Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Roadless areas are very important to me. I could speak to generally how they help create more diverse and wild landscapes everywhere not just in their vicinity. The United States actually still has wild places unlike many other countries. But I will speak to my specific experience within Deep Creek Roadless Area. I hike there for the last 10 years every year. I love how I can not hear vehicles. I would be heartbroken if this place did not exist or if it was destroyed. To even build a single road in this area I am sure would destroy a lot. The waters in the creek are so clean and the hot springs so delicately placed near the creek. All that would be polluted with run off if roads were built. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about Deep Creek (23,869 acres), San Bernardino National Forest, California. I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: The small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it I photograph trees, and my work is part of the recreation economy this document weighs. The agency certifies no impact while the analysis beside it says otherwise: 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. The supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, and concedes some firms may lose these receipts. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Issue 2: Foreseeable plan amendments are placed beyond scope I photograph landscapes, and every frame depends on what the management plans allow next. The agency concedes where this leads and then declares it out of scope: The proposed rule concedes that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them (91 FR 53830). The agency is asking commenters to perform the analysis it declared out of scope. I ask that the agency analyse the foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including expanded timber harvest area, as part of this action. Issue 3: Reliance interests are invited and never assessed I photograph wildlife, and years of that work are built on these protections holding. That is a reliance interest, and the agency invited me to name it: 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. Under Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is such an interest. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Issue 4: The agency's own fire data cuts against the proposal I hike and camp in this country, and fire shapes every trip I plan. If the agency's own data ties ignitions to road access, I want that weighed honestly. 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 (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The effects analysis itself concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. I ask that the agency quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Katherine Bauer Corona Del Mar, California

I live near the San Bernardino National Forest and have visited other forests throughout other states like Idaho and Arizona. The preservation of these lands is personally important to me, and all should value the beauty of our natural landscapes. If this rule is rescinded the destruction of priceless wild lands will become essentially inevitable. The enrichment of a small percentage of individuals is not worth the ability for us and all future generations to enjoy our natural environments. Think of how older generations today and when you were a child lament on what once was but can never return. That phenomena will be expounded by orders of magnitude if the little preserved land we have left loses that status. Nature is bigger and more important than any of our material needs.

The roadless rule is essential for mountain communities across the United States. It protects the soil, provides recreational access, keeps watersheds clean and intact, and protects wildlife corridors, reduces erosion of the soil and reduces wildfires started by creating new roads. As a resident who lives in the San Bernardino National Forest, the roadless areas here are connected to a 100 miles scenic highway called Rim of the World Scenic byway, that resident and visitors drive and enjoy the prestine landscape on their way up to the town of Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, and Big Bear were approximately 40,000 residents live in the forest, removing the roadless rule would impact the scenic views, the health of the forest, and tourism that small busi eses depend on. The value of propertyies would be impacted severly. Please keep the roadless rule in place it is very popular. Leave the Forest alone.

I am writing this comment in regards to the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. As someone who works in and has had the privilege to recreate in our national forests, from Mt Hood down to Lassen, Shasta-Trinity, and San Bernardino National Forest, I have grown to deeply care for these public lands and their value to local communities, wildlife, and our watersheds. As you may have gathered, I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I have been witness to countless wildfires over the course of my life, and with most of the 85% of human-caused wildfires igniting in close proximity to roads, building more roads in vulnerable areas will only increase the risk of fire, as stated by a study from the wilderness society that shares that wildfires are 4x more likely to ignite in roaded areas than unroaded tracts. Additionally, the Forest Service, the agency that already manages the most roads out of any other government agency, already has a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog, which is astronomical paired with the added strain on resources (not to mention the expense) to fight fires in less accessible, previously roadless areas. Forest roads also cause habitat fragmentation and harm wildfire in the majority of our national forest lands. I have regularly traveled on forest service roads for years, and to this day, the sheer scale and expanse of the road systems in our national forests still boggles my mind. Roadless areas contain some of the last remnants of intact forests across the country, and they deserve to stay that way for the sake of biodiversity conservation, ecosystem health, and future generations. Once again, I will always oppose the revision of the Roadless Rule, and I believe that it would be wise for your agency to do what it can to follow the mission it had when it all started— protecting our forests. — Chris Berry

Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Hunting since I was 10 years old has connected me to the cycle of life, to my food, to how it is processed and where it comes from. The national parks and forests have been my refuge in hectic times, my place of peace. I have been a trail guide in 5 states, led hikes through the Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel wilderness, through the Cascade Mountains, climbed Mount Rainier, and led hunting trips through the Alaskan wilderness. I have photographed Big Horn Mine, the surrounding mountains, and the San Gabriel wilderness. I want my children to have the same opportunities I had to explore and appreciate these lands. I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency's own data on wildfire should stop this proposal in its tracks. The record states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." I have lived through several major wildfires, some that nearly took our home. I know that mismanagement of forests leads to disastrous fires, which then cause sudden flash floods when it rains. The agency is now proposing to open roadless areas in the name of fire management while its own record shows that roading those areas increases ignition risk. I ask the agency to explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economics do not add up, and where my tax dollars go matters to me. The record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and the net present value of the proposal spans -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency cannot establish a net benefit, yet it proposes expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on a road budget of about $73 million a year. Building new roads into country that has none, while existing roads crumble, is not a responsible use of public funds. The agency must reconcile this proposal with those numbers and explain on the record how that arithmetic serves the public interest. One of my first memories of fishing is on the American River that flows through Sacramento, pulling salmon in almost as big as me at the time. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and across the Pacific Southwest region 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, and that removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures beyond what suits cold-water species, reducing egg survival, rearing densities and growth of coho salmon in areas that include Essential Fish Habitat and critical habitats managed by NMFS. The Cucamonga A unit of 1,249 acres in the Angeles National Forest and the Cucamonga C unit of 4,106 acres in the San Bernardino National Forest sit in this landscape. Clean water is not a policy preference. We as humans require it. Our wildlife and forests need it. I want the agency to tell me, specifically, how it intends to protect those 1,034 intake watersheds if this rule falls. On the question of statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit spoke plainly: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The court held the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency owes the public a specific, on-the-record explanation of its basis for any contrary legal position. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. Our lands should be kept and managed for future generations. Their loss will have an unimaginable impact on us all. Sincerely, John Benge Chino, CA

I am a native Californian, and I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am lucky to have grown up in a rural area near Auburn, CA with many roadless areas just up the hill in the Tahoe and El Dorado National Forests. These roadless areas protect our access to clean water that comes largely from the mountains. The North Fork American River Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and the North Fork Middle Fork American River IRA both protect areas upstream from my home from soil erosion, landslide risk, and sediment pollution - negative impacts that will increase if the Roadless Rule is repealed, according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (p 101). These rivers run into Folsom Lake, a reservoir that provides drinking water to hundreds of thousands of residents in Sacramento and the surrounding foothills. Of course, this pattern is repeated across the entire United States, where the Roadless Rule protects drinking water for about 24 million Americans (p 121). I have recreated in and formed deep connections to 63 roadless areas in California, Oregon, and Washington while hiking the length of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). The PCT is a designated National Scenic Trail, one of the crown jewels of the system of trails in the United States, and attracts thousands of hikers from around the world every single year, year after year. This is a boon to the local economies of the rural towns the trail passes by, but the attraction of the trail depends on the quality of nature along it, including the 10% of the trail that goes through IRAs. The US Forest Service’s own economists agree that rescinding the Roadless Rule would cost nearby communities up to 9 million dollars per year in visitor spending, as laid out in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (p 223-224). This could negatively impact Julian, CA near Caliente IRA in the Cleveland National Forest; like many PCT hikers I ate several times at Mom’s Pies and stayed at the Julian Gold Rush Hotel when I passed through. Idyllwild, CA near the Pyramid Peak A IRA in the San Bernardino NF was my refuge when a storm system swept through the mountains bringing snow in April; I stayed two nights at the Fireside Inn to dry out my gear and wait out the storm which also meant splurging on breakfast, lunch and dinner at local restaurants. Big Bear, CA benefits from visitors to several nearby roadless areas including one of my favorites, Deep Creek, which has a natural hot springs that is beloved by hikers and locals alike. The Roadless Rule keeps the creek clean and the canyon it runs through intact. Wrightwood, CA is another destination for recreation, including for PCT hikers, that is nearby several roadless areas in the Angeles NF including Sheep Mountain and Pleasant View, and stands to suffer losses to its economy if the Roadless Rule is rescinded. They have an excellent general store that gets a lot of business from hikers and the summit of Mount Baden-Powell is both in their backyard and part of the Sheep Mountain IRA. Baden-Powell offers a challenge, and immersion in nature, draws day-trippers from Los Angeles, and would be severely degraded if it were logged. Green Valley, CA, near the Tule and Fish Canyon IRAs, benefits from hikers who shop at their local market and eat at the wonderful Green Valley Smokehouse. I could keep going, since I hiked through, as stated above, 63 IRAs throughout the three states. All are local treasures that draw people from around the world looking for world-class recreation in nature, and who spend on dining, lodging, guiding, equipment and more in the surrounding communities. The eastern Sierra Nevada has a number of IRAs that are near and dear to me, not just as a hiker, but as a climber as well. I climb to connect with nature, explore my physical and mental limits, experience solitude and beauty. According to the DEIS, rolling back the Roadless Rule will degrade scenery and backcountry access (p 25, 192). This could be true, for example, in the Coyote North IRA where the climbing area Little Egypt is located. I’ve been climbing and hiking in and around Bishop for 16 years now. I’ve also explored the Birch Creek IRA on trails among the ancient bristlecone pine trees. The Birch Creek IRA contains not just the oldest living trees but the world’s oldest living non-clonal organism, which is a Great Basin bristlecone pine tree that is 4858 years old. I am in awe of the natural world when I go to this place, and believe it must be protected for everyone, including future generations. When the Roadless Rule was put in place in 2001, our country was overwhelmingly in favor of the Roadless Rule. We still are. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

