Read the comments.

Wendy Dodd Emigrant, MT 59027 September 7, 2026 Re: Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (91 FR 53827) To the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service: I am writing as a Montana resident to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Emigrant, MT, in the shadow of the Absaroka-Beartooth Front, where public access to intact national forest land is not an abstraction — it is the backbone of how this community works, recreates, and makes a living. It is also an area that I frequently bird hunt on with our two dogs. I ask that USDA withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule in place. The rule has done exactly what it was designed to do. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected roughly 45 million acres of national forest — nearly a third of the entire National Forest System — from new road construction and industrial-scale logging, while still allowing wildfire response, grazing, and recreation to continue. It was never a "lock it up and leave it" rule; it was a bright-line standard that protected watersheds, wildlife corridors, and backcountry character precisely because it applied everywhere the same way. Replacing that consistent nationwide standard with 175 separate forest-plan decisions doesn't reduce regulatory burden — it multiplies it, and it invites the same fights over and over, forest by forest, for decades. The wildfire rationale doesn't hold up. USDA has framed this rescission as a wildfire-prevention measure, but the agency's own data undercuts that argument: the vast majority of fire ignitions occur near existing roads, not in the roadless backcountry the rule protects. Roadless areas are, on average, some of the least fire-prone and most fire-resilient forest in the system. Thinning and fuels work can and does already happen inside roadless areas under the existing rule's exceptions. What rescission actually opens the door to is new permanent and temporary road construction and increased timber harvest — by the Forest Service's own estimate, an additional 4.8 million acres available for logging — which is a very different goal than fire mitigation. Roads are also a proven fire and erosion liability, not just a construction cost. New roads fragment habitat, increase sedimentation into the trout streams and rivers that define places like the Paradise Valley, and create long-term maintenance obligations the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with on its existing 380,000-mile road system. Adding to that backlog rather than maintaining what already exists is not a responsible tradeoff. The public record does not support this rollback. When the Roadless Rule was first opened to rescission in 2005 and again in 2020, the overwhelming majority of public comments favored keeping it intact. USDA's own 2025 scoping period drew more than 220,000 comments, roughly 99% of them opposed to rescission. A "one-size-fits-all" rule that the public has defended this consistently, across administrations, for a quarter century, is not a rule in need of dismantling — it's a rule doing its job. Montana has a direct stake in this decision. Our roadless national forest lands anchor hunting, fishing, outfitting, and tourism economies that don't require a single tree to be cut to generate revenue year after year. Once a road is built and a drainage is opened to industrial use, that backcountry character does not come back. I ask USDA to weigh that permanence against the modest, short-term revenue this rescission is projected to generate. For these reasons, I respectfully urge USDA to withdraw the proposed rescission and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its current form. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Wendy Dodd Emigrant, MT 59027

Please keep the Roadless Areas unchanged. I have vacationed many times in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness and being in pristine nature without motor noises is priceless. If we lose these areas to roads or commercial development they can never be replaced. Please protect our roadless areas. Paula Curtin 286 Big Timber Loop Road Big Timber,MT 59011-0157

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to completely rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Eliminating nationwide protections across 44.7 million acres of inventoried roadless areas undermines decades of balanced federal land stewardship. The proposal to open these pristine backcountry areas to industrial logging and road construction relies on flawed justifications. Specifically, I urge the Forest Service to reconsider based on the following critical points: • Wildfire Risk: While the agency claims that removing the rule is necessary for wildfire risk reduction, decades of peer-reviewed data show that wildfire ignition is actually four times higher near forest roads. Intact, roadless forests have the lowest ignition rates of any land category. Furthermore, fuel reduction treatments can and already do successfully occur within areas protected by the Roadless Rule. • Fiscal Responsibility: The Forest Service currently faces a staggering multibillion-dollar road maintenance backlog (estimated at roughly $10 billion) across its existing 370,000+ mile road network. Expanding the road system into pristine backcountry areas when the agency cannot afford to maintain its current footprint is fiscally irresponsible. • Watershed and Habitat Destruction: These unfragmented areas secure clean drinking water for over 60 million Americans across 33 states. Introducing heavy machinery and roadbed erosion threatens hundreds of municipal watersheds and critical habitats for federally protected species. I urge the Forest Service to heed the overwhelming public consensus—which historically stands at over 99% opposition to rolling back these protections—and preserve the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. Respectfully, Alex J Hasson Columbia Falls, MT 59912

