Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My husband and I are hikers and birdwatchers, and the best birdwatching, in our experience, is sitting in a quiet forest in a spot you have hiked to reach. The biodiversity is amazing. That is why the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule troubles me deeply. I live near the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, and the roadless area of Mt. Olympus encompasses 9,982 acres of it. We have hiked a portion of that forest and value the peace and quiet of no roads. What is at stake here is not abstract to me. The birds are the reason my husband and I seek out quiet forest. The DEIS cites the findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. Those findings apply directly to the kind of birdwatching we do in the Wasatch-Cache, where the silence itself is the habitat. The DEIS also states: "The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent." That range is striking, and it appears in the record without any projection across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to those 40.1 million acres before finalizing any decision, so that the public and the decision-makers can see what the numbers actually mean at scale. The forest my husband and I walk into above Salt Lake City is quiet because it has no roads. That quiet is what makes the birds findable and the biodiversity visible. The agency's own citations confirm that roads reduce richness, fragment habitat, and cost the treasury more than they return. The record contains the facts needed to reach a defensible conclusion. What it lacks is the work of applying those facts to the decision being made. I oppose the rescission and urge the agency to complete that analysis before proceeding. Sincerely, Lenora Olson Salt Lake City, UtahRe: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Mount Olympus near Salt Lake City is a unique and special place for the million-plus people living in the region. I was married near Boulder Mountain, in the Dixie National Forest, and it is a gorgeous and special place that needs to remain protected. So many of the unique wild areas of Utah and surrounding states are protected by the roadless rule. The rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of these places, and the other roadless areas in Utah I am naming here, at serious risk. I oppose Docket FS-2025-0001 for the reasons below. These regions bring huge amounts of tourism income to Utah and contribute to making it the amazing and unique place that it is. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres, and across the Intermountain region 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The people of Salt Lake City depend on the landscape that includes the 9,982 acres around Mount Olympus and the 6,157 acres at Twin Peaks, both in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, for clean water and for the outdoor character that defines the place. The 110,690 acres of Boulder Mountain, Boulder Top, and Deer Lake, and the 19,581 acres of Table Cliffs and Henderson Canyon, both in the Dixie National Forest, are part of the same connected system of protection. Rescinding the rule would expose all of this to road construction and the impacts that follow. The agency's stated justification includes wildfire and fuels management, but its own record contradicts that rationale. The agency has found: "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." Given that finding, the proposal's premise that opening roadless areas to road construction serves fire management goals is not coherent. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, and it must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. On economics, the agency has acknowledged: "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 record projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, while the existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency has not shown that this action produces a net benefit, and it owes the public a direct accounting of how expanding a road system under those fiscal conditions is justified by the numbers in its own cost-benefit analysis. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can substitute for a national rule, but this path has been tried before. The agency's own record reflects "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." What the record does not explain is how a state-by-state replacement avoids the deficiencies that led a federal appellate court to reject that approach the last time the agency tried it, and the agency's prior own finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The agency should answer that question squarely. Finally, the proposal questions the statutory authority behind the 2001 rule. The courts that reviewed this directly held otherwise. The Tenth Circuit stated: "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 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 has not explained in this proposal what legal basis supports a contrary position, and it should.

Dear Forest Service Officials, As a public land hunter, angler, and conservationist, I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I grew up in the North Carolina mountains where I learned to fish and mountain bike in the Pisgah National Forest. Since graduating college, I've spent the past 25 years hunting, fishing, working, and recreating in national forests across the lower 48 States including the Arapaho and Custer Gallatin National Forests. When I visit my mom and sister every year, I take my wife and two girls back to the Pisgah National Forest. When we visit my wife's mom in Utah, we visit the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The 2001 Roadless Rule has yielded these healthy and productive public lands that my family and I hunt, fish, bike, and hike. I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule has successfully protected millions of acres of pristine national forest lands, safeguarding critical fish and wildlife habitats, ensuring clean water supplies, and preserving high-quality backcountry hunting and fishing traditions. Rescinding this durable baseline policy would fragment vital wildlife corridors, increase long-term management and road-maintenance backlogs, and permanently alter our remaining wild landscapes. Rather than dismantling a proven conservation framework, the USDA should select Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and maintain full protections for our roadless areas. Sincerely, Mathew Levine Naples, NY

