Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The roadless areas of Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri, and the forests I frequent across California, including Mount Shasta, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Los Padres, are places I seek out precisely because they are roadless. Self-powered access and minimal human disturbance are not incidental features; they are the reason I go. I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). These are the last pristine areas in the country. Public land should be managed for the benefit of wildlife and conservation of natural resources, not for financial gain or short-sighted priorities. The proposal before the agency fails that standard on its own terms, and I ask the agency to address the following: The wildfire rationale offered for rescission contradicts the agency's own record. 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 wildfire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The forests I use in California sit in precisely the kind of high-risk terrain that sentence describes. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from these prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record acknowledges that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against that baseline, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. The agency must explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog is justified when the analysis it commissioned cannot show the action pays. The proposal also argues that state-specific rulemaking can replace one national rule, but the agency's own record reflects a prior attempt in exactly that direction. The record states that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all-nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg.at 25,656." Missouri alone holds 25,453 acres across its inventoried roadless areas, and the Eastern region, which includes Missouri, has 286 municipal water intakes sitting in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Those values are national in scale and cumulative in character; local decision-making can incrementally reduce them. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last substituted a state-by-state approach for the national rule. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. That question has already been litigated. A federal court of appeals 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 Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and concluded it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state plainly the legal basis for any contrary position. I support retaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. Sincerely, Elizabeth Cooley Imperial, Missouri

Dear U.S. Forest Service and USDA, I am strongly against the USDA’s proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would remove people’s opportunity to emotionally and spiritually connect with nature, which many people need to have good mental health, which affects every other aspect of our lives. Aside from the impact on mental health, this action would be unwise because it would affect the cleanliness of our water sources, disrupt wildlife habitats – promoting extinction of various species, and remove recreational opportunities. I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and retain full Roadless Rule protections. I live in Missouri, and I absolutely love spending time in nature, especially the roadless areas of nature far away from industrialization. These moments in nature create an unexplainable sense of calm and awe in me. But it is not just Missouri I care about. I have traveled to many of the other U.S. states too. One of my favorite things about traveling is visiting unique nature landscapes and observing the wildlife that live in earth’s various biomes. Spending time in the roadless areas of the U.S. brings me immense peace and heals me from my preoccupation with my responsibilities. Being in nature reminds me to just be, not do. Productivity is not all life is about; we also must engage in experiences for the sake of our mental and spiritual health, even if there appears to be no “productive benefits.” I believe protecting my mental health is important, and the existence of untouched nature is a crucial aspect. Nature provides more than just a calming effect. There are many ecological processes happening all the time people do not think about. The exchange of energy between plants, animals, humans, and the atmosphere is complex. Nature is a necessary element of this energy exchange; destroying habitats disrupts this natural exchange of energy and mutual benefit. For human lives to thrive, we must properly steward the land and animals of the earth. Humans are only able to exist because of the natural biological processes set in place to sustain life. Life did not begin with industrialization; it began with humans, animals, and nature. We must carefully monitor how invasive our industrial practices are. The creation of new roads in these current roadless areas would be crossing the line into invasive practices. 25,000 roadless areas would be affected in Missouri if Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, is not chosen. The Mark Twain National Forest is one of closest roadless areas to where I live. I would be deeply upset if this forest, along with any other roadless areas, was destroyed in the name of building new roads and infrastructure. I understand someone might argue that new roads could promote more efficient transportation, but I would argue that the benefits of untouched nature outweigh the potential to allow humans to travel more efficiently. Life is not all about productivity and efficiency. Life is also about joy and awe. Nature allows us to experience these moments of awe, which bring us a specific joy and peace we do not experience in any other context. I have many family members and friends who would be extremely upset if Roadless Areas were no longer conserved. Anyone who believes these areas should be destroyed neglects to acknowledge the impact nature has on people’s mental and spiritual health. This destruction would also show a lack of understanding or reverence of the life-sustaining ecological processes that exist. Industrial actions are invasive, and should be minimized, with lots of consideration given to decisions before choosing to tear apart the earth. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be unwise. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The outdoors is my cathedral, and time spent there is sacred. Places like Bell-Smith Springs and the Lusk Wilderness areas in Shawnee National Forest are not always free of other visitors, but a trip there is restorative nonetheless. I also visit Mark Twain National Forest when I can. The areas I am most concerned with are inventoried roadless units in Shawnee: Burden Falls, Clear Springs, and Ripple Hollow. Illinois holds 6 inventoried roadless areas totaling 10,673 acres. That is not much. More roads would severely detract from those spaces that still feel wild, and it would be a shame to create more inroads into them and ruin the solace they provide. I am also an amateur birder whose senses still awaken with the spotting of a Cardinal or some woodpecker. And I roadtrip to the western United States nearly annually to photograph landscapes I do not see in the Midwest, places like the Badlands, Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, and Zion. The joy is in the discovery. Public land needs to be managed in the interest of my grandchildren's grandchildren. My children need this land to unplug and maintain their sanity as much as I do. On the wildfire justification: the proposal points to fuels management as a reason to rescind the rule and open roadless areas to new construction. The agency's own record states that "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 finding belongs to the agency, not to its critics. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. On economics: the agency's own record states 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." There is no fiscal sense in spending money on new roads before fixing those already in existence, and any new road construction should carry public budgetary oversight. The agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. How does an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justify expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog? On water: across the Eastern region, which includes Illinois, 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Building new roads in that context is, as my grandfather would have said, pissing in your Cheerios. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, and fewer than 12 percent of those watersheds have impaired streams today. The agency should state plainly what it projects will happen to that figure under the rescission, and it should do so in the record. On the state-by-state approach: the proposal argues that local rules can replace a national one, but the agency's own prior record shows it acknowledged "its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit already reviewed a state-by-state replacement and found it wanting. On statutory authority: the proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress authorized. A federal appellate court resolved that question. Its holding reads: "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 Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state, with legal grounding, the basis for any position contrary to that holding. Burden Falls is partly protected by the difficult road required to reach it. The falls themselves only flow during or after heavy rain. I have never seen them with water, but the area is still worth climbing through. That kind of place, earned by effort and left largely as it is, is worth keeping. A logged stand grows back. A road does not. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your City, State]