I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place exactly as it is. Right now is not the time to change this significant piece of legislation. There is minimal evidence that removal of the Roadless rule would have a benefit to the citizens of the USA. I support the Roadless Rule and believe it is an important safegaurd. I was recently traveling outside of the US, and I have seen first hand the negative impact of dirty water and disregard for clean forests and streams. There is an immeasurable value in keeping our wild places wild. The Roadless Rule safeguards clean drinking water for millions of Americans, provides vital habitat for threatened species and sustains old-growth and mature forests that serve as critical natural resources when they are kept clean and intact. The Roadless Rule also protects access to popular climbing, fishing, hiking, backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, dirt biking, mountain biking and paddling sites. All of which function as economic pillars for communities and people who live in the USA. Removing the Roadless Rule would be a short term benifit to small number of corperate interests that are made up partly of people outside our country. Please keep the Roadless Rule intact and help protect our legacy of public lands by following Alternative 1 (No Action). Thank you, Nickolas Joseph Wagner 3010 Langohr Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the USDA to retain it in its entirety. The Rule protects some of our nation’s last remaining large, undeveloped public forests from the permanent consequences of road construction and commercial development. Once roads are built and intensive development begins, the roadless character and many of the ecological, recreational, wildlife, watershed, and other public values of these areas cannot simply be restored. The Department’s stated goals of reducing regulatory burden and increasing local flexibility do not justify eliminating national protections. National Forest lands belong to the American public as a whole, and their management should not be determined solely by short-term or local economic pressures. Rescission would create greater opportunities for commercial logging, road building, mining, and other development in areas protected precisely because of their undeveloped character. Any economic benefits would be temporary and concentrated, while the loss of intact forests, wildlife habitat, clean watersheds, recreation, and other public values could be permanent. The Roadless Rule has protected these lands for more than two decades. That is not a regulatory failure; it is evidence of the Rule’s value. I urge the USDA to withdraw the proposal and preserve the Rule’s national protections rather than shifting responsibility for them to individual forest-level decisions. Sincerely, David E. Brown, Ph.D. Missoula, MT 59801

This Administration's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule is not well grounded in law or reason. As a legal matter, the process by which the Administration is proposing to rescind the rule is arbitrary and capricious in that it has failed to provide sufficient scientific or policy justification for rescinding the rule - particularly in light of the landslide of public support for the rule when it was initially enacted in 2001. As a practical matter, rescinding the Roadless Rule would, by increasing road construction, increase the likelihood of human-caused wildfires, which our country cannot afford either economically or ecologically. Data shows that most human-caused wildfires originate in proximity to road access. Increased roads would also lead to increased logging, in this case by intentional design. Not only would that have detrimental effects on threatened/endangered species (especially with this Administration's efforts to gut the Endangered Species Act), but increased logging also hurts hunters and anglers by increasing run-off into streams and reducing prime habitat for numerous species, including elk, deer, wolves, bears and mountain lions. The United States Forest Service cannot afford to rescind the Roadless Rule in a literal sense - the USFS already cannot maintain its existing road inventory. Increasing roads will only exacerbate the problem by increasing road maintenance costs and creating more work even after the USFS staff and budget was decimated by this Administration's so-called "Department of Governmental Efficiency" (DOGE), spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk before he bailed out of that national debacle. The public overwhelmingly supports the Roadless Rule and this Administration has not set forth a reason to rescind it that is grounded in either science, fact, or sound public/fiscal policy. Too many public dollars have already been spent in this effort to rescind the Roadless Rule. I urge you to drop the effort to rescind the rule. Brian Upton 514 Cleveland Missoula, MT 59801

