Read the comments.

As lifelong Wyoming resident, hunter, angler and seasoned user of our national forests I have seen first hand how the Roadless Rule has conserved some of our nation's most intact fish and wildlife habitat, protected clean water and sustained outstanding backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities. I spend on average over 30 days annually in our national forests primarily in the western United States. I recently spent over two weeks hunting and camping in the Bridger-Teton National Forest and another two weeks in the Shoshone National Forest. Roadless does not mean unmanaged. The rule allows important management activities, including hazardous fuels reduction and habitat restoration, while keeping these lands open to hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation. Claims that wholesale rescission is necessary to address wildfire risk aren't true. The Roadless Rule already provides flexibility for fuels treatments and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. And recent research found that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely to occur near roads than in roadless forests, underscoring that more roads are not necessarily the answer to wildfire risk. The Roadless Rule also makes fiscal sense. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of roads and faces approximately $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance, with more than half attributable to roads alone. Adding new roads and long-term maintenance obligations won't solve that problem. I was appalled at the conditions of the existing roads in these national forests. On a recent hunting and fishing trip in September 2026 in the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests, most of the roads I encountered had not been adequately maintained for months. Some of these roads were nearly impassible in a four wheel drive truck. As a hunter, angler and user of our national forests I support active, science-based forest management to address wildfire, forest health and responsible access. But wholesale elimination of the Roadless Rule is not the answer - it would remove longstanding protections from more than 44 million acres of national forest backcountry across 37 states. The Forest Service must keep our roadless areas wild, productive and accessible for generations to come and support the No Action Alternative. As a hunter, angler and outdoor enthusiast, I support the No Action Alternative and recommend that the United States Forest Service adopts the No Action Alternative.

I am opposed to repeal of the roadless rule because I frequently recreate in National Forests that will be effected and recreation with the current amount of roads is completely sufficient to fulfill more than a lifetime of recreation in these places. It is worth noting that I often recreate in my overlanding vehicle, which is a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 with an AT Overland Atlas camping topper that is specifically designed for overloading, which is exploring backcountry roads (primarily in national forests) and camping. I often string together trips of 2-5 days overloading in various national forests. (I will provide my experience doing so at the end of this comment.) Due to the plethora of road options already available in National Forestland, which is enough to satisfy a lifetime of use, the addition or more roads is not a compelling rationale for this proposal. Specifically, these are the reasons I am opposed to repeal of the roadless rule. 1. Impact on nearby National Parks: National Forests play a critical role in the National Park System by often surrounding National Parks and thus serving as a buffer between pristine parkland and wilderness areas and human activity. This is the case for nearly all the major parks in the park system, including the Crown Jewels of the National Parks Service, which will be directly impacted by the recession of the roadless rule—Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, Mount Ranier, Yosemite, North Cascades, Olympic, Everglades, Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Redwood, Crater Lake, Shenandoah, Wrangell St. Elias, and Great Smokey Mountains. It is additionally the case for lesser known, but still important, national parks such as Theodore Roosevelt, Badlands, Guadalupe Mountains, Lassen, Pinnacles, Voyaguers, Mesa Verde, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, New River Gorge, as well as other national park units such as Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The impact on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem looks particularly acute. The GYE, which includes Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and several impacted National Forests — Custer-Gallatin NF, Shoshone NF, Bridger-Teton NF, Caribou-Targhee NF. Like the other National Parks mentioned above, Yellowstone greatly benefits by being completely surrounded by National Forest land. In fact, also like many of these other National Parks, it is impossible to enter Yellowstone without passing through a National Forest. Simply put — increasing roads and industrial motor vehicle traffic in national forestland will adversely impact the ability of people to get into the parks and will have an adverse effect on nearby wildlife and wilderness areas. 2. Impact on last remaining intact ecosystems Personally, when I camp and backpack, I do it in an intact ecosystem. Whether in/around Yellowstone, Tongass NF, Chugach NF, Superior NF / Boundary Waters, or other roadless wilderness areas, these areas are few and far between and provide solitude that is simply unavailable in forestland that permit roads. The personal benefits to me, my family, and my friends are significant. These areas provide time and space and silence for personal reflection and personal growth. Adding additional roads into roadless areas threatens this recreation. It is also worth noting that these areas are some of the last areas WITHOUT ROADS in the world, so the only areas that permit space for reflection away from modern society. These areas need to be preserved as is for this unique and limited experience. The estimated loss of $6.1M annually is a ridiculous underestimate that completely lacks support. The real total is far greater. 3. No definition of the “regulatory burden” that will allegedly be relieved. There is no real definition of what the exact “regulatory burden” that USFS claims is present. If this is just another way of stating that this current government just doesn’t like the rule, then that is not a persuasive reason to repeal it. Moreover, the rationale is full of vague, undefined justifications that do not hold up to scrutiny: - “Constrains responsible officials from exercising the timely, place-based discretion…” - “Evolving national priorities and changed conditions…” - “Removed important management tools for key areas…” - “Unique ecological, economic, and social needs of their communities…” These are vague, boilerplate terminologies for which no concrete examples are given in the rationale. Indeed, there are no examples given of any local forest service officials expressing desire for more “flexibility to address conservation and resource issues” by repealing the roadless rule. Absent any examples, the rationale for this repeal cannot stand. (To be continued - 1 of 2)