Re: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation - proposed rescission, 91 FR 53827 (Aug. 20, 2026) | RIN 0596-AD66 | Docket FS-2025-0001 I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule and ask that the Department withdraw the proposed rule, or at minimum adopt an alternative that retains the national baseline and requires site-specific NEPA before any road construction or commercial harvest in inventoried roadless areas. I am a U.S. military veteran and an America the Beautiful Military Lifetime Pass holder. I live in San Francisco, and these areas are where I actually spend my time - the San Gorgonio Wilderness (San Bernardino NF), the Cucamonga Wilderness and the San Gabriel high country around Mount Baldy (Angeles NF), the Mount Pinos country in Los Padres NF, and the eastern Sierra out of Mammoth. The reason those places are still quiet is the 2001 rule. I also drive SR-38 to the Vivian Creek trailhead, which has washed out repeatedly since the 2020 El Dorado Fire - a reminder of what these steep headwater drainages do after fire, and why road density and ground disturbance in them matter. Four specific comments: 1. The stated problem does not require this remedy. USDA keeps the Idaho (subpart C) and Colorado (subpart D) roadless rules and notes that any state, tribe, or entity may petition under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) for tailored management. If place-based roadless rules are workable - and USDA is retaining two - then "one-size-fits-all" is not a justification for repealing the baseline everywhere else. The Department already has the mechanism it says it needs. 2. "Returning decisions to land management plans" is a plan of absence. The notice states the rule "does not require or compel the amendment or revision of any land management plan." For forests whose plans do not independently prohibit road construction and harvest in roadless areas, rescission leaves a gap with no protection until a plan is revised - years, for many units. The final EIS should state, acre by acre, how much of the 58.5 million acres retains equivalent protection on day one and how much does not. The notice asserts effects are "bounded by existing land management plan direction" without demonstrating what that direction is. 3. The economics are close to a wash; the losses are not. USDA's own figures: timber-industry gain of $4.6-10.6M/yr, recreation loss estimated at $6.1M/yr - against a $6.9 billion deferred-maintenance backlog on the existing forest road network. Building new roads you cannot afford to maintain, for revenue the same order as the recreation value displaced, is not a net-benefit case. The road-maintenance liability of new permanent roads is missing from the analysis. 4. Wildfire. The notice concedes greater access "can increase human-caused ignition potential." If road construction is justified as fire-risk treatment, the EIS should quantify treatment acreage actually achievable within operability and budget over ten years, and compare it against the acres each new road puts at higher ignition risk. The 9.8 million WUI acres overlapping roadless areas deserve a spatially explicit alternative, not blanket repeal. Alternative I support: No Action, or a targeted-WUI-treatment alternative permitting fuels reduction and temporary access within a defined distance of at-risk communities while retaining the prohibition on new permanent roads and commercial harvest in the interior of inventoried roadless areas. As a veteran, I value these lands for the quiet, self-reliant recreation they provide, and I ask the Department to keep the protection that makes them what they are. Please withdraw the proposed rule. Brian Mauck - San Francisco, CA

