Read the comments.

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.

Hello I would like to comment strongly against removing the roadless rule. I believe the potential impact on pristine public land is not worth the risk of the proposed rule. In my opinion the land as it is right now belongs to everyone. Specifically, it should prioritize use by the people who it belongs to, not the corporations. Every year my wife and I spend a portion of our time fly fishing on public land. These rivers are either in roadless areas or have their headwaters in roadless areas. Every year we get the pleasure of meeting other people who fish the same waters and hearing their stories of how they appreciate these places just as much as us. Never once have we heard someone say "this place is great but imagine the profits for the timber we could generate if we let them build roads again". The idea that prioritizing the use of this public land by corporations over members of the public is wrong. I hope when considering repealing the rule, the desires of the people is prioritized. For fun, ive attached a photo from my wife and I's camp/fish trip to Ottawa National Forest in the Upper Pensula of Michigan this Sept. Hopefully you can see a road wouldnt make this place any better.

I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66) and to urge the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture to retain the rule. As a part-time Michigan resident, and native to the Upper Pennisula, I value our national forests not only for recreation, but also for clean water, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, climate resilience, and the opportunity for future generations to experience large areas of relatively undeveloped public land. I understand the need for responsible forest management, including wildfire prevention, forest-health work, and carefully considered access where necessary. However, I do not believe eliminating the nationwide Roadless Rule is necessary to accomplish those goals. Forest management should address demonstrated local needs without broadly removing protections that have helped conserve roadless areas for more than two decades. I am particularly concerned about the effect rescission could have on roadless lands in Michigan's Ottawa National Forest and on public forests throughout the country. Once roads are constructed and previously roadless areas are fragmented, restoring those landscapes to their former condition can be extremely difficult or impossible. New roads can also bring continuing maintenance costs and increase pressure from development, invasive species, habitat fragmentation, and other disturbances. Public forests should be managed with a long-term perspective. Their value should not be measured only by the timber or other resources that can be extracted from them. Intact forests provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, carbon storage, cultural value, and ecological resilience. These benefits belong to the public and extend far beyond a single management cycle. I also support locally informed forest management and meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations and communities. However, local flexibility does not require eliminating a national conservation baseline. The Roadless Rule can provide that baseline while allowing appropriate management activities when genuinely necessary. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule rather than rescinding it. If changes are needed to address specific forest-management challenges, I urge the Forest Service to pursue targeted solutions that preserve the rule's fundamental protections. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our national forests for future generations.

As a Michigan native, I have camped and hiked in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, especially the Ottawa National Forest. Removing the Roadless rule would degrade the very thing that makes these areas special. And also increase the risk of fires. I have grand children and I want them to have as their heritage these pristine forest areas.

America’s wild spaces are incredibly special. My husband and I travel the West in a tiny trailer and whether visiting the stunning north woods of Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan (Superior NF, Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, Ottawa NF, and many more or traveling in spectacular national forests in the West, we seek out the solitude and peace of these special wild places. Roads threaten these incredible forests, and once gone, can never be restored.

As a firefighter, sportsman, and public lands owner in Nevada and Michigan, with respect I urge the rejection of this proposed roadless area rule. This rule would harm wildlife habitat and water quality in places my family and I use and care about like the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF, Coronado NF, Kaibab NF, Coconino NF, Inyo NF, Modoc NF, Umatilla NF, Huron-Manistee NF, Ottawa NF and Hiawatha NF and others. It will also likely increase risk of human-caused wildfires, most of which start near roads. This unwise, politically-motivated rule fails the broad public interest for conservation of US forests, watersheds and rural economies. Thank you, Daniel R Patterson, Indian River MI / Boulder City NV