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.

For most of my youth and all of my adult life, I have spent many days, weeks, and years exploring and enjoying the Bridger-Teton National Forest as well as the nearby Shoshone National Forest. Hiking, camping, and marveling at the beauty of the landscape of these forests has been what I choose to do whenever I have the opportunity ever since I was old enough to make the choice. These trips were not only formative but continue to be life defining. Any loss of the natural beauty and outdoor access would be a loss in countless ways. Activities that support self reliance, curiosity, strength, and solitude are nearly impossible to find in modern times, and land like this is an amazing asset to the American people. It calls back to what Americans have been doing since they first established this country. Our most famous explorers and leaders all knew the majesty of this important landscape and strove to protect it. The Roadless Rule is currently the only safeguard we have to protect our American values, and our only chance to salvage the last frontier Americans have to practice our self-reliance and re-discover our history. I don't want to look at my children one day and shrug when they ask what happened to the forests. I don't want to live in a future where I can't give them the same life-enriching experiences that made me the proud independent American I am today. The Roadless Rule has to be protected. This is a matter of national security.

To Whom It May Concern, I'm writing to ask that you keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and select Alternative 1 (No Action). I do not support Alternatives 2 or 3. I spent every summer of my childhood hiking the backcountry of the Shoshone National Forest and the Wind River Range around Dubois, Wyoming, and I care deeply about keeping these roadless areas intact for future generations to enjoy. While I understand the need to manage our forests, completely tossing out the Roadless Rule isn't the right way to do it. First, building new roads actually increases the risk of wildfires. Studies show that the vast majority of wildfires start right next to roads. Opening up the backcountry just invites more human-caused fires. Plus, the current rule already allows for fuels reduction near communities where it's actually needed for safety. Second, the Forest Service already has a massive backlog of maintenance for the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads we already have. It doesn't make sense to carve up millions of acres of wild forest with expensive new roads when the agency can't afford to maintain the current ones. Finally, these roadless areas are critical for our drinking water and wildlife. Logging and road construction cause erosion that degrades local water supplies and fragments habitats that wildlife rely on to survive. The long-term value of clean water, outdoor recreation, and intact forests is far higher than any short-term resource extraction. Please stick with Alternative 1 and protect these lands. Thank you for reading my comment.

Dear Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street 1108, Washington, D.C. 20250-1124 I have lived and explored Wyoming’s most amazing forest service roadless areas for more than 45 years. I treasure the fact that these areas have been protected from development. They are important for protecting wildlife, air and water quality and maintaining the quiet and outstanding vistas of the mountains. With nearly 50% of all Forest Service lands open to development, Americans need to know that these special areas not roaded and not developed will be set aside for future generations. Roadless Areas In the Bighorn National Forest where I live, horse and back pack, camp, fish and paint must continue to be protected: Tensleep Canyon, Leigh Creek, Horse Creek Mesa, Little Bighorn River Canyon, Walker Prairie, Rock Creek of the Bighorns, Devils Canyon and more are spectacular landscapes. The Bridger Teton National Forest is an important wildlife, water and wild area: Roadless Areas that must be protected include: Commissary Ridge, Grayback Ridge, South Wyoming Range, Gros Ventre Mountains, including Spread Creek, Mosquito Lake, and the West Slope of the amazing Wind River Mountains. In the Medicine Bow NF Roadless Areas deserving continued protection include: French Creek, Rock Creek, Solomon Creek, Pennock Mountain, Sheep Mountain, Bear Mountain, Laramie Peak (where I camped and watched the solar eclipse!), Labonte Canyon, Buffalo Peak. The Shoshone National Forest which surrounds Yellowstone National Park and provides critical habitat for grizzly and black bears, elk, pronghorn, wolves, mountain lions, bobcats, lynx, and more has such important roadless areas justifying further protection include: The Beartooth Plateau, Franc’s Peak, Trout Creek, Windy Mountain, Wapiti Valley, South Fork,Telephone Draw, The Dunoir, Togwotee Pass, the Reef, Wood River. The Thunder Basin National Grassland also has important remnant roadless areas which need to maintain their protections: Duck Creek, Cow Creek and the Red Hills. I support the “No Action” alternative for the more than three million acres right here in Wyoming. The Roadless Rule needs to be in place not just for my beloved Wyoming areas but for all of America’s National Forests. Sincerely, Liz Howell 345 W. Whitney St Sheridan. Wyoming 82801 lizhowell345@gmail.com