Dear Chief Tom Schultz: As someone who has been on public land in all kinds of conditions and has noticed which policies have held and made a difference. The impact is has made is now at risk, and I have to put my voice to this issue as someone who lives near and who loves to be an outdoor tourist. As wildfire prevalence rises, more and more land is at risk for destructive fires. Doing all we can now to prevent the forests and roadless areas from being destroyed is important for our future on the planet. Furthermore, fires are costly to contain and can damage expensive infrastructure and take human lives when ignited. Regarding the Mt. Olympus in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah: For Pinyon Jay in Mt. Olympus, the connection between road construction and 7.1.1 - Increase in fire frequency/intensity is direct: roads deliver the disturbance vectors — sediment, access, fragmentation — that NatureServe identifies as driving Slight or 1-10% pop. decline severity impacts on this population. The proposed rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule jeopardizes 44.5 million acres of undeveloped backcountry forestland managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These forests have only remained intact because of the Forest Service's nearly 25-year-old commitment not to build roads in these areas for harmful activities like major logging operations or oil-and-gas drilling. Although proponents of rolling back the Roadless Rule claim it is needed for wildfire management, the peer-reviewed science shows the opposite. A 2026 study in Fire Ecology by Aplet, Hartger & Dietz analyzed 32 years of wildfire data across all eight contiguous-U.S. Forest Service regions and found wildfire-ignition density was 7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares within 50 meters of roads, compared to just 1.97 fires per 1,000 hectares in inventoried roadless areas—a fourfold difference. A separate national analysis (Balch et al., PNAS 2017) found that 84% of all U.S. wildfires are human-caused. Roads are the primary vector for human ignitions, so building roads into roadless areas is likely to result in more fires, not fewer. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz testified to the Senate that 24.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas are within one mile of the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)—calling it "our primary concern." A GIS analysis by The Wilderness Society using the Forest Service's own data found the actual figure is just 2.8 million acres—a nearly ninefold exaggeration. Less than 5% of inventoried roadless area acreage is in close proximity to the WUI, not 42% as Schultz claimed. The administration has 23.3 million acres of non-roadless forest land already available near the WUI for fuel reduction—without ever touching a roadless area. Building more roads in national forests would be a drain on taxpayers. Even with the Roadless Rule in place, the Forest Service already has a 380,000-mile road system that the agency cannot afford to maintain: the deferred-maintenance road backlog was estimated at $8.4 billion in the 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement and is roughly $15.6 billion in today's dollars. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly flagged Forest Service deferred maintenance as one of the largest in the federal government, and the backlog has never dropped below $5 billion. Adding new roads to inventoried roadless areas would only deepen that hole. The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation measures, and that support has not faded. Prior to its 2001 enactment, more than 600 public hearings were held nationwide and 1.6 million Americans weighed in to call for protection of these forestlands—more comments than any other federal rule had received at the time. When USDA announced its rescission proposal, the compressed 21-day public comment period in late 2025 drew approximately 600,000 additional comments. A detailed roadless.org analysis of the comment record found that more than 99.8% of submitters opposed the rescission. A February 2026 Pew Charitable Trusts national poll found that 76% of likely voters support the Roadless Rule compared to just 13% opposed, with bipartisan backing from 71% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 80% of independents. More than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025 (S.2042 / H.R.3930) to codify the Rule so it could not be rolled back without an act of Congress. Road building has been proven to increase wildfires, not lessen their risk. Roads bring in humans, equipment, and vehicles that all pose fire risk. 84% of wildfires are human-caused, meaning more roads built to bring in more humans to cause those fires. The Fire Ecology study done in 2026 by Aplet, Hartger, and Dietz proved that roadless areas have lower wildfire ignition density than those areas within 50 meters of a road. What really protects forests from fire is keeping them wild. Yours sincerely, Sydney Yoder

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.

The Wasatch and Uinta mountains are where I hike and camp, and protecting those places is exactly why I am filing this comment. Mill Creek Canyon in the Uinta National Forest, White Pine and Twin Peaks in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, these are the wild, unroaded landscapes I want my children and their children to be able to experience. The proposal before the agency would put all of that at risk, and the agency's own record makes clear it should not proceed. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. These are not abstract acres. They are the backcountry I depend on, the places that are still genuinely wild precisely because roads have not reached them. More and more land is developed and destroyed, increasing fire risk, increasing watershed contamination, decreasing wildlife and plant populations. Rescinding the 2001 rule accelerates every one of those trends, and the agency's own analysis says so. On wildfire, 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." The proposal nonetheless justifies rescission on fuels management grounds, which inverts what the agency's own findings show. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings and that it 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. Watersheds need to be kept pure. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. By the agency's own data, roads and their facilities contribute directly to contamination. The agency has acknowledged that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. How can that be justified when everyone needs access to clean water now more than ever? I want the agency to explain, specifically and on the record, how opening these watersheds to road construction serves the public interest in clean drinking water. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. The agency's own record acknowledges: "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 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, and the road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from this action by its own numbers. It must reconcile the proposal with that analysis and explain what economic rationale remains. On the question of statutory authority, a court already answered it. The Tenth Circuit held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The agency argues the 2001 rule exceeded its authority, but the Tenth Circuit found the 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 state, plainly and with legal support, the basis for any position contrary to that holding. Finally, the proposal itself acknowledges 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. The agency cannot ask the public to comment on consequences it has simultaneously placed outside the scope of its own analysis. The foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including expanded timber harvest area, must be analyzed as part of this action, not deferred. We do not want more roads, development, mining, or logging on our public lands. These lands should be left as wild spaces and backcountry. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and received 1.6 million comments before it put the 2001 rule in place. It has held none to undo it. That process debt alone warrants withdrawal of this proposal. Sincerely, Michelle Richardson Sandy, Utah

Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule) Docket FS-2025-0001 | RIN 0596-AD66 | 91 FR 53827 1. Introduction I am Brad Allenick, a resident of Summit Park, Utah, on the edge of open space and near the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. I backcountry ski, hike, and mountain bike on these lands year-round. Cardiff Fork, Days Fork, Silver Fork, and upper Big Cottonwood Canyon have given me some of the best backcountry runs of my life. Lambs Canyon, which is contiguous with the open space behind my home, is where I ski, hike, and ride most often. I depend on these lands for wildlife habitat, native plants, and clean air and water. I oppose full rescission and urge the Department to select the No Action alternative. 2. Background I am commenting on the proposed rescission of 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restricts road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, and on the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The proposal would remove the national prohibition on roughly 44.7 million acres, including about four million acres in Utah, and leave these decisions to individual forest plans. 3. Analysis Impact. The Wasatch is among the most heavily used mountain landscapes in the West, and its unroaded canyons are what make the experience and the watershed worth protecting. New roads and logging would fragment habitat, erode slopes, put sediment into the streams that supply the Wasatch Front, and erase the backcountry character that draws people here. The wildfire rationale is unsupported. The DEIS itself acknowledges that ignitions and burned acres are substantially lower in roadless areas. Its conclusion that roads would improve suppression rests on longer containment times, with no evidence that rescission would reduce fire severity or protect communities. Reporting on a peer-reviewed study from this year indicates wildfires are nearly four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless areas [verify citation before filing]. The 2001 rule also already allows fuel reduction and fire suppression. The DEIS does not identify specific projects that were blocked and could not proceed under those exceptions. Unconsidered consequences. The Forest Service has a large deferred maintenance backlog on its existing roads. New roads it cannot maintain mean more erosion, closures, and cost. Replacing a uniform national floor with forest-by-forest decisions also creates uncertainty for recreation and habitat protection. Process. The proposal, DEIS, and cost-benefit analysis were released together with a short comment period for a decision affecting tens of millions of acres. The 2025 scoping period drew roughly 626,000 comments, with about 99 percent reportedly opposed. The final rule should show how that record was weighed. Information requested: specific projects blocked by the rule that its exceptions would not allow; Utah-specific estimates of road construction and harvest in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache; how new roads will be funded given the maintenance backlog; and evidence that new roads reduce fire severity. 4. Recommendations Select the No Action alternative. If fire management is the concern, adopt narrow, targeted authorities for wildland-urban interface fuel reduction rather than rescinding protections across 44.7 million acres. If Utah seeks flexibility, use a state-specific rulemaking with full public process, as in Colorado and Idaho. Issue a revised DEIS with state- and forest-level impact estimates and a full comment period, and hold public meetings in Utah. 5. Conclusion The Roadless Rule has protected intact backcountry, habitat, and watersheds for 25 years, and the agency's own analysis does not show repeal would reduce wildfire risk. I ask the Department to (1) select No Action; (2) use targeted wildland-urban interface fire authorities if needed; (3) pursue any Utah-specific changes through a state rulemaking; and (4) issue a revised DEIS with a full comment period and public meetings. Respectfully, Brad Allenick Summit Park, Utah