The forest is my church. Whenever things got bad as a youth, i could always count on the forest to be a safe space for rest and recharging. Old growth friends are amazing … resilient to time and fire - only to be cut down by bureaucracy? I pray not! Forests must remain wild and roadless. There is plenty of access for firefighters, haven’t heard that be a complaint and i live and breathe the San Bernardino National Forest. Cut into the forest and you cut into the future. Leave it be.

I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in the Santa Ana River watershed of southern California, the largest in Southern California, within sight of much of the 53,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas of the San Bernardino National Forest. The roadless conservation rule is meant to protect areas like it, now and into the future. Roadless areas provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans. These undeveloped lands are critical to our nation’s ecological health.  These areas store 20% of all carbon in U.S. national forests. Growing up in Southern California, in the ’60 and ‘70s, we had smudge pots, Kaiser steel, oil drippy automobiles burning leaded gasoline - all adding to multiple smog alerts. The smog was palpable. It tasted acrid, it smelled foul. It constricted my breathing and hurt my chest. I’m guessing it was the same back east and frequently caused acid rain. And guessing it was the same during the industrial revolution and London’s infamous black fog. We need to increase our forested areas, not decrease them. We need to have what little is left of our natural carbon scrubbers, especially our old growth forests. Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hiking hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands. The outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. I’m not sure what Edward Abby would think about the roadless rule. He enjoyed roads into wilderness maybe as much as walking through them. I think he believed we already have enough roads and support the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Here’s what he had to say about uninhabited areas, not necessarily about congressionally designated Wilderness, more inclusively wilderness within including all areas that are roadless: But why, the questioner insists, why do people like you pretend to love uninhabited country so much? Why this cult of wilderness? Why the surly hatred of progress and develop-ment, the churlish resistance to all popular improvements? Very well, a fair question, but it's been asked and answered a thousand times already; enough books to drive a man stark naked mad have dealt in detail with the question. There are many an-swers, all good, each sufficient. Peace is often mentioned; beauty; spiritual refreshment, whatever that means; re-creation for the soul, whatever that is; escape; novelty, the delight of something different; truth and understanding and wisdom-commendable virtues in any man, anytime; ecology and all that, meaning the salvation of variety, diversity, possibility and potentiality, the preservation of the genetic reservoir, the answers to questions that we have not yet even learned to ask, a connection to the origin of things, an opening into the future, a source of sanity for the pres-ent—all true, all wonderful, all more than enough to answer such a dumb dead degrading question as "Why wilderness?" To which, nevertheless, I shall append one further answer any-way: because we like the taste of freedom; because we like the smell of danger. Roadless areas are crucial habitat for 1,600+ threatened species. From roads invasive species hitch rides on vehicles We already have 370,000 miles of forest roads with a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Studies show wildfire ignitions are 4x more likely near roads than in roadless areas. Many of our local wildfires are caused by careless humans adjacent to easy access roads from camp fires, fireworks, recreational shooting, and arsonists. Roads are hazardous to all creatures great and small. There is not a day I drive on roads for work and don’t see death- from honey bees and butterflies, though chipmunks and song birds though cats and dogs fox raccoon and dear. And those are just some of the macro fauna. There is micro fauna I don’t see I am pretty sure my passage on the road is responsible, if not in whole in part, for more death than I know of- further unbalancing life. Please do not repeal the roadless rule Thank you. David Bratt Mentone, California

