Read the comments.

I am opposed to removing the Roadless Rule. It has been wildly popular and agreed upon between hunters, outdoor recreationist, and community leaders in the areas. Specifically, for North Dakota and the Dakota Prairie Grasslands roadless areas. I personally frequent the roadless areas and enjoy one of the last few places in North Dakota with minimal infrastructure. I talked with the local rancher that leases the area by Bullion Butte and he had nothing negative to say about the way the lease is operated in the area and said DPG offices were generaly pretty respectful of any of his request. Since North Dakota has no harvestable forest in the Badlands and inventories roadless areas, the argument for lumber harvest is moot. And since oil production has been in the state for decades and technology has improved drastically, allowing extraction from 4-5 miles away with horizontal drilling, I also see no point in repealing the current rule as it would have no benefit to the Forest Service or the public at large. I strongly urge the Department to keep the current rule in place and keep the roadless rule in effect.

Dear Acting Director White: As members of the National Parks Conservation Association’s (NPCA) Northern Rockies Regional Council we urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the water, air, wildness, and wildlife that sustain our national parks including Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Teton. For a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected the integrity of key national park landscapes providing quality, secure habitat for elk, grizzly bears, and other wildlife, quiet backcountry recreation like hiking, hunting, mountain biking and horseback riding. Roadless areas are also a drinking water source for 60 million Americans. The roadless rule was adopted over a generation ago with overwhelming public support following extensive public engagement processes that included at least 600 community meetings across the country by the Forest Service. This time, no public meetings are being offered and only a scant 33-day public comment period. While we care about roadless areas throughout the country, we are especially concerned about those critical to and connect the national park landscapes in the Northern Rockies. These include the Badger-Two Medicine, Jewel Basin, Swan Front, Centennial Mountains, Gallatin Range, Winegar Hole, and the Absaroka Range. The Council works with NPCA’s Northern Rockies regional staff and includes business and community leaders committed to securing the future of our national parks. We work with communities and businesses to support national parks in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Healthy national parks depend on healthy forests, clean waterways, and intact public lands beyond their boundaries, including many places protected by the Roadless Rule. More than 45 million acres of national forest lands are designated as roadless, and nearly 30% of those acres are within 30 miles of national park sites. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will remove protections from roughly six million acres in Montana, more than three million acres in Wyoming, and 250,000 acres in North Dakota. Across the Northern Rockies region, the Roadless Rule protects public lands that are integral to national park landscapes. These protections include: Roadless areas in the Greater Yellowstone help support the wildlife movement, expanded recreation opportunities, wildlife fire resilience, and watershed health of our nation's first national park by 29 percent. The same holds true with roadless areas increasing the protected core by 32 percent for the Crown of the Continent and Glacier National Park. Roughly 20,000 acres of roadless area in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands along the border of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, protecting important headwaters and hydrological features habitat for elk, bighorn sheep, migratory birds, and the federally protected Northern Long-Eared Bat. Roadless areas in roughly a dozen national forests across Montana and Wyoming provide core grizzly bear habitat as well as intact habitat to support connectivity between the grizzlies of Yellowstone and Glacier. Roads are one of the great threats to grizzly bear recovery and removing roadless protections from these lands will lead to increased bear mortality and human/grizzly conflicts. If Roadless Rule protections are rescinded, these lands—and more than 45 million acres of public lands nationwide—will be opened to roadbuilding, large-scale logging, mining, and oil and gas development, putting nearby national parks, gateway communities, outdoor recreation, clean water, and wildlife at risk. As national park advocates and community leaders from across the region, we urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect roadless forests and the national park landscapes they sustain. Thank You, Andrew Salter Jackson, WY Laurel Angell Bozeman, MT George and Lynda Corn Hamilton, MT Bill and Colette Berg Gardiner, MT Elizabeth Setsuko Raffin Bozeman, MT Valerie Naylor Rapid City, SD Marian L Meyers Jackson, WY