RE: RIN 0596-AD66, Docket FS-2025-0001 I live in Pooler, Georgia, and I grew up hiking and camping in Utah's national forests. I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please keep it in place nationwide, including in the Tongass National Forest. 1. USDA's own numbers show little benefit. The "Summary of Potential Impacts" section says new management chances would be "modest and localized." The highest timber revenue estimate is $11.4 million per year. The Forest Service already has a $6.9 billion backlog of road and bridge repairs. Even that highest estimate equals less than 0.2% of the backlog each year. New roads would add to a bill the agency cannot pay now. 2. Wildfire work is already allowed. The 2001 rule includes exceptions for cutting small trees to lower wildfire risk. The proposed rule also admits that more public access can increase human-caused fires (Summary of Potential Impacts, "Wildfire risk"). If the exceptions are too slow to use, USDA should speed up that review process. It should not remove the whole rule. 3. Georgia's roadless areas matter. Georgia has about 63,000 roadless acres in the Chattahoochee National Forest. These lands protect parts of the Appalachian and Benton MacKaye trails and help supply drinking water for millions of Georgians. Forest plans can be changed much more easily than a national rule. Protection for these places should not depend on each plan revision. 4. National forests belong to everyone. These lands belong to all Americans, not just the people near them. A national rule is the right tool for national lands. I grew up in Utah. I spent many weekends and summer days hiking, camping, and having cookouts in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. I thought easy access to national forests was normal in every state. Now that I live in Georgia, I know how rare these lands are. They matter for their beauty, and they also protect the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the plants and animals that live there. These benefits are hard to put a dollar value on, but USDA should still weigh them against the small timber gains. I also understand wildfire. This year, both Utah and Georgia saw dangerous fires. I know that fire is a natural part of a forest's life cycle, and that planned, controlled burns are an important tool for keeping forests healthy. Wildfires that people start by accident are different. Visitors often underestimate how fast a campfire or a tossed cigarette can get out of control. Roads bring more people into wild areas, and more people mean more human-caused fires. That is a risk USDA's own proposal admits. Please withdraw the proposed rule and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Secluded natural areas are where I go to camp, to find the calm that lets me work harder when I return home and be a more motivated member of my community. That is not a luxury. It is part of how I function, and I want my kids to have the same. They should have access to just as many public lands as I do, because it inspires us to see the world as it once was and to continue that beauty in our lives and relationships. I want them to adventure and make memories with our family away from cultivated society and its ills. The proposal before the agency threatens that directly, and the agency's own record does not support it. The strongest objection in that record concerns fire. I hike Twin Peaks, a 6,157-acre inventoried roadless area in Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah, regularly. It is close to my home, it has meant the world to me as a place to recharge, and I have been going for a decade with friends and family. I intend to bring my kids. The agency now justifies opening areas like this to road building in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds. Its own prior findings say the opposite: "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 does not explain how rescission improves fire outcomes when the agency's own data show roaded land carries far greater ignition density than inventoried roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21. I also fish and hike the High Uintas Wilderness, 1,394,000 acres in Utah. I have been going for three years. Beyond the recreation, I understand that its preservation protects our watershed, and that matters to the communities downstream. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. These are not abstract figures. They describe a water supply that the rule protects and that rescission would put at risk. Our public land should not be used for temporary gains or commercial profit, and I cannot see how the numbers here justify the trade. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that the total timber volume affected by this rule is "less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against revenue projected at $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber receipts, the record books recreation losses at a minimum of $6.1 million a year and a net present value that cannot establish a net benefit, all while the existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile those figures on the record and explain how expanding a road network it cannot afford to maintain serves the public interest. The proposal also claims administrative burden as a justification, but the rule already contains exceptions. It "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Before rescinding a rule that took more than 600 public meetings and 1.6 million comments to write, the agency should be able to name which specific burdens are not addressed by those existing exceptions, and quantify them. It has not done so. Finally, the small-business certification attached to this proposal does not survive contact with the analysis beside it. "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." That certification was reached by spreading losses across the national average firm rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct an assessment focused on the businesses that will actually feel the loss, not a diluted national average that obscures the real harm. Public land should be managed for future generations and for the preservation of American beauty and not for temporary commercial gain. I oppose this rescission and ask that the agency address each of the points above before taking any final action. Sincerely, Anonymous Western USA

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to fully or partially rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an ex-Forest Service employee, where I worked to educate the public on Leave No Trace principles and interpretation, and worked for several seasons both as a wilderness ranger and a wilderness trails crew member. I no longer work for the agency, but I am still an avid hiker, backpacker, and fisherman, and deeply value my public lands and the opportunities they give to spend time in the wilderness, encounter wildlife, and reconnect with myself through the natural world. National forests and inventoried roadless areas matter deeply to me because they provide that space for exploration and peace. As a resident of the Salt Lake Valley, I recreate in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, one of the most heavily used National Forests in the country. That forest protects Salt Lake's watershed, Current roadless sections include heavily used areas like Dog Lake and White Pine and vast tracts of the Unitas providing buffer zones around the High Uintas Wilderness, all of which protect our watershed and the ecosystem services our mountains provide. There are many, many places in the UWC with plenty of roads and access and development--as a Wasatch Front resident who has spent plenty of time stuck in the ski traffic jams up the canyons, I can definitely speak to that development. Fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule would threaten unfragmented backcountry landscapes, wildlife habitats, and clean water sources. Roads fragment ecosystems in ways that cause long-term ecological harm, and dismantling these protections undermines the natural integrity of our public lands. I urge the Forest Service to drop the proposed rescission and instead support Alternative 1 (the No Action alternative) to maintain full, permanent protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, Clare Vergobbi Salt Lake City, UT 84104 c.vergobbi@gmail.com