To the Forest Service: I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294, subpart B). I haven been an avid hike for almost 20 years, hiking several times a week (or more). This includes national parks and national forests including the following: • Angeles National Forest • Arapaho National Forest • Carson National Forest • Cleveland National Forest • Inyo National Forest • Lassen National Forest • Pike National Forest • Rio Grande National Forest • Roosevelt National Forest • Routt National Forest • San Bernardino National Forest • White River National Forest Hiking is important to both my physical and mental health and has played an important role in my volunteer work to help veterans reintegrate following their service and find community. Taking them on hikes has been a powerful way to bolster their health and wellness. The 2001 Rule protects roughly 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas by generally prohibiting road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting, with limited exceptions. Rescinding it removes that protection nationwide. The notice states that the rescission does not itself mandate timber cutting or road building. But it removes the rule that currently prevents them, and the agency should be candid that this makes road construction and logging in these areas possible where they are now generally prohibited. For hikers, the value of these areas is that they are undeveloped. A trail through a roadless area offers quiet, solitude, and a sense of remoteness that cannot be rebuilt once a road is cut through. Opening the door to new roads and logging puts those experiences at risk, and the loss would be permanent in a way that is very hard to undo. The Department's stated reasons for the proposal are to reduce regulatory burden and to return decisions to local Forest Service officials. I ask the agency to address the following in the final rule and EIS: How will recreation be weighed? If decisions move to the local level, what required standard will ensure that the value of undeveloped backcountry for hiking and other dispersed recreation is considered, rather than left to discretion project by project? What is the burden being relieved? Please identify the specific, documented costs of the 2001 Rule, and show that they outweigh the benefits of keeping a consistent nationwide protection. Why rescind rather than amend? If there are specific problems with the rule, why does the Department propose eliminating it entirely instead of a narrower fix? How will the public be involved? Under the proposal, how would hikers and other recreation users learn of and comment on future decisions affecting individual roadless areas? I also ask that the Department give the public adequate time to review a proposal of this size. The rescission was issued alongside a draft environmental impact statement and a cost-benefit analysis, with an original 30-day comment period. I urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rescission and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Laura W. Fort Collins, CO

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Plan. I urge the agency to select the No Action Alternative and keep the rule intact. One key point I keep coming back to is the fact that roadless national forests filter and supply clean drinking water to roughly 60 million Americans (including half of all Californians). Roads and heavy disturbance increase sediment and degrade water quality. Additionally, wildfires are four times more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road due to human ignition (sparks, campfires, discarded cigarettes). As a resident of the highly flammable Western region of the US, this is very concerning to me. In 2024, we almost lost our home to a wildfire. Last, I’d like to remind the agency that the National Forest System already faces an $8.5+ billion road-maintenance backlog. Building new roads into pristine areas adds massive, unfunded financial burdens rather than solving existing management needs. I live in the San Bernardino National Forest and we rely on tourism to survive as a community. Whether for hiking, hunting, fishing, backpacking, or paddling, backcountry tourism and outdoor small businesses rely on intact, wild landscapes rather than industrial development. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Aimee Gilchrist

