Read the comments.

Kathryn Dyas 3405 6th Ave NW, Austin, MN 55912 kath56ryn@gmail.com 507.279.0972 October 5, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID: FS-2025-0001) Dear Director, As a former national park ranger for ten seasons in Utah, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Protecting inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) is vital for maintaining ecological integrity, protecting clean water, and preserving backcountry recreation. I am deeply concerned about how this sweeping policy shift will impact the lands surrounding Canyonlands National Park in Utah. While the U.S. Forest Service manages the Manti-La Sal National Forest adjacent to the southeast and west of the park, any administrative action that opens nearby federal lands to road construction, commercial logging, or mineral extraction directly threatens the greater Canyonlands ecosystem. I urge the Forest Service to maintain full 2001 Roadless Rule protections for the following reasons: 1. Cross-Boundary Ecological Impacts on Canyonlands National Park Ecosystems do not stop at agency borders. The watersheds, wildlife corridors, and viewsheds of Canyonlands National Park are intimately tied to the surrounding high-elevation national forest lands, including the Abajo and La Sal mountain ranges. Introducing new roads and industrial activities in nearby IRAs will increase habitat fragmentation, disrupt critical migration corridors for large mammals, and alter delicate desert hydrology. 2. Degradation of Watersheds and Water Quality The arid landscapes of southeastern Utah rely on pristine headwater streams flowing from unroaded forest areas. Increased erosion, runoff, and sediment from road construction upstream will inevitably degrade downstream water quality within the Colorado River and Green River watersheds, directly harming the aquatic resources and riparian ecosystems protected inside Canyonlands National Park. 3. Destruction of Backcountry Recreation and Quiet Character Canyonlands National Park and its surrounding forest lands are globally renowned for their dark skies (it is an International Dark Sky park), natural soundscapes, and remote backcountry recreation opportunities. Expanding road networks nearby will increase noise pollution, degrade viewsheds visible from within the park's overlooks (such as the Needles and Island in the Sky districts), and diminish the wild, primitive experience that millions of visitors seek. 4. Severe Backlog on Existing Forest Roads The Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar road maintenance backlog nationwide. Removing protections from IRAs to allow new road infrastructure is fiscally irresponsible and diverts critical resources away from maintaining and repairing the agency's existing, deteriorating road network. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed rescission and uphold the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule to ensure the long-term protection of Utah's public lands and the iconic greater Canyonlands ecosystem. Thank you for considering these substantive comments. Sincerely, Kathryn Dyas (I give permission to use this typed name as my signature)

Please advocate to keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. Putting short term gains over protecting our environment long term is short sighted. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Theresa Kennedy 3455 Taylor St NE Minneapolis, MN 55418-1350 thkenne@rei.com

Please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat. They’re our favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from road-building, commercial logging and mining. Industrial activity would destroy the trees and trails we love. Keep our national forests wild. Sincerely, Ryan Baka 3107 Knox Ave N Minneapolis, MN 55411-1253 ryan.baka@gmail.com

I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Geoff Hathaway Saint Paul, MN 55101 hathaway.geoff@gmail.com

Please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat. They’re our favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from road-building, commercial logging and mining. Industrial activity would destroy the trees and trails we love. Keep our national forests wild. Sincerely, Mary Wallin 710 14th St SW Willmar, MN 56201-2927 mlabw@icloud.com

Please maintain protections for the 45 million acres of wild and roadless forests and don’t rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. These forests are full of mature and old-growth trees that provide important wildlife habitat. They’re our favorite places to hike, fish and camp. Wild forests should remain protected from road-building, commercial logging and mining. Industrial activity would destroy the trees and trails we love. Keep our national forests wild. Sincerely, Mary Creighton 501 6th St S Virginia, MN 55792-2759 marycr8on@yahoo.com

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , As someone who cares deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near some of our nation's greatest national parks. Rescinding the rule would expose and fragment these treasured landscapes. Rescinding the rule opens a door that cannot be closed once wild areas are breached. New roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, puts our nation's treasured and irreplaceable landscapes at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Eleanor Brandt 3446 Johnson St NE Minneapolis, MN 55418-1411 Sincerely, Eleanor Brandt

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. This reckless action would devastate public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities on which millions of Americans depend. Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks to mitigate the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecol 22, 8 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Raleigh Koritz Minneapolis, MN 55442-3153 tabbykat7285@outlook.com