I am very against the roadless rule. The outdoors are my life I love the outdoors and it’s not worth trading OUR public land so ultra wealthy corporations can get richer. The outdoors and public lands are our legacy they’re the only thing we can continue to pass down to our children and protect. Once they’re gone they’re gone and there’s no getting the back. I am writing about the High Uintas (UT) Roadless Area in Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah. I have specific concerns about the rescission of Roadless Rule protections. Headwater Protection for Endangered Colorado River Fish: The High Uintas roadless area contains the headwaters of the West Fork Blacks Fork, Provo River, Duchesne River, and Hayden Fork—critical source streams for three federally endangered fish species: bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker. These cold, sediment-free headwater reaches provide the spawning substrate and water quality these species require to survive. The area's high elevation and intact riparian buffers maintain the low water temperatures and stable flows that distinguish functional spawning habitat from degraded downstream reaches. Loss of headwater integrity directly reduces the survival rate of larvae and juveniles before they reach recovery zones in lower river segments. Alpine and Subalpine Refugia for Cold-Climate Carnivores: The High Uintas' unfragmented expanse of spruce-fir forest, subalpine meadows, and alpine tundra across elevations from 8,400 to 12,479 feet provides the large, continuous territories required by Canada lynx (federally threatened) and North American wolverine (federally threatened). Both species require 50+ square miles of unbroken habitat to maintain viable populations; road construction fragments this landscape into isolated patches too small to support breeding populations. The area's elevational gradient—from Slate Gorge at 8,400 feet to Hayden Peak at 12,479 feet—creates a climate refugium where these species can shift upslope as temperatures warm, a migration corridor that roads would sever. Limber-Bristlecone Pine and High-Elevation Bird Habitat: The Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland ecosystem in the High Uintas supports black rosy-finch (endangered, IUCN), rufous hummingbird (near threatened, IUCN), and olive-sided flycatcher (near threatened, IUCN), species dependent on the structural complexity and flowering phenology of high-elevation conifers and alpine vegetation. Road construction at these elevations removes the low-density, slow-growing trees that provide nesting and foraging habitat, and the disturbance-driven invasion of noxious weeds alters the understory plant community these birds depend on for food and cover. Fen and Meadow Hydrological Function: The High Uintas contains Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen ecosystems and extensive meadow complexes (Christmas Meadows, China Meadows, Broadhead Meadows, Kabell Meadows, Cataract Basin) that regulate streamflow, filter sediment, and provide habitat for vulnerable plant species including osha (Ligusticum porteri, vulnerable, IUCN) and white bog orchid (Platanthera dilatata, vulnerable, IUCN). These wetland-upland transition zones depend on intact hydrology; road fill and drainage ditches disrupt groundwater movement and lower water tables, converting fens to drier plant communities and eliminating the specific soil and moisture conditions these species require. Getting rid of the roadless rule benefits no one except the ultra wealthy. I don’t know a single person who is for getting rid of it. For once listen to the people. The majority doesn’t want this rule abolished. “Once the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last river polluted; Only then will we realize we cannot eat money”

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live near Salt Lake City and numerous areas that could be affected by rescinding the rule. This includes the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and the wilderness area near Mt. Olympus, which is just up the road. I am opposed because rescinding the rule could lead to the following: - More human caused fires. The Forest Service’s DEIS analysis showed this. Fire mitigation through alternatives other than roads should be explored first. - More construction and logging, which diminishes the experience and quality of the environment for recreational users. This could lead to less tourism dollars and users as well as a degraded environment. The DEIS concedes the no-action alternative maintains the most opportunities for quiet, remote and self-reliant recreation, and that under rescission the settings could shift toward more developed conditions. - More invasive species and harm to native species - both plants and animals. See https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/Deadly-Incursions-report.pdf - Negative effects to watersheds with potential for increased sediment and faster runoff with more roads. Salt Lake’s water comes from watersheds in the canyons. Right now that water is clean: less than 12 percent of the watersheds containing these areas have impaired streams. By the Forest Agency’s own analysis, the skid roads, trails and log landings that come with timber harvest are the main cause of soil erosion and can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity. - The Forest Service can’t afford to maintain their existing roads. Road appropriations fell from $234 million in 2004 to $73 million in 2024, against a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog. The supplemental funding is expiring. Maximum projected timber revenue is $5.2 to 11.4 million a year, against up to $6.1 million a year in lost recreation benefit by its own figures, and the agency’s own cost-benefit analysis states a net present value that runs to negative $92 million. The DEIS states outright that road mileage, deferred maintenance and management costs are likely to increase. I want to continue to have safe drinking water - and enough of it. I want to be able to enjoy hiking and photographing in these areas. These lands need to be managed responsibly. We are stewards of them for future generations. Thank you.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Cache National Forest is my backyard. I hike throughout Utah, but the mountains above Cache County are where I find quiet, photograph clear mountain streams and high ridgelines with no visible sign of human impact, where wild animals still gather and thrive away from modern development and machines. Cutler Marsh in Cache County is where I paddle, fed by the Logan River and the Blacksmith Fork River, both of which have their headwaters in Cache National Forest, and by the Bear River, with headwaters in the Uinta National Forest. The water quality in that marsh begins in these roadless areas. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule as proposed in Docket FS-2025-0001. I serve as the Cache County Trails and Active Transportation Coordinator. In that role I have seen what good local/federal partnership looks like. In the Wellsville Mountains, 1,717 acres in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, I spent years working on a project with the county to open additional access for hikers, campers, and horseback riders through a new trailhead. Access into those mountains is not a federal problem. This should be a local-led effort and we have made big strides locally with Forest Service support and without touching the roadless character of the land. Around Clarkston Mountain, 7,099 acres in the Caribou National Forest, I have been working to preserve existing roads already in the area. With those existing roads preserved there will be plenty of access and recreation opportunities with no need to impact or change the existing roadless portions. The Mt. Logan roadless area is different in what would be lost. I have been hiking in and around Mt. Logan South (17,014 acres), Mt. Logan North (18,930 acres), and Mt. Logan West (5,285 acres), all in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, for almost 8 years. I have spent many Saturdays maintaining trails and helping people with disabilities get out and enjoy them. I have seen all kinds of wildlife who still call this yet unfragmented place home. To the south of this area there is already land crisscrossed with roads, and hiking there is a very different experience, with less diversity in the animals you are likely to see and the constant noise of machines. It makes sense to allow different areas to serve different recreation and access needs rather than making the whole of our wild lands look and feel the same. The agency's own record makes this concern concrete. Its draft environmental impact statement 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 justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds. I ask that the agency reconcile this contradiction: explain specifically why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The proposal overstates what the rule prohibits. The agency's own text notes that the rule "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." If the justification for rescission is permitting burden and administrative difficulty, I ask that the agency identify which burdens are not already addressed by those existing exceptions and quantify those burdens with specificity on the record. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. Across the Intermountain region, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The proposed rescission's own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year, yet the regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant impact on small entities by averaging that loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators actually holding permits in these areas. I ask that the agency withdraw that certification and assess impacts on the specific small entities operating in potentially affected roadless areas. 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. My work coordinating trails and access in Cache County, the public investment in the Wellsville trailhead, and the years of volunteer trail maintenance in the Mt. Logan roadless areas rested on the assumption this rule would hold. Sincerely, Landis Wenger Logan, Utah