I oppose the full or partial rescission of the Roadless Rule. Our national lands preserve public lands for the use and enjoyment of all the public, not just for some interests over others. We need to preserve these lands not only for our own use and enjoyment, but for our children and grandchildren. I am most familiar with and have spent the most time in and near the roadless areas within the Little Missouri National Grassland in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota. These lands contain some of the last 24 pieces of undeveloped public habitat in the state. These areas are important to us for hiking and camping; others share the space for fishing, hunting, and grazing cattle. Birds like owls and the state bird, the Western Meadowlark; upland game including grouse, pheasants, and turkeys; insects; hoofed creatures like deer, pronghorn antelope, bison, and wild horses, and predators like fox and coyote all live or cross through here https://www.fs.usda.gov/r01/dpg/animals-plants/animals . They can be spotted and enjoyed by us humans when the areas remain without the development of roads leading to unnecessary traffic. Being in these wild, undisturbed, and unpolluted lands is beneficial to the physical and mental health of humans. There are so many benefits to health including "improved cognitive function, brain activity, blood pressure, mental health, physical activity, and sleep"...protective effects are now linked to improved mental health outcomes and cognitive function. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8125471/ I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Thank you for the consideration of these comments.

I'm a lifelong North Dakota resident with an appreciation for places that aren't intersected by roads, and a taxpayer who doesn't think the Service needs to spend money on more roads and maintenance beyond what we already have. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the No Action Alternative and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I value the roadless areas within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, including the Little Missouri National Grassland. Rescinding the Rule is unnecessary and costly: - It is not required for oil and gas development. Modern horizontal directional drilling allows resources to be accessed from existing road networks and centralized well pads without new roads into roadless areas. - It is not required for wildfire mitigation. The current Rule already permits fuels reduction and habitat restoration. Research also shows wildfire ignitions occur roughly four times more often near roads than in roadless forest. - It adds cost, not value. The Forest Service already manages about 370,000 miles of road nationally, with $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance. New roads mean new long-term liabilities for taxpayers. Less than 40,000 acres of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands remain managed as Suitable for Wilderness, down from roughly 500,000 acres eligible in the early 1970s. These lands support cattle grazing, hunting, fishing, and recreation that generations of North Dakotans depend on. I ask the Forest Service to protect what remains and reject this proposal.

For 25 years, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule has protected some of America’s most wild places that provide clean water, habitat and outstanding outdoor experiences that support the recreation economy. Now, those protections are at risk. On August 18, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that the U.S. Forest Service has proposed fully rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The proposal was published August 20, opening a public comment period that ends September 21. The proposal could remove protections from more than 44 million acres of national forest roadless areas across 37 states. North Dakota’s roadless lands matter The Roadless Rule is critical to protect the remaining wilderness here in North Dakota. In the early 1970s, five hundred thousand acres on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands’ western-most Little Missouri National Grassland unit qualified for Wilderness designation. By 1977, when the second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation was complete, the number of acres eligible had been cut in half. With the signing in July 2002 of the current Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, less than 40,000 acres are managed by the Forest Service as “Suitable for Wilderness.” Undeveloped wild land is disappearing – fast. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands contain some of the most important remaining blocks of undeveloped public habitat in the state, including roadless areas within the Little Missouri National Grassland. Do we want the remaining acres eliminated because we did nothing? These landscapes are critical for the outdoor activities North Dakotans hold near and dear. These are the same areas multi-users for generations of North Dakotans have grazed cattle, hunted, fished, hiked, camped and experienced the Badlands. Additional roads are not needed. This is your time to comment now to protect ND's remaining wild places! Roadless does not mean unmanaged The Roadless Rule does not prevent responsible management. It allows activities including grazing, fuels reduction, habitat restoration, and things we love like hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other outdoor recreation. We don’t have to choose between protecting the Badlands landscape or having successful oil/gas development. Modern horizontal directional drilling also means that oil and gas resources can often be developed from existing road networks and centralized well pads, reducing the need to build new roads into currently roadless landscapes. We doubt that eliminating the rule is necessary to address wildfire risk. The existing rule provides flexibility for fuels mitigation and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. Recent research also found that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely near roads than in roadless forests. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of roads (2,800-plus miles of roads in the Little Missouri Grasslands) and faces an estimated $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance. Adding more roads means adding more long-term costs to tax payers. The Badlands Conservation Alliance supports best practices for science-based grassland and forest management, that includes efforts to improve wildlife habitat, address wildfire risk and provide responsible multi-user access. But eliminating the Roadless Rule is not the answer, and can in fact eliminate the remaining wild places that make the Badlands special. Sincerely, Shannon Straight, Executive Director Badlands Conservation Alliance 1605 E. Capitol Ave Bismarck, ND 58501