I strongly oppose repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as it would not be in the long-term interest of the American people, the National Forests or the communities they serve. The U.S. National Forests are the headwaters of our great rivers and the largest source of municipal water supply in the nation, serving over 60 million people in 3,400 communities in 33 states. The 2001 Roadless Rule is vital for maintaining clean drinking water for communities across the country. Major U.S. cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Denver and Atlanta receive a significant portion of their water supply from national forests. But building more roads means more water pollution, threatening these crucial water sources. These remote pristine areas provide quality dispersed recreation opportunities and are treasured for hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing.  Roadless areas are havens for wildlife, keeping habitats intact and free of industrial development. These backcountry forests protect the homes of threatened species such as California condors, grizzly bears and wolves in the Yellowstone area, native trout in the Pacific Northwest, migratory songbirds in the Appalachian hardwoods and more. They also sustain wild salmon, especially in Alaska where they are the lifeblood for both the fishing industry and traditional subsistence practices of Indigenous communities.  The Roadless Area Conservation Rule must be preserved in its entirety. Thank you. Brian Buxton 8451 Monterey Ct, Eden Prairie, MN 55347

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, All American citizens are well aware of the pressure being put upon you by the Trump administration to just give away our invaluable public lands and national forest lands so he can make a cut on whatever commercial entity he decides to give a permit to. Not many agencies have shown the courage necessary to stand up against him. I urge you, the U.S. Forest Service, to stay true to your original values, to have the courage to continue to protect our lands and the wildlife that live there. I implore you to keep intact the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”), which protects nearly 45 million acres of our nation's forests and grasslands. Before you implemented the rule in 2001, industrial logging and accompanying roadbuilding degraded and totally destroyed 3.2 million acres of fragile habitat every single year. It also decimated clean water supplies and limiting outdoor recreation opportunities. Don't let it happen again. Now, for a quarter century, the Roadless Rule has protected ecologically sensitive landscapes, wildlife populations and habitat, and the people of all the communities dependent upon their services. The rule protects countless wild animals, including imperiled species who rely on intact habitats for survival. Additionally and most importantly, these lands provide clean water and support numerous recreational activities that sustain local jobs and economies. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule allows for flexibility in resource management, with exceptions for vegetation management and minimal road construction projects that are proven to be in the interest of public health and safety. The American public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule; recent bipartisan polling shows that 77% of voters support conserving roadless lands. Indeed, the rule was created with input from over 1.6 million comments and, in September, over half a million Americans responded to the U.S. Forest Service's notice of intent to repeal the Roadless Rule. We all voiced our strong opposition. We have made our opinion clear time and time again: our public lands must remain public, not be degraded for the interests of private industry. I strongly urge the U.S. Forest Service to vote no on repealing the Roadless Rule. Keeping the rule intact will protect our shared forestlands for generations to come. Robynne Limoges 701 Southwaite Ct, MN 56283 Sincerely, Robynne Limoges

Dear Forest Service Officials, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed timber harvesting and associated road construction projects within the Superior National Forest. As a constituent who deeply values Minnesota’s public lands, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the "No Action" alternative. The ecological risks to water quality, wildlife habitat, and intact forest ecosystems far outweigh any short-term timber yield. I request that the Forest Service address the following specific concerns in its environmental analysis: Watershed Protection and Water Quality: The Superior National Forest encompasses interconnected lakes, streams, and wetlands within the Rainy River and Lake Superior watersheds. Constructing new access roads disrupts hydrology, increases soil erosion, and drives sediment runoff into clean waterways. This degradation threatens local aquatic species and downstream ecosystems. Habitat Fragmentation and Wildlife: Building roads and logging intact canopy fragments critical forest corridors used by sensitive and threatened species, including the Canada lynx, northern long-eared bat, and grey wolf. Edge effects from clearcutting and road corridors favor invasive species and disrupt natural predator-prey dynamics. Buffer for the Boundary Waters: Operations near designated inventoried roadless areas or wilderness boundaries risk degrading the quiet, natural character of the neighboring Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) through noise pollution, visual degradation, and edge impacts. Climate Resilience and Carbon Storage: The mature and old-growth stands in northern Minnesota serve as vital carbon sinks and natural buffers against climate stressors. Logging mature trees reduces the forest’s long-term carbon storage capacity and impairs its natural resilience. Long-Term Costs of Road Networks: Expanding temporary or permanent road networks creates persistent maintenance burdens, causes ongoing soil compaction, and opens remote areas to illegal off-road vehicle access. The agency should prioritize decommissioning existing problematic roads rather than building new ones. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is obligated to fully evaluate cumulative environmental impacts and consider alternatives that prioritize ecosystem integrity and non-motorized recreation over commodity extraction. Please protect the long-term ecological health, water resources, and public legacy of the Superior National Forest by rejecting this proposal. Lastly, my HS friends and I purchased trees to be planted in memory of our friend Betsy. This is our legacy lives on in the Superior National Forest for her (see attached). Sincerely, Mary Jurgens 153 Maple Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Mary.b.jurgens@gmail.com