I am a resident of Hyrum, Utah, and I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live next to the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest and I'm in its roadless areas at least once or twice a week, fly fishing, hunting, backpacking, and hiking. Blacksmith Fork Canyon, Logan Canyon, and the country between them are my backyard, and the High Uintas are among my favorite places anywhere. These places are valuable because they have stayed largely undeveloped. As a fly fisherman, I depend on the cold, clean headwater streams that roadless areas protect. Roads are one of the main sources of sediment in mountain streams, and that sediment smothers trout spawning gravel and warms and muddies the water. As a hunter, I know that elk and deer use unroaded country as security habitat, especially during hunting season. New roads push animals out, make them more vulnerable, and lower the quality of the hunt for everyone. As a backpacker and hiker, I go to these areas for the kind of quiet, remote experience that becomes harder to find every year. Nearly half of Utah's national forest land, about 4 million acres, is inventoried roadless area. In northern Utah these lands are the headwaters for the streams and aquifers our communities and farms rely on. New roads and logging in these areas increase erosion, disturb wildlife, and are very hard to reverse. A road that costs little to build can cost the public for decades in maintenance, washouts, and damage to water quality, at a time when the Forest Service already can't keep up with the roads it has. The proposal cites wildfire risk, but the 2001 Rule already allows thinning of small-diameter timber to reduce hazardous fuels and allows roads needed to protect public health and safety. Most fuels work that actually protects homes happens near communities, not deep in remote roadless country. Removing national protections isn't necessary to manage fire. Returning these decisions to individual forest plans would also replace one stable national standard with protections that can shift from forest to forest and administration to administration. The 2001 Rule was adopted after one of the largest public comment processes in agency history, and it has given people like me certainty that these lands will still be here for the next generation. I urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rescission and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Sarah Williamson Hyrum, Utah

Roads and logging as done on most federal lands inevitably degrade the watersheds that they intersect, compromising what is often pristine clean water coming off off of roadless areas. Combine this with another executive order directive, to allow aerial herbicide use on clearcut forests, and you basically ruin the flora and fauna on those previous untouched roadless areas for current and future generations and all eternity. Roadless areas comprise but a small fraction of all federal lands, and an even smaller fraction of all timbered lands in general. Where I live in northern Utah, I and and hundreds of others recreate weekly on roadless areas of the nearby Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Teddy Roosevelt came to Ogden to declare it a forest reserve before USFS ever existed. Why? To protect watersheds whose water was the lifeblood of downstream communities, but with upstream clearcutting and overgrazing, rivers like the Logan were flooding towns in spring and then drying up in summer. Today, we have exceptionally good reliable water. This story is repeated over and over again across the American West. We already have grazing in our Wilderness areas (sometimes carefully implemented, but too often not). Let's not add roads to untracked reaches of our National Forests.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 This summer I came close to evacuating, a fire ignited 1.6 miles from my house. People 1.5 miles away were told to leave immediately. I sat with the question every person in that position sits with: what goes in the car, and where do I go? I depended on local firefighters, and they won the battle. But if the day had been windy, the fire would have spread into Logan Canyon and into my neighborhood. I have lived through 8 seasons of fire. I have breathed the smoke with concern for my health and watched the devastation accumulate. I know what is at stake here. That is why I am opposing the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in a drought-plagued town that depends on winter snowpack for its water supply. Mature trees around me need to be watered hundreds of gallons per tree and will die within two years if the drought continues. Without tree cover, any water we get will be unclean. The land will become a tinderbox prone to slides and flooding. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The Mt. Logan North, Mt. Logan South, Mt. Logan West, and Wellsville roadless areas on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are part of what holds this watershed together. I ask the agency to explain, specifically and on the record, how opening those areas to road construction is consistent with its own findings on road-generated sediment and the drinking water those watersheds supply. The agency argues that rescission would help manage wildfire. But 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." That finding does not disappear because the agency changes its policy preference. 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 agency needs to quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it honestly against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. We need all the firefighters we have and more. Adding ignition risk through new roads is the wrong direction. The agency also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. The courts that reviewed that question held otherwise. The Tenth Circuit stated: "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 agency should address that holding squarely, explain its position on the Tenth Circuit's conclusion that the rule was within the authority Congress granted, and not treat a settled legal question as if it remains open. The rule as written already includes exceptions. It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of "reserved or outstanding rights" or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3). If the claimed permitting and administrative burdens are real, the agency should be able to name them specifically and show why those existing exceptions do not already address them. A vague assertion of burden is not a sufficient basis for rescinding a rule built on more than 1.6 million public comments and over 600 public meetings, with no comparable process held to undo it. Tony Grove and the surrounding old growth forest in Logan Canyon is a place where people in this community celebrate special occasions and restore themselves. Newly married couples have their pictures taken there. Families spread the ashes of loved ones there. It is a long tradition going back to indigenous people, to the age of trappers, through the earliest settlers. To lose these forests, including the roadless areas of the Wasatch-Cache that protect them, would be a wound to our hearts. Utah holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. That is a legacy this generation did not build alone and has no right to liquidate. The agency must account for what rescission would cost the people who depend on these places, not just those who would profit from access to them. Sincerely, Marcia Baker River Heights, Utah