October 4, 2026 Joshua White, Acting Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 202250-1124 Re: 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft EIS-RIN 0596-AD66 I Marsha Waliser is providing comments on the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule (Rule). I support the repeal of the rule and returning decisions for local NFS lands to the local National Forest units. Here in the Bitterroot National Forest many of the “roadless” areas are in fact roaded and were used by us. The Bitterroot National Forest is responsible for the lands under the current Rule in our local area. I have seen these watersheds degrade in their ability to withstand fire behavior and associated effects that presently occur in this climate and landscape. It is disturbing to see high severity fire effects across large landscapes that could have been prevented with proper management. I have also had reduced public recreation access on those same lands that have been used by generations. The taxpayer owns the land and deserves access for all individuals, including the elderly, handicapped and other groups that cannot hike into these areas. When a fire burns the same areas every few years and we then get heavy snowpack or rains the topsoil (plant support) gets washed away causing extreme harm not only to the land but our rivers and streams. Forest wide analysis would determine which acres can be managed and treated and how to best implement those actions. Of course, in the steep terrain on the Forest, some of the acres will naturally remain roadless. The Forest can make this determination with specialists and local expertise. Future project design would take this into account. The locals know how to best manage our forest not Washington. In summary, I support Alternative 2 in the DEIS. We need local management of our Public Lands not controlled by Washington or the Federal Judges. Sincerely, Marsha Waliser 199 Cordial Lane Hamilton, MT 59840

October 4, 2026 Joshua White, Acting Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 202250-1124 Re: 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft EIS-RIN 0596-AD66 I James Waliser is providing comments on the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule (Rule). I support the repeal of the rule and returning decisions for local NFS lands to the local National Forest units. The Bitterroot National Forest is responsible for the lands under the current Rule in our local area. I have seen these watersheds degrade in their ability to withstand fire behavior and associated effects that presently occur in this climate and landscape. It is disturbing to see high severity fire effects across large landscapes that could have been prevented with proper management. I have also had reduced public recreation access on those same lands that have been used by generations. The taxpayer owns the land and deserves access for all individuals, including the elderly, handicapped and other groups that cannot hike into these areas. When a fire burns the same areas every few years and we then get heavy snowpack or rains the topsoil (plant support) gets washed away causing extreme harm not only to the land but our rivers and streams. Here in the Bitterroot National Forest many of the “roadless” areas are in fact roaded and were used by us and I would like to be able to ride these roads before I get too old and disabled. Forest wide analysis would determine which acres can be managed and treated and how to best implement those actions. Of course, in the steep terrain on the Forest, some of the acres will naturally remain roadless. The Forest can make this determination with specialists and local expertise. Future project design would take this into account. The locals know how to best manage our forest not Washington. In summary, I support Alternative 2 in the DEIS. We need local management of our Public Lands not controlled by Washington or the Federal Judges. Sincerely, James Waliser 199 Cordial Lane Hamilton, MT 59840

With all due respect: I am writing as a citizen of Montana who has used public lands for recreation for almost sixty years, mostly for hiking. I am addressing these comments to the U. S. Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agricullture and any other national decision-makers who might have oversight of or input to the making (or, in this case, unmaking) the issue of roadless areas in our National Forests, not just in Montana but more broadly. I am particularly concerned about maintainning key connectivity and migration avenues for wildlife species that live in our already scarce roadless areas that exist today. The habitat is priceless. Roadbuilding and associatged development of any sort would lead inevitably to loss of habitat, increased mortality of wildlife, and significantly impact efforts to recover threatened or endangered species. New roads scar the landscape and result in the spread of invasive species and noxious weeds. I am asking that the Forest Service select the "No Action Alternative" to keep the current rule(s) regarding roadless areas of our public forests- rules that were adopted after much study and public input. Larry D. Williams 62 Crescent Drive (P O Box 3097) Coplumbia Falls, MT 59912