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Mark Twain National Forest borders our farm, and I have spent years hiking through it, paddling the Huzzah, the Current, and the Meramec, and listening for the hundreds of migrating birds that roost in those woods each spring and fall. The forest sits right on the Mississippi Flyway, and what moves through it matters. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Anderson Mountain roadless area, 2,741 acres inside the Mark Twain National Forest, is the kind of place this rule was written to protect. I have watched loggers, hunters, and recreational users work that country both well and badly. What improves it is education: workshops, demonstrations, skill classes. What does not improve it is building additional roads into country that has none. We already have ample access for all users through a multitude of existing roads and trails, and the agency carries a maintenance backlog that expanding a road system cannot cure. The record states 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." I ask that the agency reconcile this proposal with its own Cost Benefit Analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how an action whose own numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I know firsthand what it takes to keep roads from fouling a river. We farm along the Huzzah and have worked hard, and spent a lot of money, to decrease erosion from our fields and banks and improve water quality before it enters the river. Increasing the burden on the Forest Service does not benefit anyone. The birds tell a parallel story. The DEIS cites the findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. The migratory birds I love hearing and sometimes spotting each spring and fall depend on contiguous, unroaded forest structure along the flyway. The DEIS also cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent, yet no projection applying that range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment appears anywhere in the document. I ask that the agency make that projection explicit and place it in the record. As we watch the decline of wild birds and insects across our beautiful state of Missouri, from quail and songbirds to Monarchs and fireflies, it is plain that we must act now to protect our own land and the public's land if we want our grandchildren to experience even half of what we have. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed, and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat, yet the document projects no population-level effect on big game anywhere in its analysis. The agency should project the effects of rescission on big game populations and the hunters who pursue them, in this forest and across the affected acreage. Finally, 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. The regenerative forestry practices the Forest Service and the Missouri Department of Conservation have expanded in the Mark Twain are improving habitat and increasing biodiversity, and those gains rest partly on the landscape integrity this rule maintains. My family has made real investments, financial and physical, in the water quality of the Huzzah on the assumption that the adjoining public land would remain protected. That is a reliance interest. The agency invited it and must weigh it. I ask that every reliance interest described in the comments received, including this one, be identified, assessed, and answered in the final record before any decision is made. Sincerely, Beverly Tucker Knight St Louis, MO