For 25 years, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule has protected some of America’s most wild places that provide clean water, habitat and outstanding outdoor experiences that support the recreation economy. Now, those protections are at risk. On August 18, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that the U.S. Forest Service has proposed fully rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The proposal was published August 20, opening a public comment period that ends September 21. The proposal could remove protections from more than 44 million acres of national forest roadless areas across 37 states. North Dakota’s roadless lands matter The Roadless Rule is critical to protect the remaining wilderness here in North Dakota. In the early 1970s, five hundred thousand acres on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands’ western-most Little Missouri National Grassland unit qualified for Wilderness designation. By 1977, when the second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation was complete, the number of acres eligible had been cut in half. With the signing in July 2002 of the current Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, less than 40,000 acres are managed by the Forest Service as “Suitable for Wilderness.” Undeveloped wild land is disappearing – fast. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands contain some of the most important remaining blocks of undeveloped public habitat in the state, including roadless areas within the Little Missouri National Grassland. Do we want the remaining acres eliminated because we did nothing? These landscapes are critical for the outdoor activities North Dakotans hold near and dear. These are the same areas multi-users for generations of North Dakotans have grazed cattle, hunted, fished, hiked, camped and experienced the Badlands. Additional roads are not needed. This is your time to comment now to protect ND's remaining wild places! Roadless does not mean unmanaged The Roadless Rule does not prevent responsible management. It allows activities including grazing, fuels reduction, habitat restoration, and things we love like hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other outdoor recreation. We don’t have to choose between protecting the Badlands landscape or having successful oil/gas development. Modern horizontal directional drilling also means that oil and gas resources can often be developed from existing road networks and centralized well pads, reducing the need to build new roads into currently roadless landscapes. We doubt that eliminating the rule is necessary to address wildfire risk. The existing rule provides flexibility for fuels mitigation and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. Recent research also found that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely near roads than in roadless forests. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of roads (2,800-plus miles of roads in the Little Missouri Grasslands) and faces an estimated $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance. Adding more roads means adding more long-term costs to tax payers. The Badlands Conservation Alliance supports best practices for science-based grassland and forest management, that includes efforts to improve wildlife habitat, address wildfire risk and provide responsible multi-user access. But eliminating the Roadless Rule is not the answer, and can in fact eliminate the remaining wild places that make the Badlands special. Sincerely, Shannon Straight

I urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and adopt the No Action Alternative. I oppose rescinding this rule. As a North Dakota resident, I value the roadless areas within the Little Missouri National Grassland and the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. These lands are already a small fraction of what once qualified for wilderness protection, and further road-building would put what remains at risk. Roadless areas support clean water, wildlife habitat, and the hunting, hiking, and horseback riding that many of us in this state depend on for recreation and quality of life. The Roadless Rule does not prevent responsible management. Grazing, habitat restoration, and hazardous fuels reduction can all continue under the existing rule. Rescinding it would add to the Forest Service's already substantial road maintenance backlog and, based on available research, could increase wildfire risk rather than reduce it, since ignitions are more common near roads than in roadless areas. Modern horizontal drilling technology means oil and gas development does not require new roads into these areas. There is no need to trade away 44 million acres of national forest protections nationwide, including North Dakota's remaining wild places, to support energy development that can happen elsewhere. Please retain the Roadless Rule.

The Roadless Rule is critical to protect the remaining wilderness here in North Dakota. In the early 1970s, five hundred thousand acres on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands’ western-most Little Missouri National Grassland unit qualified for Wilderness designation. With the signing in July 2002 of the current Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, less than 40,000 acres are managed by the Forest Service as “Suitable for Wilderness.” Undeveloped wild land is disappearing – fast. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands contain some of the most important remaining blocks of undeveloped public habitat in the state, including roadless areas within the Little Missouri National Grassland. We need to retain these intact wild places. Roadless areas do not prevent raising cattle, hunting, hiking, and camping but enhance those experiences. Leaving the roadless rules as they are can maintain this environment in North Dakota, and nationwide for generations to come.