Dear Secretary Rollins: As a young climate-aware citizen beginning my duty with civic engagement, I have found that my civic responsibility includes paying attention to land policy. There is no longer a separation between these policies and the preservation of our countries natural and rural areas as they exist today. The 2001 Roadless Rule is one of the cleaner cases of policy doing what the science would ask of it. I was raised on the east coast, but some of the most precious memories from my youth were family trips to visit my aunt who lived near Salt Lake City. Seeing the devastating fires throughout Utah, and specifically in the High Unitas and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, saddens and terrifies me. I mourn the loss of the beautiful environments that fill my childhood memories, and I also fear for the safety of my family near the fires. Watching the fires unfold in Utah this summer was particularly stressful as they reached unseen intensities and threatened the people and places that I value. Roads in wild areas only increase the spread of these fires: “The highest wildfire-ignition density was in lands within 50 m of roads (7.99 fires/1000 ha), and the second highest wildfire-ignition density was in other national forest lands outside of the 50-m road buffers but not in wilderness or roadless areas (3.50 fires/1000 ha). Wildfire-ignition density was lowest in designated wilderness areas (1.75 fires/1000 hectares), followed closely by Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 fires/1000 ha). For human-caused, natural, and undetermined fires, wildfire-ignition density decreased as distance to road increased: in lands between 0 and 250 m from roads, 6 fires ignited per 1000 ha, whereas fewer than 2 fires ignited per 1000 ha at a distance class of over 2000 m from roads. — Fire Ecology (Springer Nature), 2026 (https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2)” The idea that road building will reduce the likelihood and manageability of these fires is one that has been disproven time and time again. The research that I’ve included here, alongside countless other studies has shown that more roads actually exacerbate the frequency and intensity of the fires. To rescind the Roadless Rule would be a careless decision, and would only increase the damage that this action aims to prevent. With best wishes, Luisa Becker CommentID: RLC-20260913-8JRW3H

I live in Utah and have spent years hiking Rock Canyon and climbing Mount Timpanogos, and hiking the Alpine Loop area in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. These landscapes are exactly the kind of terrain this rule protects: undeveloped, close to growing communities along the Wasatch Front, and heavily used for recreation precisely because they’ve remained wild. Losing roadless protection here wouldn’t just affect remote backcountry — it would change the character of some of the most-visited trails in the state, trails my family and I return to again and again. I don’t find the wildfire-risk rationale persuasive as justification for a blanket nationwide rescission. Research indicates the large majority of wildfires are human-caused, and increased road access can increase ignition risk in areas that are currently hard to reach — the opposite of the stated goal. Targeted, science-based fuel treatments can address wildfire risk without eliminating roadless protections across 45 million acres. There is already extensive national forest land open to logging, mining, and development. The Roadless Rule protects only the portion set aside specifically for its undeveloped character — a value that, once roads are built, cannot be restored. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposed rule and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Thank you for considering my comment. Jennifer Prokhorov Provo, Utah

