faithfully, CommentID: RLC-20261007-VTYAA6

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

I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule and ask the Department to retain it in full. I'm a long-time endurance cyclist and bikepacker. I've ridden the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route, including the stretch through the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests in New Mexico. The route's value comes from the intact, unroaded country around it. In Montana, the forests along the Divide matter deeply to me: the Flathead, Helena-Lewis and Clark, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge. Closer to home, Wisconsin's roadless areas in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest are some of the last wild places within reach of the Upper Midwest. Once roads go into places like these, that character is gone permanently. The wildfire justification doesn't hold up. The 2001 rule already allows cutting small-diameter timber to reduce fire risk. The draft EIS should show, with evidence, which needed fuel treatments the rule has actually blocked. The Forest Service already has a multibillion-dollar backlog of deferred road maintenance. Building new roads in remote areas is fiscally unjustifiable, and it puts watersheds, wildlife habitat, and water supplies at risk. Public input has been clear: more than 99% of the roughly 600,000 scoping comments opposed rescission. A short comment window with no public hearings is not adequate for a decision covering about 45 million acres. Please keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Michael Gribble, Wilmette, IL

I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an outdoorsman and supporter of wildlife conservation, I have enjoyed the benefits that the Roadless Rule has provided towards a healthier ecosystem as well as more stable and successful wildlife populations. Growing up in Northern Wisconsin, places like the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest were paramount to our successful hunting seasons as well as the preservation of natural beauty. It remains just as important today, and it is a major portion of the local community’s identity. Rescinding this rule could negatively affect wildlife populations by altering animal behavior and destroying crucial habitat. In turn, it could take away from both our community’s and country’s identity. The United States’ native forests, wildlife, and ecosystems used to be part of what makes it so great, but much of that has largely been destroyed by development. It’s important to preserve what’s left for future generations of Americans to enjoy.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have done air quality monitoring with the state of Wisconsin for the last 8 years. In that time, we’ve seen unprecedented impacts from wildfires in Canada and neighboring states resulting in the worst air quality ever recorded in the state just this past July. This recision is being proposed under the guise contributing to the prevention of wildfires. However rescinding this rule to potentially allow road development in previously undeveloped areas would do just the opposite. 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 the answer to wildfire risk. The Roadless Rule already provides flexibility for fuels treatments and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. Beyond my concerns from a public health standpoint, many of my hobbies rely on the resources protected by the Roadless Rule. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of our nation's most intact fish and wildlife habitat, protected clean water and sustained pristine fishing opportunities. These forests, like the Chequamegon-Nicolet national forest that I’ve hiked, camped and fished in many times, provide clean air and water and are the backbone of a $1.3 trillion outdoor recreation economy that supports 5.2 million jobs. It makes economic sense to keep this rule in place. Due to the public health and economic concerns mentioned above, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule.

As an avid outdoors person, I oppose rescinding to roadless area conservation rule. These places of wilderness remain rare, and once they are opened to development the damage cannot be undone. I specifically use the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest for horse camping and hiking. I also go fishing, camping and canoeing deep in the Boundary Waters. The roadless area conservation rule protects those activities and provides tourism livelihood for thousands of people living adjacent to these areas. Rescinding the roadless conservation rule only benefits corporations and millionaires, not the American people for whom the land is held in trust.

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests and the ecosystems they create. As someone who has vacationed every year in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin, I am deeply aware of how special it is that places like this are protected. I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule due to the impact it could have on areas like this, reducing habitat for wildlife and creating environmental harm. I worry about the impact repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule could have on these mature forest ecosystems and water quality. In terms of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, has noted that the repealing of it may increase sediment pollution harming important spawning areas for fish populations, increasing water temperatures and threatening wild rice beds. In a world where forests are ever shrinking, protecting these mature woodlands is an important part of combatting climate change and creating wildlife sanctuary. Research has shown that these areas protected by the Roadless Rules serve as important areas for conservation - sustaining biodiversity, protecting important watersheds, and keeping habitat for wildlife. For all these reasons — I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule and would ask that the Forest Service choose the "No Action Alternative". Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment, for standing up for our forests, and for your passion to protect our public lands.