Roadless Rule Last year I journeyed on horseback to the most remote place in the lower 48 – Hawks Rest, in the Thorofare region of Wyoming. This remoteness is defined by distance from the nearest road – 30 miles. Everywhere in the contiguous United States you are less than thirty miles from a road. Even venturing into the backcountry, the furthest you can get from a road thirty miles from a road. The Thorofare is one of the most special places in the world, and should not be compromised. It is as pristine an area as one can find in this country. It contains the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, a watershed that provides critical habitat for wildlife and supports fishing, hunting, farming and recreation. These lands are multi-use; right now they provide opportunities for hunters to harvest game, and for photographers to capture wild scenery; for scientists to study wildlife and for local residents to hike the outdoors. Adding more roads threatens all of these uses. In Wyoming, roadless areas provide critical habitat for wildlife - from wolverines to elk to cutthroat trout. The available land for these species seems to shrink every year. We build more houses and more roads, and the area they have to thrive, and even survive, shrinks. Managing wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is complicated and fraught with nuance. Take grizzly bears - they encroach on human areas partially because their rangeland decreases. Construction of new roads through their critical habitat will only increase conflict as they are further pushed out. Removing protections from areas of the Shoshone National Forest, and others similar to it is short-sighted and irresponsible. This land is ours - all of the people who use it regularly. And we do not want to see it disappear. Reducing regulatory burden is not automatically a good thing, as it removes the guardrails put forth to protect roadless areas. Finally, one of the key arguments put forth for rescinding the rule is that it will reduce wildfires. In fact, Dr. Sean Healey, Research Ecologist with the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station has an article indicating that it will not. His research shows that forest in roadless area and areas with roads burn at similar rates. However, constructing roads negatively impacts ecosystem health through things like the spread of invasive plants. For these reasons, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule. There is little evidence that it will decrease wildfires, but plenty of evidence that it could negatively impact wildlife, flora, and recreation opportunities.

Dear Secretary Brooke L. Rollins: I am a backcountry hiker and explorer. We are so lucky as a country to still have these wilderness areas free from signs of human activity. It’s a very humbling experience to spend days alone in these roadless areas and once they are gone they are gone forever. The serenity and beauty of this area would be ruined with roads. One road can destroy the quietness of an entire basin or drainage for miles. We live in a crowded enough country why would anyone want to take away the little bit of wilderness that remains here. Having this place left intact to see what it was like before humans left their mark is what makes it so special. A road ruins this. It would bring noise pollution, garbage, human caused fire risks, and a loss of wildlife diversity . Regarding the Sleeping Giant in the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming: Intact roadless landscapes support functional soils, hydrology, and food webs that fragmented forests cannot replicate. Roadless areas anchor the highest-integrity watersheds. Within the National Forest System, watersheds with the highest ecological integrity scores tend to be dominated by wilderness and roadless areas — over 50 percent roadless or wilderness cover in 81 percent of the highest-integrity subbasins. Watersheds with the lowest integrity scores show the opposite pattern: little roadless cover and moderate to high road density (USDA Forest Service 2000). — USDA Forest Service, 2000 (https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/roadless/roadless-feis-volume1.pdf) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Sleeping Giant, Shoshone National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. Roads would destroy any sense of wonderment and awe and a sense of humility that only comes with a roadless wilderness I'm not asking the Department to do something difficult. I'm asking it to leave a working rule alone. With thanks, CommentID: RLC-20261006-VIS49C