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Mark Twain National Forest is where I ride and hike. The roadless areas there are the reason those trails are worth using. I am filing this comment to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I ask that the agency address each of the points below on its own merits. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for this rescission. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." That finding runs directly against the claim that opening roadless areas to road construction will improve fire outcomes in forests like the Mark Twain. The trails I use pass through country that the agency's own data shows is better protected from human-caused ignition precisely because it stays unroaded. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the agency's own record shows reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency has not demonstrated that the rule as written actually prevents the activities the proposal says justify rescission. The rule as described in the agency's own materials "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)." Exceptions for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection are already part of the structure the agency is proposing to dismantle. I ride in the Mark Twain because its roadless character has been maintained under exactly that framework. The agency has not identified which specific administrative burdens remain unaddressed by those existing provisions. I ask that it do so, and that it quantify those burdens on the record before proceeding. The regulatory flexibility certification in this proposal does not hold together. The agency's own materials state: "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." Spreading a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in affected areas, is not an assessment of impact. It is an avoidance of one. Recreation in places like the Mark Twain depends on the small operators who run trips there, and those operators depend on the roadless character that brings people out. The certification is contradicted by the agency's own cost figures. The agency should withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, this comment is itself the kind of reliance interest the agency invited and then left unweighed. The agency's own 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. I have ridden and hiked in the Mark Twain under the expectation that the protections established in 2001 would remain in place. That expectation shaped where I go and what I rely on finding when I get there. An agency that changes course is required to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created. The agency collected these comments. It must now account for what they say. Sincerely, Judith Davis Poplar Bluff, Missouri

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. I value our National Forests and all the benefits they provide. I personally own land in Missouri next to the Mark Twain National Forest. Thank you!

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests I return to, the Ozark National Scenic Riverway and the Mark Twain National Forest and the ranges of Appalachia, are places I go to reset and be in tune with nature. That purpose, and the wild country that makes it possible, is what this proposed rescission puts at risk. I oppose it in full. The agency's own record on fire should stop this proposal in its tracks. 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." That finding sits inside the same document that is being offered as support for opening roadless areas to new access. The agency has not explained how a policy it justifies partly on wildfire grounds is consistent with its own documentation of road-related ignition risk. I ask that the agency explain, in direct and specific terms, why this proposal departs from its prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas and how it accounts for that departure in the final rule. The ignition data sharpens the problem further. The DEIS records that 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, measured across 2014 to 2024, and that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The agency cannot simultaneously cite fuels management as a rationale for rescission and decline to quantify what new road construction would add to that ignition count. I ask the agency to quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it, numerically and honestly, against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard before finalizing this rule. The economic analysis compounds the problem. The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities, yet the same DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected businesses and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. Those are not abstract national averages. The Ozark National Scenic Riverway, where I paddle, supports exactly the kind of small outfitter and guide operations the certification purports to assess, and rescission of the protections that keep that river corridor intact would fall directly on those businesses. A certification reached by spreading a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the permit holders operating in the affected areas, does not satisfy the purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis. The agency must withdraw the certification and conduct the assessment on the firms actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the agency has invited reliance interests and then declined to weigh them. 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. This comment is precisely such an interest. I have organized my outdoor life, including where I paddle and where I go to restore myself, around the protection this rule provides for places I depend on. Under settled administrative law, an agency reversing a long-standing policy must identify and genuinely assess the reliance interests that policy created. This letter is one of them. The agency should identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, and this one must be among those considered. Public land exists, as I understand it, to protect wildlife and nature and to preserve some of the best outdoor areas in the world for the people who live in and near them. Rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule moves directly against that purpose. The record does not support the rescission, and the agency has not reconciled its proposal with its own data. I urge that it be withdrawn. Sincerely, Lorin Macklin Overland Park, KS

I oppose this scheme to weaken protections for roadless areas. I live in Missouri, and often visit existing roadless areas in the Mark Twain National Forest. Areas that are currently protected due to their roadless status should retain that protection, to retain the option for for future wilderness status.