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I live in Montana. I know firsthand how important our public lands are to American citizens. They are places for recreation, healing, community, wildlife, enjoyment. Repealing the Roadless Rule would be detrimental to these sacred places. 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 Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks 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. Canon Hirschler 33535 Cherry Lane Bigfork, MT 59911 Sincerely, Canon Hirschler

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 Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks 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. Stephanie Adams 575 concord dr BOZEMAN, MT 59715 Sincerely, Stephanie Adams

Secretary Rollins, I don’t give a damn about regulatory burdens. Protecting our last wild and undeveloped areas is of astronomically more importance both now and in the future, than temporary industry profits. I vehemently oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Dave Potchak Missoula, MT 59803-3354 dmp287@gmail.com

The 2001 version of the Roadless Rule should remain in place. It has allowed millions of Americans and foreign visitors to enjoy the priceless legacy of US Forest Service public lands at their best. It allows for countless hikers, hunters, naturalists and people who just enjoy the roadless lands more pristine character to recreate with their families and friends in a way that is not available within heavily managed and roaded areas. It just feels different. As a devoted Continental Divide Trail hiker, I am appalled at the new proposal's potential widespread damage to the character of this and other long trails, like the Pacific Crest Trail and the Pacific Northwest Trail. There is an entire economy that has developed around these trails, the roadless areas they traverse, and the countless trail towns that support the hikers in search of the America that used to be: wild, remote and unroaded. The roadless character created with the 2001 Rule supports an incredible diversity of wildlife that is currently under siege from development and aggressive forest management outside of the current roadless areas. Even when a roadless area is minimal in size or width, it offers a haven that roaded areas don't. What species will be negatively affected by the new proposal? What recreational opportunities will be lost to timber management and road building? We (the combined Forest Service and Timber industry bean counters) have always begged for more timber, more management, more commodities - while it is plain that we do not have limitless resources, including un-roaded old-growth forest. Why not draw the line now, and save what roadless area we have, instead of making an irreversible decision to go the next step in taming our few wild lands that are left? Once these lands are sacrificed for a couple rounds of timber sales, they will never be the same, and will blend in with the millions of acres of lands suffering from mediocre, fractious and poorly-planned management. How will the proposal affect water quality in multi-state and multi-county watersheds, that are used to support meager municipal water systems? How many headwaters areas would be affected by new roads aimed at low-cost timber access and transport? The Forest Service has long touted the high quality water that comes from wilderness and roadless areas, so how can this new proposal be considered a benefit when it negatively affects those areas? Which municipalities will see increased water treatment costs from timber road sediment production? In summary, it appears the new proposal is aimed at supporting D. Trump's lumber-selling cronies, rather than benefiting the average outdoor-loving American. If there are cases where fuel reduction could benefit specific communities, let them propose specific management, including the specific areas to be involved. The USFS should then come up with a proposal that deals with these areas specifically, rather than throwing the entire inventory of Roadless Areas designated i 2001 under the bus. Sincerely, Edward Snook PO Box 452 Darby, MT 59829 trapperpeakview@gmail.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, Please defend the Roadless Rule. My father lives on the outskirts of Hyatt Lake, near Ashland OR. Growing up on his property allowed me to explore the adjacent public lands and understand first hand how precious they are. Once lands like this are subjected to road building, they are simply not the same. I am strongly in favor of protecting migratory corridors for our wildlife. I believe it's a sacred duty we all share as humans, but I know not everyone may agree on that point. What I DO believe we can agree on is that out-of-control, accidental wildfires on public lands near residential areas can be absolutely devastating. It's been proven that these kinds of fires are most likely to start in the vicinity of roads -- where a single spark from a vehicle or a dropped cigarette can begin a fatal chain reaction. Research shows that building more roads through our public lands INCREASES the chance for massive devastation to peoples' homes (see references below). My husband and I recently foraged for mushrooms on our public lands, guided by the teachings of our friend, the renowned mushroom expert Larry Evans. We saw chanterelles bursting up from the duff and climbed over ancient fallen trees with a chorus of songbirds overhead. This was a beautiful, spiritual experience -- one that I want to share with my nephew (he's due to arrive in February 2027). I want him to be able to explore our last wild places that way I have, to count on the clean drinking water that these roadless areas help provide, and to be able to look up, up, up into the soaring, mysterious canopy of an old growth forest. Places like this are where I most clearly see the divine spirit that exists in all of us -- plants, people, animals. In fact, I interpret the language in our the Declaration of Independence, which promises us all the unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", as language that also protects these lands. Because for me, pursuing life, liberty and happiness necessarily involves being in relationship with our wildlife and wild places. Gentle relationship. Kind and caring relationship. We must think about the generations to come and what kind of world we're handing down to them. I write this with hope in my heart and good intention. Thank you for your time and consideration. Nell Geisslinger 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, Nell Geisslinger Missoula, MT 59801-3935 nellgeisslinger@gmail.com