Shouldn’t We Maintain Roads Before We Build More? I strongly oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This reckless 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 Helena, Montana but lived in Red Lodge, Montana for a few years. The Beartooth Highway near Red Lodge is one of the highest, most scenic roads in the country - the road climbs to 10,000 feet. The reason why it's so scenic? There are no other roads. On both sides of the road, there is the Custer-Gallatin National Forest of Montana, and the Shoshone National Forest of Wyoming. If the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is rescinded, the south side of the road is open to roads. The roadless area, known for its roadless area, bringing tourists in from all over the world, is open for road building. This is some of the most pristine, high alpine ecosystem in the country, if not the world. It's bad enough one road (The Beartooth Highway) cuts through this roadless area - let's not make it more. The trails, bears, and humans who make this place home, right next to Yellowstone National Park, will thank you. When I worked for the Forest Service, I drove up and down some incredible dirt roads. Cleaning up campgrounds, completing whitebark pine and elk browse surveys, and patrolling trails for maintenance, I saw incredible sunsets, elk bugling, and rivers rushing. That is, when my eyes weren’t laser-focused on avoiding the literal canyons of potholes carved into the road in front of me. Once, I helped with a harlequin duck survey along a high, crisp, and cold river — the ducks favorite place to be. To survey, our team walked upstream five river miles, testing eDNA every few hundred yards. It was exhausting, lovely work — but the part I dreaded the most was the drive. You see, we started our survey with river waders on at exactly 7 a.m. We dropped off a car at the end of our river survey (to avoid the five miles back… in the dark). On the way to and from, the road had so many bumps, potholes, razor-sharp rocks, and at one point a loose electric wire, we barely made it past 5 mph. We inched, maneuvered, and got out of the car to make sure we didn’t drag the bottom on a rock. We joked it would have been faster to walk, but with the eDNA machine weighing more than 30 pounds, and our wet waders weighing just as much, we decided that the terrible drive was necessary. When there is now a push to rescind the Roadless Rule, an act passed in 2001 that protects 30% of Forest Service land from road building…I have to ask: why is there a push to build new roads, instead of maintaining the current ones? I imagine how much differently that survey would have gone with a different, better road – less dread of driving I’m sure, maybe more alert for the surveys, but also how many more people would have been able to access the river if the road was maintained. How many of you avoid a road because of how many potholes it has? I know I would go up to Priest Pass more often near Helena if the road wasn’t a nightmare to drive. I’m sure, if you access public lands like I do, to hunt, fish, hike or bike, you have a similar story of a terrible, bumpy, washed-out unmaintained road. Or, when the road got too bad, you had to turn around before your final destination. Better roads mean more access to public land, not more roads. Maintained, existing roads means better access to public roads, not more roads we can’t even drive on. There are so many reasons to protect the Roadless Rule and be opposed to the rescinding of it – backcountry hunting access, wildlife habitat, clean drinking water, and nature as a whole. But have we considered that maybe, we wouldn’t even be able to use the new roads they’re proposing? Why would we be able to, when we can’t even properly use the ones that currently exist? There are 265,000 miles of roads that the U.S Forest Service alone maintains in the United States. There are 165,000 miles of road in the National Highway System. If you agree we should work on maintaining those 265,000 miles of roads first, do not rescind the roadless rule. Let's keep one part of our country roadless, where only feet and hearts can reach. Please. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.

Dear Reviewing Officer, I am writing today in strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My reasons are, largely twofold: 1) I do not believe all the reasons the Forest Service has put forward for rescinding this rule stand up to scrutiny. One of the chief rationales I hear is that rescission of this rule will help us get a better handle on wildfires. In actuality, the data show that wildfires are more likely to start in the first place in areas where roads exist. I do not think the Forest Service can argue, in good faith, that more roads on our forests will improve the situation with wildfires. I think providing increased funding for federal employees and/or contractors to carry out prescribed burns in the fall and winter would yield much better results. Speaking of funding, for an agency that has a maintenance backlog and insufficient funds to take care of the roads that already exist on our National Forests, I don’t think we should strip away a policy like the Roadless Rule that maintains current road densities on a subset of National Forest lands. 2) Rescission of the Roadless Rule threatens to unalterably change and degrade my experience recreating on cherished Forest Service lands. I live in a rural, remote part of Wyoming specifically to have access to quiet, primitive, less developed public land. The introduction of more roads in these areas would decrease the quality of recreational opportunities on Forest Service land for myself and my family. It's also likely to increase disturbance to wildlife, leading to habitat avoidance / abandonment and accelerate noxious weed infestations into undisturbed habitat they would otherwise struggle to reach. From my home in Dubois, I travel to the Dunoir Special Management Unit and Togwotee Pass Roadless Areas on the Shoshone National Forest and Spread Creek - Gros Ventre River Roadless Area on the Bridger-Teton with my family the whole year through. We hike, camp, hunt, and set camera traps in these places, not just because they are close by, but because they offer a caliber of outdoor experience I find lacking in places with more densely developed road systems. I’ve spent time on forests in Idaho crisscrossed with roads and it would break my heart to see the local Roadless Areas I love turn into similarly overcrowded, overrun, ecologically impoverished places. I fear that is what would happen following rescission of the Roadless Rule. Roadless Areas represent a fraction of the land the Forest Service manages. I ask that you retain the 2001 Roadless Area Rule to better serve the diversity of your public constituency, including those of us that esteem easily accessible quiet recreation, wildlife, and native plant communities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Meghan Riley