Not everything on earth is something to exploit. I'm writing to urge the federal government to STOP the Roadless Rule Repeal. The Trump administration, via the USDA, in its ignorantly reckless desire to rip up the last untouched 60 million acres of national forest, should not be allowed to destroy a pristine, treasured public trust which belongs to the American public, not extractive industry. On a local level, as a Wisconsin resident, this issue is significant to me as someone who understands and values the importance of biodiversity and has enjoyed many hours under the stars, camping and hiking the woods of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Early one summer, as a young woman, I experienced the Northwoods in a manner that truly opened my eyes to the Natural World around me. I was exposed firsthand to a myriad of flora and faunae because "nursery season" was in full swing. As my partner and I walked the trails, we crossed paths with a doe nursing her fawn, raccoon youngsters peeking at us from tree hollows, and a family of sandhill cranes escorting their colts through the dappled shade of the woods. To see so many species of wildlife with their young and witness the crush of trilliums, wild lady's slipper blooms, and Virginia bluebells briefly flowering on the forest floor, opened my eyes to the beauty and abundance of life in those woods, and created not only a sense of appreciation but an understanding of phenology and life cycles in wildlife. Ultimately, my time in Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest cultivated a profound admiration and respect for the Natural World. Those remarkable experiences in the woods stay with me to this day. I cannot fathom the idea that thousands of forest acres will be breached by road disruptions, that terrestrial wildlife will lose their lives to car accidents and crucial habitat for many endangered species will become degraded and/or disappear. The untouched forest will be forever altered if the Roadless Rule is repealed. This must never happen. Roughly 69,000 inventoried acres of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest -the last stretch of northern Wisconsin that has never had a road cut through it, would be permanently decimated if it's opened up to be cleared for the benefit of developers and extractive industries. These 69,000 acres are less than 5% of Wisconsin’s total forest acreage, which may seem small on paper, but it's exactly why the state’s last undisturbed backcountry lives inside them. They are core habitat for the federally endangered gray wolf and threatened northern long-eared bat, and for the American marten, Wisconsin’s only endangered mammal, which cannot survive without mature, unbroken interior forest. They hold breeding ground for sensitive forest birds like the cerulean warbler and red-shouldered hawk. If a logging roads are cut through this area, they will divide one continuous forest into fragments too small for wide-ranging animals to forage, mate, or migrate across. It will create a permanent “edge” that invites invasive species to overrun native wildlife and makes every animal inside easier to hit with a vehicle or a rifle. Do not repeal the Roadless Rule. It's too important to throw out for the sake of short-term corporate/industrial gain. I think that NFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and other federal government agencies should spend more time reflecting on and pursuing Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic,” than emulating Donald Trump's lack of ethics. "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic," from, A Sand County Almanac.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Quiet, peace, nature, and water: those are the things I go to the woods and lakes for, and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has protected the places where I find them. I oppose its rescission. I paddle Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. I hike and camp near lakes in Northern Wisconsin and have traveled to Shawnee National Forest in Illinois. The roadless areas I care about most directly, including Bear Swamp in the Huron-Manistee National Forest in Michigan, the island and lake units of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin, and the Burke Branch, Ripple Hollow, Burden Falls, Bay Creek, Eagle Creek, and Clear Springs areas in the Shawnee, are public land. They are for the public to enjoy, not for logging or mining. That is not a slogan; it is the conclusion I have reached after traveling to these places repeatedly over the years. The agency justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but its own record directly contradicts that argument. The agency's prior findings state: "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." That sentence does not describe a fringe position; it is the agency's own language, drawn from its own environmental review. Bear Swamp sits within Michigan's 16,124 acres of inventoried roadless land, and the Eastern region, which includes Michigan, contains watersheds holding 286 municipal water intakes inside the affected areas. Opening those landscapes to road construction would increase ignition risk precisely where the agency's own data says roaded land burns harder. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and that it 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 concedes 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 marginal gain, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million, a span so wide it cannot establish a benefit. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain how it justifies expanding a road system that the agency cannot currently maintain, when its own analysis cannot confirm a net gain. The permitting burden rationale fares no better under scrutiny. The rule as written already provided that 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)." The exceptions for public health, safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection are already in the rule. The agency has not identified, with specificity, which burdens those provisions fail to address. I ask that the agency name the particular burdens the existing exceptions do not resolve, and quantify them on the record. Finally, the regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant impact on small entities, but the record itself names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and books a minimum recreation benefit loss of $6.1 million a year. The certification is reached by spreading expenditure losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in these specific roadless areas. The Thornapple and Le Roy Creek areas in the Chequamegon-Nicolet, along with the Shawnee units I named above, all support recreational use that feeds exactly those small businesses. A certification built on a national average rather than on the affected permit holders is not an analysis; it is an assumption. The agency must withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the businesses actually operating in these areas. These places belong to the public. Rescission serves none of the purposes the agency claims for it, and the agency's own record says so. I urge that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule be retained without modification. Sincerely, Katrina Burmeister Sleepy Hollow IL

I frequent the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin for hunting, hiking, and camping, plus all sorts of other activities. There's plenty of access for people, both disabled and otherwise. Adding more road would only encourage excessive logging and destruction of needed habitat and trees. Keep the Roadless Rule!