As a PCT'19 alumni and wildands advocate, I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. There are 63 roadless areas along 288 miles of the PCT in California, Oregon and Washington. These miles represent roughly 11% of the trail. Roadless areas provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans. This also provides connected wildlife corridors and undisturbed natural connected ecosytems. These undeveloped lands are critical to our nation’s ecological health.  These areas store 20% of all carbon in U.S. national forests. Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hiking hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands. The outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. Roadless areas are crucial habitat for 1,600+ threatened species. We already have 370,000 miles of forest roads with a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Studies show wildfire ignitions are 4x more likely near roads than in roadless areas Please keep these roadless areas roadless! Deep Creek IRA—San Bernardino National Forest: On the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains about 60 miles east of Los Angeles. Starting at 6,200 feet above sea level, the stream through the IRA drops about 3,000 ft through dramatic canyons in its 22-mile course before flowing into the East Fork of the Mojave River. It includes deep pools and hot springs and is a popular spot for day hikers. South Sierra IRA—Inyo National Forest: On the PCT and near the South Fork of the Kern River. San Joaquin IRA—Inyo National Forest: Red’s Meadow is a beloved respite along the PCT and a starting point for horse packers at the Agnew Meadows Pack Station. Dardanelles IRA—Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: Nearly the entire PCT from Carson Pass to Echo Summit is in this roadless area. Granite Chief IRA—Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: Heading north from Barker Pass, the PCT, and the contiguous Tahoe Rim Trail climb to dramatic ridgelines, yielding dreamlike views of Lake Tahoe amidst red fir and hemlock forests. Further north, the trail enters Granite Chief Wilderness and intersects the Western States Trail. Areas between Granite Chief Wilderness and Donner Pass are within this IRA, jeopardizing views enjoyed by thru-hikers, day hikers, and even skiers who use Olympic Valley, Lake Tahoe’s largest ski park. Mount Eddy IRA—Shasta-Trinity National Forest: Just across the valley from Mount Shasta, Mount Eddy is the tallest peak along the Trinity Divide, and the tallest peak in CA west of I-5. This subrange of the Klamath Mountains features a unique landscape of towering granite spires, lush evergreen forests, and alpine lakes deep in glacier-carved cirques. The area is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and was established as a Research Natural Area (RNA) to study its ecological significance, serving as the headwaters for the North Fork Sacramento River. Grider IRA—Klamath National Forest: This is a popular area for campers and day hikers along the creek, which feeds the Klamath River. Severely burned in the 2014 Happy Camp Complex, the regrowing brush gives way to large stands of surviving trees, and the sound of rushing water is a constant along the trail. The area has already been the subject of a legal fight over logging. Norse Peak IRA—Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest: Next to Mount Ranier National Park, Sheep Lake is a picturesque alpine lake and a welcome destination for families for swimming, backpacking and camping. The hike to the lake is a gentle, 1.8-mile climb past summer wildflowers and red huckleberry plants in the fall, with great views of the Rainier fork of the American River, Mount Rainier, and Naches Peak. Liberty Bell IRA—Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest: Some 30 miles of the PCT from Rainy Pass to Harts Pass, including the popular day hike to Cutthroat Pass, are within this large IRA. Situated in the heart of the North Cascades, this area is home to the mighty Methow River, many alpine passes, and some of the highest elevation stretches of the PCT in Washington.

I own two vacant parcels in Wonder Valley, in the Mojave Desert near the San Bernardino National Forest, and I am writing as a neighbor of these lands. For 25 years the 2001 Roadless Rule has kept 58.5 million acres of national forest intact: the headwaters, the wildlife corridors, the ground that holds water in a region that cannot afford to lose it. In the desert you learn quickly that everything is connected. A road cut into a roadless watershed does not stay a local decision. The sediment, the fragmentation, the human-caused fire starts that follow new access, they all travel downstream to the rest of us. The Forest Service's own record shows fuel treatments already happen in roadless areas, and the research is clear that new roads bring more ignitions, not fewer. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Some protections work precisely because they are national. This is one of them.

I live in the San Bernardino National Forest. One of the most populated forests in the US, in the heart of Southern CA. Our mountain is an iconic back drop to the Inland Empire. We are Southern California's playground. We're where families come to camp, hike, mountain bike, fish, ski, and the list goes on. To carve up our mountain with additional roads and potential mining or logging operations would endanger the lives of the 10s of thousands of people who reside in the mountains, where wildfire, erosion, mudslide, and earthquake risks are exceptionally high. You would not only endanger the residents at the top of the mountain, but also the hundreds of thousands in the foothills. Keep our mountains the way they are. Let us play, let us live, let us be safe.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative and retain full Roadless Rule protections. I live in Belmont, California and spend time hiking and camping in nearby Roadless Areas like the Freel IRA in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and the Bear Canyon IRA in the Los Padres National Forest. This year, I had the privilege of hiking through 231 miles of Roadless Areas while “thru-hiking” the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT). I have fond memories of many of these Roadless Areas, and met many other American thru-hikers, locals, and international tourists out enjoying them with me. On the ridgelines north of Rainy Pass in Washington’s Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, I was blown away by views of the rugged North Cascade mountains. Above the Rosary Lakes in Oregon’s Deschutes National Forest, I enjoyed a beautiful sunset. In the meadows north of Carson Pass in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, I saw some of the most incredible wildflower displays I have ever seen. And on a sunny Saturday in Southern California’s San Bernardino National Forest, I shared the trail with many local families out swimming and fishing in Deep Creek. Under the agency’s proposed Alternative 2, all of these areas would lose protections. By opening Roadless Areas up to commercial development, we would fundamentally degrade their wild character, threaten water quality and wildlife, and diminish the recreational experience for locals and tourists alike. I hear the argument that roads allow access to help fight fires, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I am concerned that removing Roadless Rule protections would increase fire risk in our nation’s backcountry forests. In the DEIS, the agency admits that “Road density is linked to human-caused wildfires, and as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions.” But recent research from The Wilderness Society shows that from 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in areas with roads as in roadless forest tracts. A 2007 study from the Pacific Biodiversity Institute showed that more than 90 percent of wildfires occurred within half a mile of a road. These studies are attached. If a fire starts of natural causes in a remote, roadless forest far from civilization, that is a natural ecological process, not a problem that needs to be fought. It is well-known that excessive fire suppression leads to more severe fires in the long-run. What we must limit is the number of human-caused fires in our national forests, and building more roads and human infrastructure will only increase that risk. While on the PCT, I met many hikers from other countries. One thing they often said was that their countries don’t have wild land like we have in America. Our beautiful and wild public lands, including these Roadless Areas, are a key part of our shared national heritage. They make America great, and they are one of the reasons that I feel most grateful to live here. I look forward to revisiting the areas that I previously listed, to exploring Roadless Areas across many other states, and to sharing them with future generations of kids and grandkids. I only hope that the administration will allow that to happen. For these reasons, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. Thank you