I have enjoyed National Forest Lands my entire life and founded a hiking business, The Hole Hiking Experience, in Jackson, WY to share the pristine beauty of our protected lands. I know the importance of protection to allow nature to be in balance. We must protect clean air, water, wildlife habitats and our ability to experience solitude. Once changed, we cannot ensure protection of this amazing resource. Voices must be heard for the wildlife and future generations with NO CHANGE. I have shared the millions of acres of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the Shoshone National Forest and the Caribou-Targhee National Forests and changing this land would be a detriment to everyone. I support NO ACTION, Alternative 1 and stongly oppose Alt 2 and 3. Thank-you, Cathy Shill Jackson, WY

I am a lifelong (74 years) resident of Wyoming. A large part of why I have remained in Wyoming despite abundant career opportunities elsewhere is because of our wide-open landscape and abundance of untrammeled areas. These areas have provided me and my family opportunities to hike, backpack, hunt, fish, and boat in areas as close to their natural state as modern society allows. And I can attest through travels on multiple continents that the roadless areas we have preserved in the American West are not just a national treasure, but an international one as well. I grew up adjacent to the Shoshone National Forest and have lived much of my adult life adjacent to the Medicine Bow National Forest. Both have struggled with finding a balance between development and road-based recreation on one hand, and the incomparable and, importantly, unrecoverable value of leaving the land in its natural state. Roadless areas specifically are critical to preserving our remaining expanses of natural lands. Despite the best intentions of all participants, the existence of roads promotes road-based recreation and other developments that are simply incompatible with full-fledged conservation. Not only do our roadless areas provide precious, undeveloped recreation opportunities, but they also help to preserve the integrity of watersheds, aquifer recharge areas, and, of course, wildlife habitat. By limiting human intrusion and the associated equipment and material, roadless status obviously reduce the probabilities of human-caused fires. Our Forest Service is much better advised to direct its attention to the maintenance of our existing under-resourced trail systems and trailhead facilities, than to create additional, expensive maintenance obligations by extending roads into presently roadless areas. Over my life, I have been extensively involved with groups living, working, and recreating across Wyoming's public lands. And even my motor-sports oriented friends recognize the value of not opening the entire landscape to motorized recreation. There comes a point where it is a relief to park the truck or 4-wheeler, shut of the engine, and proceed on foot into the quiet solace of the natural landscape. Please retain the present Roadless Rule to preserve that precious option for our own and future generations. There is certainly no "problem" here that requires a change in Forest Service policy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Bern Hinckley Laramie, Wyoming