I oppose the full or partial rescinding of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Illinois and have enjoyed hiking and birding in both the Shawnee National Forest (Illinois) and the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (Wisconsin) for most of my life. I will focus my comments on Shawnee, as it's in my state, but the same concerns apply to the Chequamegon-Nicolet. The Shawnee National Forest is Illinois' primary wilderness sanctuary and lifting the roadless rule would permanently degrade the silence and blessed isolation that greets hikers and birders like me, and the vast uninterrupted blocks of old-growth and mature trees that protects our native and migratory bird populations. Adding roads into the Burke Branch and Ripple Hollow sections of the Shawnee would fundamentally ruin its recreational use. Additionally, the loss of vegetation for road construction and industrial access would increase water run-off, flash flooding, and erosion. These changes put hikers and birders at risk and permanently impact the ecosystems that native and migratory birds depend on for survival. Rescinding the roadless rule would carve out nearly 11,000 acres of bird habitat in the Shawnee. Birds like the Cerulean Warbler and Northern Perula require vast, uninterrupted high-canopy, old-growth interiors, and Ovenbirds and Kentucky Warblers, low-understory nesters, depend on well insulated, dense forest interiors that avoid forest edges where they are vulnerable to predators. Predators hunt prey along forest edges where open, linear clearings like forest roads, lie. Rescinding the roadless rule will result in habit loss, environmental degradation, and lost breeding grounds. Rescinding the roadless rule will bring increased noise, pollution, industrial activity, and predator access. Rescinding the roadless rule will make the Shawnee flora and fauna vulnerable to invasive species and disease which would have far reaching, unintended consequences. My brother grew up in the Boy Scouts and was a Boy Scout leader for three decades. In all that time the most anticipated, and memorable, annual overnight adventure was to the Shawnee. This land, along with every other at risk by this rescission, must be saved for the generations ahead of us: The hikers, the birders, the Boy Scouts, and our families and neighbors. Our National Forests are our heritage and they belong equally to all of us to enjoy and keep for future generations. I want to continue to wander these trails, be thrilled at the site of an elusive Cerulean Warbler, and drink in the vastness of Shawnee's Garden of the Gods. Please keep roadless land intact and take NO ACTION. Thank you for your help in protecting and preserving our natural lands.

I oppose the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this rule has protected much of the wildness that remains in our national forests. The protections have been particularly vital in the Midwest, where less than 200,000 acres of roadless, untrammeled forest lands survived the widespread logging of the past two centuries. From Wisconsin's Chequamegon-Nicolet to Michigan's Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee, the Midwest’s national forests have important roadless areas that provide critical habitat for wildlife, clean our drinking water, store carbon, and offer refuge for people seeking quiet and beauty. Growing up in Wisconsin, I myself have enjoyed cross-country skiing in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest numerous times. It's truly a special place that deserves to be protected. I urge you to stop rolling back protections for our public lands and leave our last wild forests intact. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

Secretary Rollins, I am writing to express my sincere opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, specifically concerning its protections for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin. I strongly urge the agency to select the "No Action Alternative" in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which would maintain the current 2001 Roadless Rule protections intact. Since childhood, I've looked forward to visits and vacations in northern Wisconsin. As someone who continues to spend invaluable time in Wisconsin's Northwoods, I have experienced firsthand the profound peace, beauty, and ecological necessity of these undisturbed wildlands. Protecting these remaining roadless areas is vital for our environment, our local heritage, and our outdoor economy. The Northwoods of Wisconsin are a premier destination for hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts. Pristine, unfragmented habitats are essential for supporting robust populations of white-tailed deer, black bear, ruffed grouse, and the cold-water trout streams that northern Wisconsin is famous for. According to data from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), outdoor recreation, hunting, and fishing contribute billions of dollars annually to our state's economy, directly supporting thousands of jobs in rural communities. Rescinding the Roadless Rule and opening these sanctuaries to industrial logging and road construction will fragment critical habitats, degrade water quality through soil erosion, and ultimately threaten the outdoor tourism that sustains local Northwoods businesses. Furthermore, the argument that adding more roads will mitigate wildfire risk contradicts the reality of wildfire patterns in our state. According to Wisconsin DNR statistics, the vast majority of wildfires in Wisconsin—over 90%—are caused by human activity, such as debris burning, equipment use, and campfires. Building new roads into previously inaccessible portions of our national forests directly invites increased human traffic, motorized vehicles, and remote activity. By providing greater vehicular access to deep forest areas, we inherently increase the incidence and risk of human-caused wildfires in the exact places that are most difficult to suppress. Finally, keeping our forests intact is one of our most effective, cost-efficient defenses against climate change. The dense, mature trees and undisturbed soils of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest act as massive carbon sinks, absorbing greenhouse gases and significantly improving regional climate and air quality. Fragmenting these forests disrupts their natural resilience, making them more vulnerable to invasive species, pests, and disease, which degrades their ability to regulate our climate. Wisconsin's wild roadless acres are a finite and irreplaceable treasure. For the sake of our local economies, our safety from human-caused fires, and the preservation of the Northwoods for future generations, I urge you to select the No Action Alternative and maintain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Thank you for consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Amy Elliott