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My name is Stephen Hoekwater and I live in Caledonia, Michigan. Public lands matter very much to me and I care deeply about the health of our lands and waters. I enjoy hiking, fishing, backpacking, and hunting and have done so in our National lands in Michigan and all throughout our county. Removing this beneficial regulation will harm our public lands. I have strong concerns that the current administration is moving ahead with energy and resource removal without consideration of the health of the land itself. For instance, if the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule were removed, timber harvesting would cause devastation to mature Forests that are a treasure we must protect. Those in leadership positions are not proving they are looking at the larger picture or the needs of future generations, but instead are seeking instant gains regardless of the harm it will cause. Areas I have particular concern for are those parts of National Forests in Michigan: Hiawatha National Forest, Huron-Manistee National Forest, and Ottawa National Forest. I urge you members of the U.S. Congress to oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule,” and support “Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Thank You, Stephen Hoekwater

My name is Joan Schumaker Chadde. I live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I have a B.S. in Natural Resources from the University of Michigan and an M.S. in Water Resources from the University of Wyoming. I am a lifelong outdoors person. My first backpacking trip was when I was 18, and I'll be backpacking this weekend on Isle Royale National Park at the age of 71. I still have a decade of backpacking ahead of me! During the time I lived in Wyoming, I backpacked & hiked in the Bridger-Teton National Forest and the Medicine Bow National Forest. In Montana, I hiked and backpacked in the Bridger-Teton, Lolo, Bitterroot, Flathead, and Gallatin National Forests. The nearest national forest to me now is the Ottawa National Forest. I enjoy hiking in the 4,360 acre Norwich Plains Roadless Area -- the only Roadless Area in the Ottawa National Forest and one of the largest intact tracts of public land in Michigan. Lying in the middle of Ontonagon County in the western Upper Peninsula, the Norwich Plains are the headwaters of several relatively undisturbed trout streams. The Norwich Plains Roadless area is just a 90-mile drive from my house, the next closest roadless area would be hundreds of miles away. I live near Houghton, home of Michigan Technological University. Students come not only for engineering and forestry degrees, but also for the amazing recreation in the Ottawa National Forest. The Norwich Plains Roadless Area has not been intensively logged since the 1980s, and it is home to mature second growth forest as well as stands of old growth aspen and traces of the spruce-fir-cedar forest that dominated the area before the logging of the 19th century. In addition to these ecological resources, the Norwich Plains are also directly adjacent to the North Country National Scenic Trail and offer outstanding views of Norwich Bluff, one of my favorite places to visit in the Fall. I am also a frequent visitor to many roadless areas in the Bitterroot & Lolo National Forests in MT, and in the Bridger-Teton N.F. The Roadless Rule Rescission is a monumental threat to our wilderness areas, the water quality of streams and lakes, trout fisheries, and wildlife habitat. Increasing roads in national forests will increase sediment in streams & lakes, introduce non-native plant & insect species, increase noise & traffic, and greatly diminish opportunities for quiet and solitude. A lot of effort went into gathering public comments 25 years ago when the Roadless Rule was first established. There is absolutely no reason to undo the tremendous progress made in protecting habitat and ecological diversity. Roadless areas contain a disproportionately large share of forest biodiversity. The Norwich Plains roadless area is a highlight of the North Country Trail in Michigan. I request the Forest Service to consider how future road construction and associated infrastructure could introduce new invasive species into currently intact forest landscapes. This includes not only disturbance directly along roads, but disturbance associated with facilities, work areas, vehicles, and future development. The Forest Service needs to consider the cumulative effects of introducing road disturbance & timber harvesting into landscapes that currently experience little or none. Assessing cumulative impacts of road construction and timber harvesting in a watershed was required when I worked for the Montana Dept of Natural Resources & Conservation 1986-1995, as well as, potential impacts on wildlife, bird, insect, and plant diversity, as well as, wilderness enjoyment by visitors. This should still be a requirement now. The results of the Forest Service's assessment of impacts needs to be shared with the public. Given the impossibility of creating new Roadless Areas, I strongly ask the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to demonstrate that recreation, ecological diversity, and intact habitats for wolves are fully considered in its decision-making. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I strongly request that you maintain the Roadless Rule intact as it is now. It works!