As a Missouri taxpayer and adventure motorcycle rider, I strongly object to the Forest Service’s use of Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs) to exclude the public from longstanding routes in the Mark Twain National Forest. In the Potosi unit and nearby areas, I have encountered maps that recognize the beginning and end of historic routes while omitting the connecting sections—even though those sections physically exist and have been used for decades. The resulting gaps make complete loops unavailable to legal motorized travel. In my view, this is an abuse of the mapping process that demands an independent review. I also object to berming and blocking usable logging roads and restricting access roads to agency personnel without a clear, publicly defensible justification. These routes provide recreation access, connections through the forest, and potential fire access. Closing multiple entrances and exits can leave the public with a single way in and out. The maintenance argument misses the point: I am not asking for paved roads or maintained gravel everywhere. Primitive roads and historic trails are valuable precisely as they are. Maintenance costs alone should not justify blanket exclusion. Street-legal, registered, insured adventure motorcycles deserve meaningful access, including consideration of shared equestrian trails where conditions permit. I urge the Forest Service to: Audit MVUM omissions against existing routes, historical records, and topographic maps, with public participation. Restore connected routes and multiple access points wherever feasible. Require specific, documented reasons for closures and agency-only access. Provide a practical process for challenging mapping omissions and unjustified restrictions. Revise the policy toward open unless specifically closed, with closures supported by evidence. Public forests belong to the public. The MVUM must be accurate, fair, and accountable—not a mechanism for making longstanding access disappear through omission. The presumption of exclusion must end.

This land is your land, this land is my land…One of my favorite songs to sing in grade school music class. I believed the lyrics and they ignited a lifelong appreciation and passion passion for getting outside and exploring our beautiful and pristine country. My husband shares my admiration for our forests, waterways and diverse ecosystems and we have in turn fostered this same spirit in our children as we have taken them camping, floating and hiking in our nearby Ozarks, Mark Twain National Forest, Grand Mesa in Colorado, up to The Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in Montana and all the way to the spectacular Kalalau Trail in Kauai! Please preserve these lands and remarkable ecosystems for future generations of my family and for the sake of the earth and for the sake of our country. Sincerely, Kim Wright

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a resident of Kansas City, Missouri, and an avid public land hunter and angler, I rely on intact, roadless public lands for the outdoor pursuits that define my way of life. While Missouri may not have the millions of unbroken backcountry acres found in western states, the roadless tracts we do have, specifically within the Mark Twain National Forest, are incredibly precious. I spend my time on public lands pursuing deer and turkey, and wading clear streams for smallmouth bass. Large, undeveloped blocks of public land are essential to these resources. For deer and wild turkey, unfragmented habitats provide critical security cover and breeding grounds away from heavy motorized pressure. Just as importantly, keeping roads out of these areas protects the delicate watersheds of our streams, preventing the erosion, runoff, and siltation that can quickly degrade high-quality smallmouth bass habitats. The value of these lands lies in their wild character. When a new road is cut into a previously undisturbed area, the landscape changes permanently. Wildlife behavior shifts due to increased pressure, invasive species find new corridors to take hold, and the quiet, rugged experience that hunters and anglers seek is lost. Furthermore, this proposed rule change does not just affect my home state. Like many Missouri outdoor enthusiasts, I frequently travel to recreate on National Forest lands in other states. The national framework of the Roadless Rule ensures that the backcountry areas we value across the country remain intact for future generations, rather than being carved up piece by piece. I urge the agency to abandon the proposed rescission and uphold the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Maintaining our remaining roadless areas is one of the most effective and necessary ways we can support fish, wildlife, and the enduring quality of outdoor recreation in Missouri and across the nation.

I am a Mo resident and an avid outdoorsman. I have always cherished the wild places in America. The places that a person has to work to get to. I have travelled in Wilderness Areas and Roadless Areas in Fl, Ga, Nc, Va, Me, Co, Az, Nm, Wy, Nv, Mt, Id, Wa, Or and Mo. The 25,500 roadless acres in the Mark Twain National Forest seems large but it is broken up over the southern half of the state, into small pockets, but these pockets are precious. It would be ashame to destroy this small remoteness that still exists. John Muir and Aldo Leopold understood that wild places were good for man's soul. Recent science has shown the benefits of wild areas for all of us and especially for our veterans. Protecting these areas is good for us, the American people. Loosing them is bad for us, tax payers, that will pay for these unneeded roads. Most US Forest Service Roads are built and maintained at a loss, even when they are constructed for extractive industries. So I, as a tax payer, subsidize the building and upkeep of roads I do not want, that then allow another person or entity to profit from resources I did not want them to utilize. The roadless rule has allowed the US Forest Service to stop building roads it can not afford to maintain and provide lands for conservation that become rarer and rarer by the day on our planet and in Missouri. I as a tax payer and voter strongly support keeping the Roadless Rule in place as is and protecting the values, lands and wildlife that persist on the few remaining roadless areas in Missouri and across the nation..