I oppose the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule. As a scientist, I recognize the importance of preserving roadless areas for wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and conserving wild spaces within our national forests. As a physician, I recognize the importance of conserving forests in the context of climate change and its impacts on health. Repealing the Roadless Rule would cause release of stored carbon [1], worsening the impacts of climate change we are already seeing in Wisconsin [2], including more frequent wildfires, wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and severe storms. As a Wisconsinite, I also recognize the importance of roadless areas in preserving our national forests for a broad range of outdoor recreation [3] and their natural beauty. My family and I greatly appreciate the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, and it would be a great loss to see any portion of this forest, and others like it, damaged unnecessarily by rescinding the Roadless Rule. Thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment. Sincerely, Kaitlin Sundling, MD, PhD References 1.Wentz J, Burger M. Several Key Problems with the Forest Services’ Proposed Repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Climate Law Blog. September 3, 2026. Accessed October 5, 2026. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2026/09/03/several-key-problems-with-the-forest-services-proposed-repeal-of-the-roadless-area-conservation-rule/ 2.Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. 2021 Assessment Report: Wisconsin’s Changing Climate | Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI). University of Wisconsin-Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Accessed May 23, 2025. https://wicci.wisc.edu/2021-assessment-report/ 3.Neuswanger D. Letter: Keep Roadless Area Conservation Rule Intact on National Forests. APG of Wisconsin. September 30, 2026. Accessed October 5, 2026. https://www.apg-wi.com/sawyer_county_record/paywall/letter-keep-roadless-area-conservation-rule-intact-on-national-forests/article_f356b60b-857c-4cec-8585-d8fd5629fd02.html

I am a resident of northern Wisconsin and am writing to express my concerns about the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Some of my best memories have been made outdoors—hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping with friends. Even more meaningful is sharing these passions with my children. I want them to appreciate the world we live in, understand the value of our forests, waters, and wildlife, and learn to be respectful and responsible stewards of the natural world. I believe conservation is one of the best practices we can pursue for all of God's creations. We are temporary stewards of these resources and have a responsibility to leave them in a condition future generations can enjoy. The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is an important part of what makes northern Wisconsin special. Its forests, lakes, streams, wetlands, and wildlife provide opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and recreation while supporting healthy ecosystems and clean water. I am concerned about allowing additional roads into currently roadless areas when we already struggle to maintain the road system we have. Roads are not simply a one-time expense. They require continual maintenance, drainage work, culvert and bridge repairs, storm-damage repairs, and eventual reconstruction or decommissioning. Every additional mile creates a long-term financial and management obligation for the Forest Service and taxpayers. We should take care of the roads we already have before building more roads into areas that are currently roadless. Not every acre of public land needs motor-vehicle access. Some places should remain relatively undeveloped so wildlife habitat, clean water, hunting, fishing, solitude, and quiet recreation can continue with fewer infrastructure impacts. I am also concerned about Forest Service staffing and resources. If the agency is already struggling to manage its existing responsibilities, I question whether expanding the road network is an appropriate priority. Before making such a significant change, we should invest in the people and resources needed to care for the forests we already have. I would rather see resources directed toward conservation practices such as habitat restoration, watershed protection, invasive-species management, wildlife monitoring, appropriate prescribed fire, road maintenance and decommissioning, and other practices that improve forest health and ecological resilience. I also believe more scientifically rigorous, long-term research is needed to understand how best to manage our forests for the health of wildlife, ecosystems, and society. Forest management decisions can have consequences for decades. Before removing protections for roadless areas, the Forest Service should have strong scientific evidence regarding effects on wildlife habitat, biodiversity, water quality, forest health, recreation, hunting, fishing, and ecological resilience. Our forests function as interconnected ecosystems. Wildlife, trees, soils, wetlands, streams, insects, fungi, predators, prey, and human communities all affect one another. Management should therefore be based on comprehensive research and long-term monitoring rather than focusing narrowly on timber production, road access, or any single objective. I support responsible forest management when necessary, appropriately targeted, and supported by credible science. However, there is an important difference between addressing a demonstrated, site-specific need and broadly removing protections from roadless areas. I ask the Forest Service to carefully consider the cumulative effects of additional roads, including habitat fragmentation, impacts on wildlife and water quality, erosion, recreation, and the long-term cost of maintaining new infrastructure. Most importantly, I want my children and future generations to have the opportunity to create their own memories in these forests. I want them to hunt, fish, hike, camp, observe wildlife, enjoy clean water, and experience places that remain relatively wild and undeveloped. I also want them to understand that enjoying these resources comes with a responsibility to protect them. We are temporary stewards of public lands that belong to all Americans. Once a road is constructed into a previously roadless landscape, the resulting changes may be difficult or impossible to reverse. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Forest Service to reconsider rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and retain meaningful protections for inventoried roadless areas. Responsible stewardship means taking care of what we already have before expanding our footprint. We should invest in conservation, scientific research, Forest Service staffing, and maintenance of existing infrastructure before removing protections that help preserve our remaining roadless landscapes for future generations. Thank you for considering my comments and including them in the administrative record.