Comments on DEIS for the proposed rule rescinding the roadless rule: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The idea of repealing the roadless rule is so silly that Im disappointed that I even have to explain why roadless areas matter to people who live in DC. But here I am. Roadless areas matter for wildlife, they matter for millions of Americans that rely on them for water, they matter to hunters and anglers, and they matter to the millions of people whose quality of life is defined by the public land access in their backyard. It worries me that politicians in DC might think that “roadless areas” are actually roadless and maybe even prohibit cars or motorized access. To call many of our designated inventoried roadless areas “roadless” presents a misnomer. In fact, many of our inventoried roadless areas have existing two track roads that provide the best frontcounty recreation available on our public lands. While designated wilderness areas can restrict access of motorized vehicles and limit access to able bodied adults, the frontcountry Inventoried Roadless Areas that border those Wilderness Areas provide some of the most accessible fishing, hunting and recreation opportunities on our public lands. Keeping roadless areas under the roadless rule simply prevents new roads the USFS and BLM can’t afford, and keeps the same roads and same access without taking anything away. In my backyard on the Shoshone National Forest, for example, frontcountry roadless areas allow people to drive to willderness trailheads, ride their ATVs, dirtbikes, and snowmobiles, and successfully hunt for elk that they can load into their truck, without being physically required to haul one out on foot or horseback. On that same note, frontcountry areas provide some of our wildlife’s most critical winter and migration habitat. America has succeeded in protecting many rock and ice wilderness areas, but our wildlife - especially deer and elk - can not survive in in the high country without access to lower elevation frontcountry “roadless” areas that are not overrun with development or a certain threshold of roads. And real quick - the public is beyond tired of our land agencies deferring critical maintenance on important access roads that are necessary to enjoy public lands. Agencies’ budget and energy should be focused on making sure our roads are drivable in a passenger vehicle. Two-some decades ago multiple groups from all sides of the aisles worked together to develop the roadless rule and define inventoried roadless areas across the country. They helped protect these important places from big development, without changing any kind of access for the communities that live next to them. They simply prevented a whole lot of new roads and new development in these designated, inventoried, extra-wild public lands. Keeping those very places The Same - which is most of us want most of the time! To undo that work now, with all the threats facing our public lands, does not make any kind of sense. The impact of roads is so well studied and documented that it now has its own study: “road ecology”. So I will not go into those here. This is a plea that politicians in DC put down their biases, grudges, and politics, and look at what these places actually are: easily accessible, high quality habitat, wild frontcountry areas that millions of us enjoy and benefit from just the way they are now. Please, don’t try and fix what ain’t broke.

I live in Wyoming and recreate in Shoshone National Forest and Big Horn National Forest. I would like to see the Roadless Rule be rescinded. Recreation should be one of the most important things we do on our public lands. I enjoy riding ATV's and snowmobiles along with hiking. Our forests have suffered greatly with rules that hamper our ability to take care of our forests. Dead and downed trees from the Bettel kill is very dangerous to all who recreate on the forests. Forest fires every year because of dead trees that need to be manages. Also, for tree harvests are damaged. It is amazing to me how much Wilderness or Wilderness study areas there are in the Shoshone Forest for example. A forest with 2.4 million acres and there are no ATV trails just roads that have been shut down. Roads that we used when we were young kids. Over the snow (Snowmobiles) in the Shoshone Forest 586 acres is all that is available to use. On another topic disabled persons should be able to use our forests which these folks would need some roads or trail system that would be able to handle a vehicle or side by side ATV. There will be processes for these additional or reopening some roads. With processes in place, we can meet the needs of the public and care for our Forest and BLM lands.

I have three comments regarding the Proposed Alternatives. 1.Not all roads are equal. Roads built strictly for a timber harvest can be put to bed when that timber sale is complete. The logging company is responsible for maintenance and restoration as per the timber sale contract. Logging roads can and do recover, and as that happens wildlife move back in. I don’t know about wells and mines; perhaps the roads needed for those resource extractions are more damaging and last longer, but maintenance is required as per the mineral lease. Roads built for ATV’s and wheeled vehicles are different. The engineering, construction and maintenance of public roads on public lands are the responsibility of the taxpayer, and once new roads are open for public use it’s nearly impossible to close them down. The roads become an entitlement. 2.The billions of dollars of deferred maintenance on public lands must be considered alongside these alternatives. The non-commercial use most affected by roadless rules are ATV recreationists. Hunters and fishermen, hikers, and horseback riders are not requesting more roads. Opening previously roadless areas to ATV use requires roads, and roads require maintenance. The current maintenance backlog proves the USFS lacks funds and is unable to recruit skilled equipment operators needed to fully man the current road maintenance crews. Our colossal federal deficit negatively impacts the economy of our entire country, and adding to it by setting in motion any government action destined to require more spending strikes me as ludicrous and irresponsible. 3.In addition the direct cost of roads are the costs associated with increased human presence impacting the flora and fauna. There are consequences to increased human presence, and managing those consequences is not addressed in these proposed alternatives. There are many examples, but one which comes to mind immediately is the spread of invasive weeds. This is a severe problem on the Shoshone NF, yet nothing is being to control or prevent the spread which has accelerated in the past 10 years. Native plant communities are adversely changed, with negative consequences to wildlife, water quality, downstream agriculture, livestock grazing, and scenery. Managing the consequence of increased human presence requires effort, committed USFS employees, and more taxpayer dollars. None of which is provided for in the proposed alternatives. 4.CONCLUSION: I believe there is a need for resource extraction, particularly timber, from public lands. I understand the benefits of recreational use of public land to local communities. I wish Alternative 3 included accounting proving its adoption will not contribute to the national debt. However, since there is no reasonable accounting included in the proposal, and no distinction between the various uses of roads, I cannot. The consequence of such action is sure to add to the federal deficit rather than generate enough economic benefit to offset the cost to taxpayers. Therefore I support Alternative 1. My background, which may add a certain legitimacy to my opinion: I have been a resident of Wyoming since 1988, and live in close proximity to USFS land currently designated Roadless. My experience with USFS Roadless areas includes recreation (hiking, horse riding, back country skiing, hunting) and working (herding cattle for friends). I was a USFS employee in Utah and Wyoming on a timber crew burning slash piles in winter and planting seedlings in spring, on a trail maintenance crew, and checked grazing allotments. This is to say I have experienced USFS lands from multiple angles for more than 5 decades. I cherish the scenery and wildlife of the Rocky Mountains, not just game animals but the entire spectrum of fauna and flora, and the open space on which those animal and plant communities depend. I also value the people and economic health of rural communities, and recognize the benefits derived from multiple use public land – meaning timber and mineral extraction, livestock grazing, hunting, fishing and recreation -- not only for locals but for the entire population of the USA.