My name is Deborah Lyman and I have lived in Heon, MT 59844, for over fifty two years. I want the Roadless Rule to continue as it is now in place. Many areas already have roads and access for motorized equipment and more should not be added. People and wildlife need areas of solitude and peace without intrusion. I believe you should take into consideration all public comments and give weight to those of us who are not from a government agency or a corporation. Many folks live near public lands and thrive on the beauty and sanity it provides. Please do not change the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Deborah Lyman

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose revising the U.S. Forest Service Travel Management Rule so that motorized access is open unless designated closed instead of closed unless open. The justification for the rule change on the summary at Regulations.gov is that the proposed rule change provides responsible officials with flexibility to better guide management. Forest Service officials already have lots of flexibility in managing local issues under the Roadless Rule. This is especially important now because water is increasingly scarce, wildfires more destructive, climate change is ongoing, and pressure on public land is increasing. The Roadless Rule has worked well for the last 20 years and enabled citizens to work out reasonable compromises on motorized access. There is no reason to think that rescinding the rule will improve this situation. Ive lived in Montana for over fifty years, and I hike, camp, and hunt in Custer Gallatin National Forest. I used to fly fish, but I dont do that anymore because of a bad right shoulder. In the 1990's I hunted on private land more often than not. It was easy to talk to ranchers and get permission to hunt on their land. Those days are gone. There is now much less hunting access on private land. Even though hunting pressure is much greater than it used to be in Custer Gallatin National Forest, thats where I usually hunt. I walk in and if Im successful, drag out. I want places I can do that without competing with ATVs and motorcycles. One time, a number of years ago, before the Roadless Rule, I stalked a buck for an hour or so and was finally getting close enough for a good shot (I hunt with an open sight). Just then a couple of ATVs came over a grassy hill and away went my buck. I didnt like that. When I hunt, I want to be out there by myself without unexpected OHVs. Ive never had any problems with people riding ATVs or motorcycles, and as far as I know theyve never had any problems with me. But Im aware that one difficulty with motorized users. A noticeable number dont respect the rules. Two summers ago I saw two motorcycles on near Hyalite Lake on a day when that timeshare trail was not open to motorcycles. Ive seen tread makes deep in mud on the Sky Rim Trail in Yellowstone along the border with Gallatin-Custer . More roads means more abuse. For years my wife and I and my daughter and I have hiked in national forests. When we do that, we like to be alone with the sounds of nature around us and not be interrupted by motors. Fewer places will be like that if the Roadless Rule is rescinded. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Respectfully, Jim Allard Bozeman, MT 59715