I oppose the Trump administration s plans to develop the last remaining undeveloped lands within our national forests. PLEASE KEEP THE ROADLESS RULE! I live in San Bernardino County(SBC), California. Home to the San Bernardino National Forest. SBC is the largest county in the United States(US). San Bernardino County, is also a desert according to the amount of precipitation we receive annually. There is a section of SBC called the Inland Empire(IE). I reside in the Inland Empire and the weather conditions here can be eclectically harsh. Wind can be a devastating problem here in the IE and SBC. The winds have reached 80mph+ and wreak absolute havoc, especially during fire season. The IE and SBC can reach deadly temperatures of 120°+ in the summer months. It can snow at elevations around 1000 feet, and drop to temperatures of 30° and below. And that's not in the mountain areas. The IE also has worse smog and unheathful air quality conditions than the city of Los Angeles. As well as the IE and SBC being the worst County in the US for allergies and asthma! Imagine these harsh weather conditions getting five or even ten times worse in the next 20 years. This part of California would become unbearable! Getting rid of The Roadless Rule will lead to more deforestation accross the country, causing the weather conditions here in SBC and other parts of the United States to become uninhabitable. The deforestation of conserved forests, like The San Bernardino National Forest, is like taking a whip to the surface of the earth and tearing away the precious flesh that protects, nurtures, and, provides LIFE for human and animal kind alike. Deforestation is cruel and unnecessary devastatingly destructive practice! Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this crucial matter. Kathleen Haines United States Citizen Registered Voter Sincerely, Kathleen H. Fontana, CA

I oppose the Trump administration s plans to develop the last remaining undeveloped lands within our national forests. I myself live in a community that is developed within San Bernardino National Forest. I have first hand experienced the effects of wildfires. Removing trees and plants to increase roads will only allow space for more wildfires to start. I have has friends lose their homes and all of their belongings because a car sparked on the side of a highway. Our National Forest systems is a way to fight climate change. Trees are the earth's natural filters. Coming from down the mountain to up the mountain has been best decision for my family. It cleared up any breathing issues we had because these trees that surround my community are cleaning the air for us. If National Forests are removed for unnecessary roads, it will only worsen the health of many Americans. Have you ever heard the expression 'go touch some grass' or 'get some fresh air?' They are said when someone has anxiety, depression, anger, and other negative or harmful emotions. Nature is therapeutic! It is built into human bodies that we need to be outside for not only physical health but our mental health. Destroying nature is not the answer to this country's mental health crisis. There are so many other wonderful reasons why we should protect our National Forest system like protecting the animals species and communities that thrive off the land but I'll leave you with this- don't let this country fall into Idiocracy. No one wants to reminisce with their grandchildren about back in their day, they had their forests to hike. They had the freshest air. They want to experience it with them. We need to do better for our selves and society in the current time and the future. Sincerely, Nyah H. Running Springs, CA