The North Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club is opposed to the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Since 2002, the Roadless Rule has protected the heart of our public lands, saved taxpayer dollars, and enjoyed overwhelming popularity with the general public. There is no reason throw away a successful, commonsense policy while offering nothing but baseless justifications for doing so. The rule, as it stands, helps to protect ecosystems. These ecosystems protect water quality, reduce erosion, and provide un-fractured habitat for countless species of birds and animals. They very same ecosystems provide recreation for millions of people (including motorized vehicles on designated trails and hunting opportunities). The roadless areas are managed as ecosystems, and often timber remains on these areas because they are so steep and rugged that they are uneconomical to log. Building taxpayer or timber sale funded roads to potential timber sales which are uneconomical to log is wasteful, destructive, and stupid. These sales often are not even bid because of their difficulty and poor logging economics. In areas which are not forested, the same roadless rule applies, only instead of timber, oil and gas extraction are the objective of roadless rule repeal. We don’t have to choose between protecting a landscape or having successful oil/gas development. Modern horizontal directional drilling also means that oil and gas resources can often be developed from existing road networks and centralized well pads, reducing the need to build new roads into currently roadless landscapes. While this may be more expensive for the oil company, the North Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club does not feel that the US taxpayer or oil and gas extraction fees should pay for roads which benefit only the oil and gas companies while destroying and fracturing habitat and fragile ecosystems. When analyzing potential impacts, it is very important to analyze the entire ecosystem, not the local/individual project level. The local/individual project level overlooks the cumulative impact that the national rescission will have on the environment (aka “death by a thousand cuts”). Members of the North Dakota Sierra Club have hiked, biked, hunted, fished and fished on the Little Missouri National Grasslands in North Dakota. We have viewed with awe the expansive plateaus and dissected drainage ways of the grasslands. We have forded the Little Missouri River many times to access trails and vistas. We have camped along the Maah Daah Hey Trail and in the campgrounds, marveling at the dark skies and the quiet nights, punctuated with the sounds of coyotes, and been serenated awake by the calls of birds (one avid birder awoke at dawn and counted 29 different bird calls before he exited his tent an hour later). We believe the Roadless Rule is critical to protect the remaining wilderness here in North Dakota. In the early 1970s, five hundred thousand acres on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands’ western-most Little Missouri National Grassland unit qualified for Wilderness designation. By 1977, when the second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation was complete, the number of acres eligible had been cut in half. With the signing in July 2002 of the current Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, less than 40,000 acres are managed by the Forest Service as “Suitable for Wilderness.” Undeveloped wild land is disappearing – fast. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands contain some of the most important remaining blocks of undeveloped public habitat in the state, including roadless areas within the Little Missouri National Grassland. These landscapes are critical for the outdoor activities North Dakotans hold near and dear. These are the same areas multi-users for generations of North Dakotans have grazed cattle, hunted, fished, hiked, camped and experienced the Badlands. Additional roads are not needed. Roadless does not mean unmanaged. The Roadless Rule does not prevent responsible management. It allows activities including grazing, fuels reduction, habitat restoration, and things we love like hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other outdoor recreation. We doubt that eliminating the rule is necessary to address wildfire risk. The existing rule provides flexibility for fuels mitigation and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. Recent research also found that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely near roads than in roadless forests. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of roads (2,800-plus miles of roads in the Little Missouri Grasslands) and faces an estimated $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance. Adding more roads means adding more long-term costs to tax payers. The North Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club is opposed to the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation rule and supports a NO ACTION alternative.