I am a long term forest land owner in upper michigan (Ottawa NF) and have commented and attended hearing regarding FS road closure policy and actions in the past decades. My comments address the upper midwest, primarily the Ottawa, but also the Nicolet, Chequamegon, Hiawatha, all located in the northern MI -WI area. My comments address this area, although I have many trips out to CO, WY, AZ and a few to MT. My recreational friends and family all support the recission of the roadless area conseervation rule(s). We all agree decision making lies at the local level, in terms of access to and road use, including logging road development in the upper midwest areas. Although complete confidence in the USFS decision making does not exist among us, someone has to be in charge of what is allowed and not. It is much preferred to have decisions for the health and use of the NF resource in our yard or area, instead of at a road restriction national level, in the hands of unknowing and somewhat ignorant decision makers. Send the roadless plan into history. Allow FS personel to return to be actual forest and resource managers with decision making authority, instead of simple salaried policy followers. A blanket roadless policy across the entire NF system is wrong. Each region and area has substantial differences requiring local intelligence. A west coast NF requires restrictions to protect and accomodate the millions of users. An upper midwest NF has you out there, and you do not see another human during your entire day (except maybe on the main road travel). So squash the overbroad "roadless" political preservation notion and start properly using the large publicly paid FS staff we have in place, and give them authority to appropriately manage their forest and to deal with their forest's need. Think about it, this may even make $$ resources available for a specific national forest to do unheard of things like replace decades old and aged bridges over beautiful remote streams, replace and fix deteriorated blacktop forest roads, and more!! I live and spend my time in the Ottawa NF. Here in Upper Michigan, past FS road and area restrictions were caused by false USFS speculation about use damage, conflicts, need to protect, and more. In some cases ridiculous forest access restrictions were created, resulting in denied access, complete removal of use opportunity from the public, in agency attempts to define what use is correct and incorrect in vast forestland areas. This approach is faulty. There cannot be a dubbed "roadless area" plan that works across the entire NF system in the US. Return authority back to the locale, and I do not mean the region (Milwaukee always demonstrated it has/had no clue of Ottawa NF details, only that it was unnecessary yet powerful bureaucracy). So there you have it. Dump the 'roadless" word completely, and start putting the peoples money back into developing, allowing proper use, proper access and enjoyment of their chosen NF. It's our resource and our money, not to be wasted on administration. Caveat, I do not speak for areas out west where people numbers and the very different terrains require appropriate restrictions, but that is what actual and proper Forest Service management is for, and why it exists. We need to go back to using it.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask that the agency respond to each of the following points in the record. As a retired forest ecologist and faculty member who spent much of her career working on old growth and late successional forests (LSOG), I am particularly concerned about loss of LSOG and biological legacies such as snags and coarse woody debris. In 2006, I led the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry workshop on old growth in the Upper Midwest, which brought together 32 old-growth researchers. Our report was published as NCSSF Project C10.4: Great Lakes Old Growth Workshop, June 2006. We found that less than 1% of the pre-cutover era old growth remains in the Upper Midwest, with particularly sharp declines in hemlock, yellow birch, and white pine, and that fragmentation, road building, and invasive species rank among the major threats. We further found that all remaining old growth and late successional forest on public lands in the region requires protection. I ask that the agency identify what measures, short of retaining the rule, will protect remaining LSOG forests in the Upper Midwest and across the nation. The National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry workshops also found that retention of biological legacies such as snags and coarse woody debris on the forest floor are important for reducing fire risk and protecting soil biodiversity. I ask that the agency quantify the expected loss of snags, coarse woody debris, and other biological legacies if the roadless rule is rescinded and clarify plans to retain these biological legacies for ecological resilience. Our local roadless area on the Ottawa National Forest is the Norwich Plains Revised Roadless Area. I frequently walk, bird, botanize, and watch wildlife in this area, and it is precious to me. At 4,360 acres, it is small but still important for local recreation (the North Country Trail is contiguous to it) and for the Ontanagon River watershed. I am concerned about species still in recovery here, particularly gray wolves and martens. The DEIS cites the finding that wide-ranging mammals "have suffered habitat loss and the extirpation or fragmentation of their populations," and documents that marten populations decline when forest cover thins, 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. I ask that the agency explain, on the record, how rescission is consistent with its own documented findings on habitat fragmentation and road-induced wildlife displacement. Water quality is particularly important for people and for fauna in the Upper Peninsula. Roadbuilding increases sediment flow into tributary streams, which can degrade spawning habitat for trout and other aquatic fauna. As the agency's analysis notes, roads and their skid trails and landings contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, and sedimentation from harvest can promote excessive substrate movement, causing egg and juvenile mortality and reduced suitable habitat for fish. The agency must identify what measures, short of maintaining the rule, would prevent sediment loading in these watersheds at the level its own data describe. Sincerely, Dr. Nancy Langston, Distinguished Professor Emerita, Michigan Technological University Chassell MI 49916