Re: Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (91 FR 53827; RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001) To the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture: I am writing as a lifelong Californian, an Eagle Scout, a father and grandfather, and a photographer to ask that you keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. I learned to backpack in the San Bernardino National Forest as a Scout, and those trips taught me more than how to carry a pack and read a map. They taught me to travel lightly, to leave a place as I found it, and to be quiet enough to notice what was around me. Those habits became my Eagle Scout award, and they have stayed with me for a lifetime. Later, I took my own children into the Sierra Nevada year after year. As a family we have walked nearly 600 miles there, through the Stanislaus, Humboldt-Toiyabe, Sierra, Inyo, and Sequoia National Forests. We carried everything we needed on our backs, slept under the stars, and walked through country no road had ever reached. My children learned what I had learned as a boy: that wild places teach patience, humility, and gratitude, and that no purchase can replace that kind of experience. I also spent five years as a Staff Photographer for The Ansel Adams Gallery, living and working in Yosemite National Park. Ansel Adams used his camera to show people why wild places deserve protection, and I tried to carry that purpose into my own work. I cannot honestly name a single place that has touched me most deeply. It is the whole of these wild lands, taken together, that has shaped my life. These places are quiet, intact, and open to anyone willing to walk. Once a road is cut into undeveloped country, its wild character is gone, and no later decision can bring it back. I respectfully ask the Department to explain what specific problem the 2001 Rule has caused that its existing exceptions could not address, and to identify the particular projects it has actually prevented. Removing a nationwide protection should require a clear answer to that question. I was fortunate to inherit these places, and I want my grandchildren and their children to have the same chance. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Please keep these lands wild for everyone who comes after us. Respectfully, Edmond R McCormick Highland, California 92346

I have loved the outdoors for as long as I can remember. Spending time in nature is something that my family, friends, and I truly enjoy. I have visited many national parks and national forests, and I have hiked a portion of the Pacific Crest Trail from Campo to Lake Isabella. One of the things I loved most about hiking the PCT was being away from the cities, traffic, and noise and simply experiencing the peace and quiet of being surrounded by nature. During my hikes, I encountered sections of the PCT that had reopened after wildfires. Seeing the destruction caused by fire was heartbreaking. These experiences have made me appreciate how fragile our forests are and how important it is to protect them. I am concerned that allowing greater access and development in currently protected roadless areas could result in additional damage to these forests and the wildlife that depends on them. I have also hiked throughout the local forests in my area, including the Cleveland National Forest, Angeles National Forest, and San Bernardino National Forest. These places are important not only because of their natural beauty, but also because they provide habitat for wildlife, protect our watersheds, and offer people the opportunity to experience nature away from developed areas. We need to preserve these forests for future generations. Our forests and water resources cannot be replaced once they are damaged or lost. I respectfully ask that the Roadless Rule remain in place so that these special places can continue to be protected and enjoyed by future generations.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Angeles National Forest is where I hike every weekend. The Inyo National Forest is where I go to camp. The San Bernardino National Forest is where I photograph blooms, the change of seasons, and wildlife. These places are part of how I live, and I am opposing the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The strongest argument against this rescission comes from the agency's own words on fire. The proposal uses wildfire management as a justification for opening roadless areas to roads, but the agency's record states plainly: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." I hike in the Angeles National Forest, which sits in a region of serious and ongoing fire risk. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from that finding, and must 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 not established by the agency's own numbers. The record shows that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. I have come across many roads and campsites that are not maintained, and the existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog against a road budget of about $73 million a year. We should be maintaining what already exists. The agency must reconcile this proposal with its own analysis and explain how expanding a road system carrying that backlog is justified when the economic outcome is, by its own accounting, uncertain at best. The state-by-state approach this proposal advances has a legal history the agency must address. The record includes the agency's own prior statement 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." That approach was challenged, and the Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in it. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids repeating those deficiencies. On the question of statutory authority, the courts have already spoken. The Tenth Circuit held, reversing a district court injunction against the rule: "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." That court found the 2001 rule was 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 explain the basis for any position contrary to that holding. Our public lands should be protected and their ecosystems preserved for wildlife and recreation. The Angeles, the San Bernardino, and the Inyo are places I rely on. This proposal does not hold up against the agency's own record, and I ask that the comments above be answered specifically and in writing before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Ashley Los Angeles, CA