To Whom It May Concern: ​I am writing as a resident of Western Montana to express my strong opposition to any proposal to rescind or weaken the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to maintain full protections for Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) under the No Action alternative. ​Living in Western Montana, our quality of life and heritage are deeply tied to public lands. Montana is home to over 6.3 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas—including critical backcountry tracts in the Lolo, Kootenai, Bitterroot, and Flathead National Forests. I regularly hunt, fish, hike, and recreate across these undeveloped lands. Preserving their wild character is essential not only to my personal way of life, but also to the outdoor economy that sustains our rural mountain communities. ​I oppose the proposed rescission for the following specific reasons: ​ Preserving Premier Hunting and Fishing: Montana’s roadless areas provide vital security habitat for world-class elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep herds, while feeding pristine headwater streams that support cold-water fisheries for native bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout. Constructing roads through these intact corridors disrupts migration routes, fragments critical winter range, and degrades water quality in fragile trout streams. ​Fire Safety Concerns: Contrary to arguments that road-building aids fire management, Forest Service data shows that human activity causes the vast majority of wildfires. In Montana’s steep terrain, road access increases human-caused ignition risks rather than mitigating fire danger, putting backcountry areas at greater risk. ​Fiscal Responsibility: The Forest Service already faces a massive deferred maintenance backlog on its existing network of hundreds of thousands of miles of roads. Expanding new roads into steep, remote Montana backcountry burdens taxpayers and diverts scarce resources away from maintaining existing infrastructure and trails. ​Protecting Clean Water and Local Economies: Montana's roadless areas safeguard high-quality drinking water for downstream communities and fuel a vibrant outdoor recreation economy that attracts visitors from around the world to hike, pack, hunt, and fish in wild country. ​The 2001 Roadless Rule already includes flexible provisions allowing temporary access for public safety and targeted restoration efforts. Rescinding the rule entirely is unnecessary and would inflict permanent harm on Western Montana’s irreplaceable wild lands. ​I respectfully request that the U.S. Forest Service reject any rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and keep all existing roadless protections fully intact. ​Sincerely, ​Kyle Mitchell Plains, MT 59859 mitchky@hotmail.com

Dear US Forest Service, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's current proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). Montana's roadless areas are vital to our state’s economy, wildlife, and way of life. Dismantling these protections to allow industrial logging and road building will drastically increase wildfire risks—given that 90% of wildfires start near roads—and will jeopardize the $6 billion outdoor recreation economy that our local communities depend on. The Forest Service cannot afford to maintain its current roads; it should not be building new ones through pristine backcountry. I ask that the Forest Service withdraw this proposal to maintain the strong, science-based protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule, and I ask that my congressional representatives publicly oppose this rollback and co-sponsor the Roadless Area Conservation Act. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Matthew Kraska 2218 Snow Flake Ct, Bozeman, MT 59715 406-539-3657

To whom it may concern: My comment on the proposed change to the Roadless Rule is : No Change at this time. I want far more deliberation based on best current data. Thank you, Sally Behr Schendel; 17 Bieler Lane; PO Box 325; Sheridan, MT 59749

I write to oppose any attempt to rescind the Roadless Rule and any attempt to build new roads or reduce protections in Roadless Areas of the National Forest System. Although I live in Montana, Roadless Areas should be protected in every western state. I urge all decisions makers as follows: Actively maintain the undeveloped, backcountry character of Roadless Areas, recognizing that their value is rooted in a sense of remoteness, quietude, and connection to nature. Prioritize high-quality trail access and recreation experiences that sustain local economies and provide meaningful, low-impact outdoor opportunities. Apply the principles of Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation to ensure any future projects avoid impacts to existing trails where possible, minimize disruption where avoidance is not feasible, and fully mitigate any unavoidable impacts. Ensure balance rather than dominance in future resource development, so that infrastructure or extractive uses do not overwhelm the recreational and ecological values that define these landscapes. The wild, remote backcountry character of Roadless Areas are what make Montana unique and are important to the culture of the West. More than that, it’s how mountain bikers get a “Wilderness” experience on a bike. Sincerely, Ryan Heuwinkel Missoula, MT 59801 rth009@msn.com