To the Roadless Rule Rulemaking Docket: As a hunter and angler, I read the DEIS. The case for change isn't there. The country hasn't asked for it. These areas are our future. Once you open them they are soon to be compromised and destroyed. As someone who spends time in these areas I understand how important they are for so many things like cleaning our water and air. This is one of those you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube moments. The streams I fish will not survive a road network. Regarding the 09012 - Round Lake Study Area in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin: The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation measures, and that support has not faded. Prior to its 2001 enactment, more than 600 public hearings were held nationwide and 1.6 million Americans weighed in to call for protection of these forestlands—more comments than any other federal rule had received at the time. When USDA announced its rescission proposal, the compressed 21-day public comment period in late 2025 drew approximately 600,000 additional comments. A detailed roadless.org analysis of the comment record found that more than 99.8% of submitters opposed the rescission. A February 2026 Pew Charitable Trusts national poll found that 76% of likely voters support the Roadless Rule compared to just 13% opposed, with bipartisan backing from 71% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 80% of independents. More than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025 (S.2042 / H.R.3930) to codify the Rule so it could not be rolled back without an act of Congress. No rescission. The Rule stands. Sincerely, CommentID: RLC-20261006-WUHJBF

Dear Elected Officials, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Growing up north of Highway 29, I spent much of my childhood exploring the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Those experiences gave me a lasting appreciation for Wisconsin’s forests and the responsibility we share to protect them. Today, traveling from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, I see how rapidly development can transform our landscape. That makes preserving our remaining undeveloped public lands especially important to me. Our national forests belong to all Americans. Their protection should rest on strong national safeguards, meaningful public involvement, and long-term stewardship. Local knowledge matters, but it should complement those safeguards. Please oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule and protect these forests, their waters, wildlife, and recreational opportunities for future generations. Sincerely, Dina Malone Trempealeau, WI

We are residents of Wisconsin where the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest covers over 1.5 million acres in the northern part of our state. We strongly oppose the plans to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule has protected our national forests, preserved irreplaceable habitat, and protected sources of clean water. Roadless areas provide the quiet, unfragmented habitat that many birds need, including the Kentucky Warbler, Louisiana Water Thrush, Ovenbird, Scarlet Tanager, and Wood thrush. A foundational study by the U.S. Forest Service found that forest fragmentation increases nest predation and cowbird parasitism. In fragmented zones, reproductive rates drop so low that populations become "sinks"—relying entirely on immigration from unfragmented source areas to survive. (Robinson, Scott K.; Thompson III, Frank R.; Donovan, Therese M.; Whitehead, Donald R.; Faaborg, John. 1995. Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success of Migratory Birds. Science. Vol. 267 no. 5206.:p. 1987-1990.) ‘Water Facts’ published by the US Forest Service states that the US National Forest Service lands are located in source areas for many important rivers as well as local and regional aquifer systems. They are the largest source of municipal water supply in the Nation, serving over 60 million people in 3,400 communities in 33 States. Peer-reviewed evidence shows that increasing road building will increase wildfires (Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2). If the Administration was serious about addressing wildfires, why did they reduce the U.S. Forest Service workforce by 16%? Many of those staff members played a role in mitigating wildfire and responding to wildfires. Additionally, rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible. We already have 370,000 miles of roads in our National Forests. In 2000, the U.S. Forest Service estimated an $8.4 Billion maintenance backlog! Keep the Roadless Rule intact to prevent the Federal Government from spending taxpayers’ money on adding more roads to a system we don’t need and can’t afford.