I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the No Action Alternative and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a North Dakota resident, I value the roadless areas within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, including the Little Missouri National Grassland. I've lived in North Dakota my entire life and grew up camping and hiking on the land. Rescinding the Rule is unnecessary and costly: - It is not required for oil and gas development. Modern horizontal directional drilling allows resources to be accessed from existing road networks and centralized well pads without new roads into roadless areas. - It is not required for wildfire mitigation. The current Rule already permits fuels reduction and habitat restoration. Research also shows wildfire ignitions occur roughly four times more often near roads than in roadless forest. - It adds cost, not value. The Forest Service already manages about 370,000 miles of road nationally, with $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance. New roads mean new long-term liabilities for taxpayers. Less than 40,000 acres of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands remain managed as Suitable for Wilderness, down from roughly 500,000 acres eligible in the early 1970s. These lands support grazing, hunting, fishing, and recreation that generations of North Dakotans depend on. I ask the Forest Service to protect what remains and reject this proposal.

Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule as is. This rule provides long term protection of 58.5 million acres of which 280,000 acres are found in the USDA Forest Service Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota. We don’t need more roads in the North Dakota badlands or in any of the other 58.5 million acres protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule in the United States of America. The reasoning given by the US Department of Agriculture for the need to provide road access for wildfire control is flawed and doesn’t consider USDA Forest Service staff research indicating 95% of wildfires are caused by people and that two thirds of human caused fires are along roads. Also, the Department of Agriculture does not consider technology to perform the same tasks without roads. It is not uncommon on private land where road access is not an issue for helicopters and planes to be called on to put out wildfires. If the US Forest Service really wants to thin forests for fire control, they could do this without roads and move timber with helicopters. The reasoning given by the US Department of Agriculture for the need to provide road access for mineral extraction is flawed and does not recognize current and future technology. Oil extraction can now be done from four miles away from the well site and with technology improvements it will be done at greater distances in the future. Oil wells can be located further away from roadless areas and recreation areas and need not be located in current roadless areas. The Maah Daah Hey Trail, a USDA Forest Service managed trail, travels through both roadless and roaded areas. Where the trail intersects roads, dust and noise generated by traffic degrades the trail experience and where the trail is downwind from an oil well, noxious fumes often have an objectionable odor. Roads can also increase erosion, land degradation and waste on our public lands. When I am too old to hike trails in roadless areas I know there are millions more acres of roaded acres where I can drive. I want to know that there will be roadless areas undiminished. Keep the remaining acres free of roads and development. I want my nieces, nephews, their children, and their children’s children to experience at least a part of the country that I have experienced in my lifetime. Please keep the 2001 Roadless Rule as is.

Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule as is. This rule provides long term protection of 58.5 million acres of which 280,000 acres are found in the USDA Forest Service Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota. We don’t need more roads in the North Dakota badlands or in any of the other 58.5 million acres protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule in the United States of America. The reasoning given by the US Department of Agriculture for the need to provide road access for wildfire control is flawed and doesn’t consider USDA Forest Service staff research indicating 95% of wildfires are caused by people and that two thirds of human caused fires are along roads. Also, the Department of Agriculture does not consider technology to perform the same tasks without roads. It is not uncommon on private land where road access is not an issue for helicopters and planes to be called on to put out wildfires. If the US Forest Service really wants to thin forests for fire control, they could do this without roads and move timber with helicopters. The reasoning given by the USDA for the need to provide road access for mineral extraction is flawed and does not recognize current and future technology. Oil extraction can now be done from four miles away from the well site and with technology improvements it will be done at greater distances in the future. Oil wells can be located further away from roadless areas and recreation areas and need not be located in current roadless areas. More roads will further fragment habitat for the many creatures that depend on large tracts of land for their survival. Currently the furthest distance from a road in the contiguous United States is 21 miles, and that is in Yellowstone National Park. Do we really need more roads? The Maah Daah Hey Trail, a USDA Forest Service managed trail, travels through both roadless and roaded areas. Where the trail intersects roads, dust and noise generated by traffic degrades the trail experience and where the trail is downwind from an oil well, noxious fumes often have an objectionable odor. Roads can also increase erosion, land degradation and waste on our public lands. When I am too old to hike trails in roadless areas I know there are millions more acres of roaded acres where I can drive. I want to know that there will be roadless areas undiminished. Keep the remaining acres free of roads and development. I want my nieces, nephews, their children, and their children’s children to experience at least a part of the country that I have experienced in my lifetime. Please keep the 2001 Roadless Rule as is. Thank you.