I am a Missouri resident and I use roadless public lands for hunting, fishing, and camping, particularly in the Mark Twain National Forest in central and southern Missouri. The solitude and connectedness to nature that I feel when camping in the backcountry is one of the things I value most in this world. My children are still too young to hunt with me but I'm trying to raise them with an appreciation for the outdoors as well as with a love and respect for nature and all of the plants and animals that inhabit it. Camping and hiking in the backcountry has allowed me to give them hands-on learning opportunities that they couldn't get from a book or in a classroom. Maintaining these large, undeveloped blocks of public land benefits fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation in Missouri and the lands in other states where I recreate and where my children and their children will recreate for decades to come.

I am a Missouri resident that frequently recreates on portions of the Mark Twain National Forest as well as other National Forests throughout the country. I am personally opposed to any move to fully rescind the 2001 Roadless Area conservation Rule. This rule helps to safeguard some of our nationals most intact fish and wildlife habitat and provides amazing outdoor experiences for those of us willing to put in the effort. This existing rule provides flexibility for wildfire mitigation activities, habitat restoration, grazing, and recreation. With nearly $11 billion in deferred maintenance, the USFS does not need to add anymore roads to its network- this simply does not make sense financially in the long or short term. I support the no action alternative- leave this rule as is to protect fish, wildlife, wild places, and those of us willing to "earn it".

I oppose this scheme to weaken the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I just returned from a hiking trip in Wyoming and enjoyed the public lands there. I have also visited Roadless areas in the Mark Twain National Forest, in Missouri. The Roadless rule protects important landscapes that can be enjoyed by all.

Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I own land that near the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri. I respect and love the natural environment and the wildlife on that the land and I value that the access to the water and land there is undisturbed by roads or infrastructure. I don’t want any new or added roads going through that National Forest. That would disturb the beauty of it and disrupt it from being what it is intended to be which is a protected natural environment. If roads are built it will change the entire structure of what a protected national forest is intended to be. I don’t want my tax dollars used to pay for these changes. I am a retired teacher and as an educator and a responsible community member it would be painful to think that my tax payments would be supporting something so harmful, unnecessary and destructive. Please let the wild stay wild!! If you take it away, we cannot get it back!!

Hello, my name is Flynn Edgerton and I am commenting about the Mark Twain National Forest land exchange in Missouri, as it falls under the Roadless Rule. The Forest Service wants to trade 2,616 acres of public national forest to the Doe Run mining company in exchange for only about 354 acres of private land. That permanently removes more than 2,600 acres of Ozark public forest from public ownership at a seven to one loss. This land is critical to myself and countless others who use the land for outdoor recreation, as well as citizens who live in and around the considered area. Silica mining has already been opposed by residents of Missouri and the potential of lead mining in the area will present the same potential for irreversible damage to the water quality and health in the area, with knock-on effects for wildlife and residents. Please protect the Roadless Rule as it protects the health, safety, and well-being of all inhabitants of the Mark Twain National forest. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I disagree with this strongly. Our public lands need ongoing protection. Administrative backlog can be corrected in other ways. Our Mark Twain National Forest needs to remain untouched.