Tucker T. 9-28-2026 Roadless Rule Repeal 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66 Public Comment I am opposed to the proposition of the Roadless Rule being repealed. My family has been ranching in Colorado and enjoying the outdoors for four generations, and I am currently studying Wildlife Biology. I spend most of my time outdoors hiking and fishing, as well as hunting. Repealing the Roadless Rule does not benefit the American public as much as having the Rule in effect does. The Repealing of it would allow more logging to take place, which in turn increases the turbidity of the mountain streams where I love to fish. The trout such as cutthroat and others that live in these streams are extremely vulnerable to environmental changes, which would take place with more development of these protected areas. `In Bighorn National Forest, as well as Shoshone National Forest, there are areas that are designated as inventoried roadless area where construction or reconstruction is not allowed. Recission of the Roadless Rule would allow construction of roads in these areas, which would be allow more sedimentation of the many small streams within the areas. While the use of management plans by the Forest Service in place of the Roadless Rule may help conservation efforts, there will undoubtedly be more and more developmental efforts, which in turn must be paid for by the American taxpayer. Part of the reason the Roadless Rule was enacted the first place was the monumental cost of road maintenance, and in our current economical state American taxpayers should not have the added burden of even more taxes to upkeep the new developments this repeal will bring. As an American, and one who spends time on the landscape, I oppose this repeal. The demands of the nation do not say that we need to deface our public land with development. This administration has shown interest in the natural resources of our country that opposes what is best for the public, who own these resources. The federal government holds these resources in trust for the public and is currently not taking the right course of actions with the lands that belong to me and every other American. These actions are not benefiting the wildlife of the American West, and if this rule is repealed there will be consequences resulting in the destruction of even more habitat than has already occurred. Instead of repealing the Roadless Rule, the US Forest Service should focus on maintaining what roads are already in place. They should implement plans focusing on the wildlife and ecological systems of our public lands, without creating more access points for activities that lead to the degradation of our wild lands that the American West is known for. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/roadless-map-wyoming-high-resolution-fsmrs-072382.pdf

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Bridger-Teton National Forest is my home, literally. I live on a ranch surrounded by it, and I watch wildlife out my front door every day. I hike and camp throughout the Bridger-Teton, the Gros Ventre area, and the Shoshone National Forest. I have recently taken up fly fishing, which has given me another way to be present in this landscape. The 19 inventoried roadless areas of the Bridger-Teton total 1,417,499 acres. The Gros Ventre Mountains alone account for 106,418 acres of that. This is the western wall of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the largest intact temperate ecosystem in the world. The pronghorn running the longest land migration in North America funnel through here. The elk herds that winter in the National Elk Refuge depend on summer range in these roadless mountains. Grizzly bear, gray wolf, cutthroat trout, trumpeter swan, and sage grouse live in this forest. To see it unprotected is to see it destroyed. It is my home, but it is also our home. Two years ago I was nearly evacuated because a fire came close enough to make that a real possibility. This summer, one started two miles away. The agency's own 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." The proposal nonetheless frames road access as part of the solution to wildfire risk. That is not a reconciliation, it is a contradiction. More roads mean more fires, and more fires put my home, my livelihood, and the habitat of every creature around me at risk. 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. I drink well water from this land. Removing these protections could contaminate it and the water around me, harming the people who live here and the wildlife that depends on the same sources. Across the Rocky Mountain region, which includes Wyoming, 325 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis has found that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The scale of what is at stake here is not speculative; it is documented in the agency's own record. I ask the agency to address what specific measures, if any, would prevent sediment loading in the watersheds feeding wells and streams in the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone forests if the rule is rescinded. The economic case for rescission does not hold up under the agency's own numbers. 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." Against that marginal gain, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system the agency would be expanding already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. Outfitters, guides, and tour operators are named in the DEIS as affected parties; their losses are booked in the analysis. Yet the regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant impact on small entities by spreading a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the businesses actually holding permits in these areas. The agency has not established that this action produces a net benefit, and it must explain how expanding a road system with a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog serves the public interest here. Finally, the proposal itself 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 built my life around this landscape under the protections the 2001 rule provides. My ranch, my water, my livelihood as I have described it, and my use of the Gros Ventre Mountains and the Bridger-Teton for camping, hiking, and fishing all reflect decisions made in reliance on those protections remaining in place. An agency that invites reliance interest comments and then prices none of them into its analysis has not changed course in a reasoned way. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Sydney J Moran, WY