I strongly oppose rescinding roadless protections for national forests. I live within the Ottawa National Forest in Michigan and enjoy hiking, snowshoeing and skiing throughout protected national forest land includingbtfe Norwich bluff roadless area. The logging that would be introduced via new roadway construction would threaten my quality of life, in addition to the natural environment.

I am writing to oppose the proposal by the US Forest Service to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which established broad prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. I am a retiree from the US Forest Service after over 30 years, and have worked on the Tongass NF, the Ottawa NF and for the Eastern Region as a detailer. I am well aware of the roles played by the lands protected from road and other development and timber harvest under the Roadless Rule, which include wildlife habitat for those species that need large swaths of older timber without vehicles; watershed protection for public water supplies and aquatic species habitat; rare plant habitats; and more. There is no shortage of harvestable timber that would require these areas to be opened, many sales in my area (Ottawa, Hiawatha, Chequamegon-Nicolet NFs) are not even bid on and the mills can't take on more work or get a good price. There is already plenty of access for the public to national forests without adding roads to these areas, and there is a backlog of road maintenance needs such that opening the area to more roads is unnecessary and unaffordable. Wildfire risk is low in most of these areas without vehicles or logging equipment causing ignitions, and there are no structures to protect such that in fire-associated habitats, fires could be let burn, assisting fire-dependent species. New roads bring multiple hazards: non-native invasive species (for which the treatment costs are already very high), fragmentation of habitat, and increased risk of human-caused ignitions. Roadless areas often connect across forests such that national/big picture analysis is needed to fully define cumulative effects. The current administration has already taken aim at so many of our public lands-reducing the size of parks and monuments; eliminating staff at all the land management agencies; handing public land to private entities. The Roadless Rule must stay in place to prevent further damage to our wildland heritage, mature to old growth forests, wildlife habitat, and undeveloped-land benefits. There is no compelling reason to open these lands! Thank you for your consideration.

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently I love to walk in the forests. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Alison Stankrauff 120 Seward Apartment 408 Detroit, Michigan 48202

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Andrew Heer, Highland MI

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Mark Johnson Wyoming, MI 49519

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States.

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan's national forests contain roughly 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling about 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to Bear Swamp (3,915 acres). These are Michigan's last large roadless forests. The Roadless Rule keeps these lands free of new road construction and large-scale logging. That is exactly what makes them valuable for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling today. Rescinding the rule would allow new roads and increased logging in these areas, fragmenting habitat and changing the primitive backcountry character these forests currently offer. [Add a sentence here about why these forests matter to you personally, such as a trail you ride, a place you hike, or even a place you fish or hunt.] I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place for Michigan's Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, along with the rest of the National Forests across the United States. Sincerely, Thomas Hertz Flint, MI