Re: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation Docket No. FS-2025-0001; RIN 0596-AD66 I strongly oppose USDA’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, and retain 36 CFR part 294, subpart B. I am a Missouri resident, outdoor recreationist, and conservation photojournalist focused on wildlife, habitat, and the people conserving America’s natural heritage. My reporting has shown me that intact habitat is far harder AND more expensive to restore than to protect. The proposal would remove a proven national safeguard from approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System land. More than 95 percent lies in ten Western states, where the consequences would be greatest. But this is also a Missouri issue: Forest Service records identify approximately 25,000 inventoried roadless acres in the Mark Twain National Forest. That smaller footprint illustrates why a national conservation floor matters. Public forests do not become expendable because their roadless acreage is modest. USDA’s wildfire rationale is unpersuasive because its own analysis undercuts it. The draft EIS reports that inventoried roadless areas experience far fewer ignitions per acre than other National Forest System lands and acknowledges that human-caused fires generally increase with proximity to roads. Roads bring vehicles, equipment, campfires, sparks, invasive species, and more human activity into places where ignition rates are lower. Although roads can aid suppression in some circumstances, they also create ignition sources and permanent maintenance obligations. The draft EIS does not show that nationwide rescission would produce a net reduction in wildfire risk. The existing rule does not prohibit responsible stewardship. Its exceptions permit roads and timber removal when needed to protect health and safety, address imminent wildfire threats, restore threatened or endangered ecosystems, honor valid existing rights, and meet other defined needs. USDA has not shown why those targeted exceptions are inadequate, nor why concerns in particular forests require eliminating protections across 44.7 million acres. The ecological consequences are too serious to defer to future forest plans and project reviews. The Forest Service’s preliminary biological analysis concluded that rescission may affect and is likely to adversely affect 327 federally listed species and 71 designated critical habitats. Roads fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife movement, spread invasive species, increase mortality and poaching access, and carry sediment into streams supporting fish and drinking-water supplies. These harms accumulate across projects, watersheds, and forest boundaries. Site-specific reviews cannot replace a national analysis of their foreseeable cumulative effect. Later NEPA review is not an adequate substitute. It would occur only after the national safeguard has been removed and force communities, Tribes, recreationists, and taxpayers to contest the same risks repeatedly, forest by forest. That fragments both the landscape and the public process. The economic analysis must count the full public cost of rescission, not merely potential timber, mineral, or energy activity. New roads require construction, maintenance, repair, enforcement, and eventual decommissioning while the Forest Service already faces a substantial road-maintenance backlog. USDA must also value clean water, fisheries, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, recreation, tourism, and the communities that depend on intact public lands. Short-term extractive revenue is not a net public benefit when long-term costs are shifted to taxpayers. USDA’s record also reports that most Tribal governments consulted oppose rescission, citing threats to treaty-reserved resources, subsistence, sacred places, cultural landscapes, and water quality. These sovereign concerns cannot be deferred to later projects. USDA should complete meaningful government-to-government consultation and fully evaluate Tribal conservation and co-stewardship proposals before making an irreversible national decision. A road is not merely a line on a map. It is a lasting commitment of public money and a gateway to fragmentation and development. Once an intact landscape is divided, its roadless character cannot simply be restored by changing a forest plan. I ask USDA to withdraw the proposed rescission, select Alternative 1, and retain the Roadless Rule. If changes are necessary, USDA should evaluate narrowly tailored amendments, NOT wholesale repea;. and fully analyze cumulative ecological, wildfire, water-quality, recreation, climate, and infrastructure costs. The Roadless Rule protects public assets that belong to every American and cannot be replaced once lost. Please keep it in place.

Re: RIN 0596-AD66 — Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Inventoried roadless areas represent some of the last largely undisturbed forest ecosystems on National Forest System lands, and removing national-level protections would open these areas to road construction and timber harvesting with consequences that cannot be easily undone. Roadless areas provide critical, undisturbed habitat for wildlife, including many sensitive, threatened, and endangered species that depend on large unfragmented tracts of forest to survive. Road building fragments habitat, increases erosion and sedimentation into streams and watersheds, introduces invasive species, and increases human access that leads to poaching, disturbance, and further habitat degradation. These are not hypothetical risks — they are well-documented effects of road construction in forested ecosystems. These lands also protect clean drinking water sources, store carbon, and preserve some of the only remaining truly wild places available to the public. Once roads are built and these areas are logged, the ecological damage is largely permanent — old growth and undisturbed habitat cannot simply be restored on any timeframe that matters to the species living there now. As a longtime resident of the Ozarks near Sparta, Missouri, I live close to Mark Twain National Forest and its inventoried roadless areas. These wild places are not abstract to me — they are part of the landscape I've lived alongside my whole life, and they matter directly to the health of the land and water my community depends on. Handing this decision-making down to individual forest-level planning processes removes the uniform, science-based baseline protection that has kept these areas intact for over two decades, and opens the door to inconsistent, piecemeal decisions that put wildlife and water quality at risk across the country. I urge the USDA to withdraw this proposal and retain the full protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Diamond AnoNuevo Sparta MO