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

As an avid outdoors enthusiast, I am deeply concerned about the idea of removing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule conserves over 58 million acres of multiple-use public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service that provide some of the best places to recreate in America. Repealing safeguards afforded by the Roadless Rule will jeopardize intact fish and wildlife habitat and I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to uphold strong protections for all roadless areas. Across the country, roadless areas provide amazing habitat for native trout and salmon, big game, and other wildlife. The 2001 Roadless Rule generally prohibits new road construction and industrial logging, while at the same time keeping these public lands open to habitat improvement projects, hazardous fuels reduction, hunting, fishing, OHV riding, firewood cutting, grazing, and camping. Roadless areas have allowed me to create special memories due to the unique habits that they provide. One such memory is a trip with my in-laws for my brother-in-law's 30th birthday. The family got together in Dubuis, Wyoming for a fly fishing trip in Shoshone National Forest in the Telephone Draw roadless area where we had 2 days of great fly fishing and commadaire. It was there that I caught my first trout on a fly rod, a memory I will remember forever. Another memory is when my husband and I took our puppy on his first camping trip near the Big and Little Indian areas in Nantahala National Forest. His excitement of being able to hike in the woods and take in all the new scents and sounds was something that I will never forget. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule would allow new roads and logging that compromise water quality and degrade the pristine habitats vital for hunting, fishing, and camping. Preserving these opportunities for future generations is essential. Rather than constructing new roads, our focus should be on addressing the $5 billion maintenance backlog across the existing 370,000+ miles of National Forest System roads, preventing erosion and runoff from degrading habitats further. Additionally, claims that new roads reduce wildfire risks conflict with U.S. Forest Service data showing over 70% of human-caused wildfires originate within half a mile of a road. Expanding the road network is far more likely to increase wildfire occurrences. Finally, since roadless areas were designated in part due to a lack of economically viable timber, timber harvesting should prioritize existing roaded infrastructure before sacrificing our nation's most precious undeveloped public lands. Roadless areas have provided myself and my family with exceptional opportunities to experience some of the best fish and wildlife habits and recreational opportunities in America. I strongly support maintaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule to keep these public lands a great place to enjoy for all future Americans.

I own a recreational cabin in the Shoshone National Forest. For 16 years I’ve been spending summers here in Wyoming, though my permanent residence is in Illinois. I fish the stream down the hill from my cabin and I hike trails all around me. The proposed change in the Roadless Rule is therefore very important to me. I support the 2001 rule and the protection it provides to our National Forests and I do not support rescinding this rule. Therefore I strongly support the “No Action” Alternative 1 that would maintain protections for our roadless forests, and I strongly oppose Alternatives 2 and 3, which would strip their protections. The basis for my position is that roadless areas are critical to fresh drinking water, animal habitat, and opportunities for recreational access. Claims that rescission of the Roadless Rule is necessary to address wildfire risk are not supported by facts. The Roadless Rule already provides flexibility for fuels treatments and other management activities without requiring permanent new roads. More importantly, research has shown that wildfire ignitions were roughly four times more likely to occur near roads. The Forest Service listed a number of concerns regarding road construction and timber harvesting in the 2001 Rule. These concerns were valid then and remain valid now. Rather than rescinding the rule, it would be better to plan and implement science-based forest management to help the Forest Service accomplish its directives and mission objectives. The USDA cannot afford the roads already in our National Forests, so it makes no sense to build more.