Read the comments.

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

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

Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would strip protections from tens of millions of acres of undeveloped national forest lands, threatening critical wildlife habitats, clean water sources, and climate stability. Opponents argue that opening these wild areas to logging and roadbuilding causes permanent ecological damage.Ecological and Environmental RisksHabitat Fragmentation: Roads break up large, continuous ecosystems. This disrupts animal migration routes, breeding, and overall wildlife survival.Invasive Species: New roads act as pathways for non-native plants and pests to enter pristine environments.Water Quality: Construction and clear-cutting cause soil erosion, which leads to sediment buildup in streams and damages aquatic life and drinking water supplies.Wildfire and Climate MisconceptionsIncreased Fire Risk: Studies show that areas near roads have a much higher density of human-caused wildfire ignitions, meaning more roads can mean more fires.Ineffective Mitigation: Existing rules already allow for critical fuel reduction and safety treatments without needing to build permanent industrial roads.Carbon Storage: Intact, mature forests act as natural carbon sinks that absorb greenhouse gases, which are released when these forests are cleared or disturbed.Public Value and HeritageLoss of Solitude: Roadless areas provide unique opportunities for quiet recreation like hiking, hunting, fishing, and backcountry climbing.Public Consensus: The original rule was established with overwhelming support from millions of public comments, and public sentiment remains heavily opposed to rolling back these protections. I live in Montana in the Gallatin National Forest that surrounds us. I live near and recreate in the Custer National forest and there are many logging roads already that have been used over the years. To beleive that work can't be done in these areas currently is false. To believe that you have funding for more roads when we have a debt and you continue to take money away from these agencies is a joke. To allow unfettered access by corporations or to sell our lands is criminal at best.