I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596-AD66). Michigan’s national forests contain approximately 16,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across three forests: the Hiawatha National Forest, home to the Fibre (7,431 acres) and Delirium (188 acres) Roadless Areas; the Ottawa National Forest, including the Norwich Plains and Trap Hills, totaling approximately 4,600 acres; and the Huron-Manistee National Forest, home to the Bear Swamp (3,915 acres) area. These represent some of the last remaining large, contiguous roadless forests in Michigan. The Roadless Rule provides vital protections that restrict new road construction and large-scale industrial logging. These safeguards are essential to preserving the recreational value of these lands, which are currently enjoyed by outdoor enthusiasts for mountain biking, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and paddling. Rescinding this rule would facilitate the construction of new roads and increase industrial logging, inevitably resulting in habitat fragmentation and the degradation of the primitive, backcountry character that defines these forests. Some of my favorite camping and mountain biking trips have occurred in Michigan National Forests, particularly along the North Country Trail. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and maintain the protections afforded by the 2001 Roadless Rule for the Hiawatha, Ottawa, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, as well as for all protected roadless areas across the United States. Sincerely, James VanDokkumburg East Grand Rapids, Michigan

My name is John Rebers. I currently live in Marquette, Michigan, and I strongly support the 2001 Roadless Rule. I’ve been fortunate to visit many roadless areas on public lands. The most dramatic place I’ve been is the northern Pickett Range in North Cascades National Park. To reach this part of the park, you must bushwack over rough terrain through dense vegetation to reach your reward of stunning views and high alpine peaks. I’ve also backpacked in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness in the White River National Forest of Colorado, surrounded by 14,000 foot peaks. However, you don’t have to travel as far as the Washington Cascades or the Colorado Rockies to find the recreation, wildlife, and clean water protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Forest Service held multiple hearings that resulted in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule that has kept some of our public land free of roads and development. This includes 16 designated Wilderness Areas in Michigan, but also includes Roadless Areas in our National Forests. My favorite is the Norwich Plains in the Ottawa National Forest. I have hiked in this area to explore the Trap Hills, and was impressed by the scenery and the wildflowers there. There are also areas covered by the Roadless Rule in the Hiawatha National Forest and the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin that are within a two hour drive of my home. I oppose the Forest Service’s plans to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the No Action Alternative and retain the roadless rule as it exists. I am also disturbed by the short comment period given for those affected by this change to voice their opinion, and ask that the Forest Service extend the comment period to 120 days.

Dear Chief Schultz, Please uphold the multiple use principles that have guided the US Forest Service for decades and listen to the outdoorsmen and women of America by choosing NOT TO RESCIND THE ROADLESS RULE in its present form. As an avid public land hunter, angler, canoeist, hiker and camper who has visited each of Michigan’s six Roadless Areas, I am intimately aware of the immense value of these special places. I’ve fished the cool waters of the Big Sable as it flows through the Huron-Manistee National Forest’s Bear Swamp Roadless Area, I’ve paddled the emerald shores of the Hiawatha National Forest’s Government Island Roadless Area, I’ve scouted the top-notch upland bird habitat of the Ottawa National Forest’s Norwich Roadless Area, and much more. These forests offer some of the best outdoor recreation opportunities in the state. They provide wildlife habitat for grouse, deer, martens, woodcock, trout, and so much more. They filter headwater streams that flow into the Great Lakes, which hold 20% of the world’s surface freshwater and provide drinking water for 40 million people. Here in Michigan, our public lands define the scenic character of our state. If we lose these forests, we lose part of our heritage as Michiganders. Research shows that fewer than 1% of wildfires, and none of the costliest fires, since 2001 have started in Roadless Areas. Indeed, it is roads that bring in many of the root causes of wildfires like dragging chains and cigarettes. As you know, the Roadless Rule as written allows for management for fire. Instead, once these areas become roaded, they lose their unique wilderness characteristics that are so hard to come by. We would lose a wildness that in many ways defines our American spirit and our connection to the land. For all of these reasons. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you very much, Calvin Floyd