I am an Arizona voter, research mathematician and avid hiker and mountain biker. I’m writing with great concern about the possibility of rescinding the Roadless Conservation Rule, RIN 0596-AD66. Throughout my life, I have spent thousands of hours enjoying national forest land, with the most time spent in the Coronado National Forest, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF and Ocala NF. All of these areas are important to me personally and it would be a tragedy to open them to road construction and timber harvest. Part of what makes America a great and unique country is well-preserved public lands available for recreation, conservation and ecosystem services. It would be a huge loss to open these lands to roads and logging, and I would personally lose my favorite places to hike, camp, and mountain bike. In particular, I would be devastated to lose the Mount Olympus, Mill Canyon Peak, Butterfly and Upper Rincon roadless areas. All are places where I recreate regularly. In addition to a personal connection to roadless areas, removing these protections poses significant environmental threats. The proposed rule states that removing the Roadless Rule would lower wildfire risk, but the best available science suggests that Roadless areas in fact have significantly lower ignition density than areas within 50 miles of roads (Aplet et al., 2026). There is a large body of recent research that finds increased fire risk near roads and other human influences (Narayanaraj and Wimberly, 2012; Hawbaker et al., 2013; Balch et al., 2017). Based on the available science, I fear that rescinding the Roadless Rule will have the opposite of its intended effects and vastly increase wildfires in America’s National Forests. In addition to fire, roadless areas provide important habitat for rare, endangered and special status species like the Mexican spotted owl, ocelots, black bear and many more. These forests are also essential water resources for cities and towns across the western US. In Utah, the drinking water supply for Salt Lake City and the entire Wasatch Front is at risk with contamination from road building in the High Uintas. Lastly, old growth forests like those in the northwestern US roadless areas are significant carbon sinks (Mildrexler et al., 2020), an essential ecosystem service that keeps humans safe and healthy. In summary, I personally have a lot to lose with the potential withdrawal of the Roadless Rule as I would lose many of my favorite trails in roadless areas. I am also deeply concerned that this proposal ignores the best available science, and would significantly increase fire risks in national forests, as well take away the essential ecosystem services of clean air and water for Americans. References: Aplet, G. H., P. Hartger, and M. S. Dietz. 2026. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology 22: 8. Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, J. T. Abatzoglou, R. C. Nagy, E. J. Fusco, and A. L. Mahood. 2017. Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114: 2946–2951. Hawbaker, T. J., V. C. Radeloff, S. I. Stewart, R. B. Hammer, N. S. Keuler, and M. K. Clayton. 2013. Human and biophysical influences on fire occurrence in the United States. Ecological Applications 23: 565–582. Mildrexler, D. J., L. T. Berner, B. E. Law, R. A. Birdsey, and W. R. Moomaw. 2020. Large trees dominate carbon storage in forests east of the cascade crest in the United States pacific northwest. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3: 594274. Narayanaraj, G., and M. C. Wimberly. 2012. Influences of forest roads on the spatial patterns of human- and lightning-caused wildfire ignitions. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England) 32: 878–888.

To the Roadless Rule Rulemaking Team: If you follow climate as I do — daily, reluctantly — the 2001 Rule's quiet contribution to forest carbon retention is hard to miss. The rescission misses it anyway. I am local to the Wasatch National Forest, these areas have been a huge part of my life enjoying the wilderness right in my backyard. I hope to raise my own family in this area, and I believe the natural beauty and wildlife of this area deserves the utmost respect and conservation. Not only this, but the utah's wildlife and outdoors are already under fire and deserve more protection than ever. Hiking to Red Pine Lake with my girlfriend, enjoying the cold water and cooler temperatures. Being isolated, away from all the noise of the city such as road noise, generators, and even the simple noises from a suburban city. With the roadless rule being removed, we could see a decrease in wildlife in an already dwindling population. We may also lose access to isolated get-away locations that many choose for a sanctuary. Regarding the Twin Peaks in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah: Quiet, undeveloped recreation on roadless lands supports local economies through tourism, outfitting, hunting, and fishing. Road noise reaches deep into protected areas. Anthropogenic noise doubles background sound levels in 63 percent of U.S. protected area units and produces a tenfold increase in 21 percent of them. Elevated noise was found in habitats of endangered species, with 14 percent of critical habitats experiencing a tenfold sound increase. Noise pollution in protected areas is closely linked with transportation, development, and extractive land use (Buxton et al. 2017). — Buxton et al., 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4783) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Twin Peaks, Wasatch-Cache 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. Rolling back the roadless rule is an ignorant action that will hurt many areas of the outdoors. The roadless rule is a necessary piece of law that protects some of the areas closest to all of our hearts. I am terrified to see my local wildlife areas be potentially threatened by a misguided attempt to take away our public lands. Complete Absence of Environmental Justice Screening Methodology (EJScreen/CEJST) Nationwide The Draft EIS provides no environmental justice screening for a rulemaking that could affect up to 44.7 to 58 million acres nationwide. The Purpose and Need section states only that the agency "prioritizes decisionmaking by local Forest Service officials informed by Tribes, State, and local communities," and the Socioeconomic discussion documents "starkly divergent impacts" between resource-dependent rural communities and recreation-dependent "gateway communities" facing "job losses, mill closures and economic instability." Nowhere is this divergence overlaid with EJScreen, the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, or any comparable demographic analysis identifying low-income or minority populations affected by increased logging, road construction, or mineral leasing. NEPA's hard-look mandate, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), requires analysis of the disproportionate community burdens the DEIS's own socioeconomic findings place at issue — a statutory duty unaffected by the January 2025 revocation of Executive Order 12898 — and EPA's 2025 Interim Environmental Justice Framework reflects continuing agency practice of exactly this screening. I request a dedicated Environmental Justice section, distinct from Tribal consultation discussion, screening communities near operable roadless areas, wildland-urban interface zones, and mineral-lease tracts under every alternative. The forests these rules cover deserve to stay roadless. I'm asking the Department to keep them that way. With respect, CommentID: RLC-20260905-GLIHTX