Read the comments.

October 6, 2026 I am writing to express my continued opposition to repeal of the U.S. Forest Service’s Roadless Area rule (36 C.F.R. pt. 294). As a law professor specializing in natural resources and public land law, my views on this matter are based on more than 40 years researching, writing, and teaching about America’s public lands, including national forest history, policy, and law. The roadless rule has served the nation well since its adoption in 2001. It has not seriously hindered timber production on the national forests; rather the decline in timber production is due to numerous other factors, including mill closures, overriding ecological concerns, and less costly alternative timber sources. By all accounts, there is little commercially viable timber that is readily accessible on the roadless lands, which are generally in remote, higher elevation, and often steep terrain. In fact, significant amounts of commercially viable national forest timber remain available on the existing, lower elevation national forest lands that are managed for multiple-use purposes. Opening the roadless national forest lands will do little to address the growing wildfire risk. In fact, research shows that the presence of roads is a frequent factor in human-caused fire ignitions in forests. Most roadless acreage is remote and not proximate to the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zone, so there is little need to undertake hazardous fuel reduction projects on existing roadless lands. Given current budget cuts and personnel reductions, the Forest Service simply does not have the capacity to meaningfully extend its fuel reduction work onto roadless lands. Besides, the Roadless Area rule contains exceptions that would allow necessary hazardous fuel reduction projects to proceed near WUI zones. The roadless areas were initially set aside to address watershed protection and wildlife conservation, and to provide diverse recreational opportunities. By any measure, this has proven a success, meeting these important Forest Service multiple use statutory objectives. Rescinding the Roadless Area rule will adversely impact these important resource uses with little gain, as recognized in the explanatory material accompanying the Federal Register notice, i.e., the acknowledgment that few roads, timber sales, or energy projects are likely to be constructed on the roadless lands. Further, existing and accessible Forest Service roads provide those interested in motorized and off road vehicle recreation adequate opportunities to pursue these recreational activities. There is simply no compelling legal, policy, or practical reason to rescind the rule and to put watershed, wildlife, and recreation uses and values at risk. There is little doubt that the construction of roads, timber sales, and energy projects will divert Forest Service resources from other multiple use purposes at a time when the agency is facing severe budget cuts and workforce reductions. Given the number of public comments on the rule recission proposal, it is clear that the public does not support this change in agency policy. Because state, local, and tribal governments enjoy a special privileged status regarding participation in forest management decisions, including proposals for exceptions to the roadless rule, the local decision-making rationale for revising the rule is neither necessary or compelling. Moreover, the clear direction of Forest Service policy during the past 30 years has been toward conservation rather than the production of commodities that often negatively impacts ecological integrity. And should the agency rescind the rule, that decision will undoubtedly be challenged in court, as will most road building, timber harvesting, and other development decisions affecting roadless lands, putting a costly and unnecessary burden on the agency. All of which can and should be avoided by not rescinding the roadless rule in this time of budgetary pressures, workforce reductions, and political divisiveness. In short, the proffered rationale for rescinding the roadless rule is far outweighed by the myriad benefits derived from the existing rule and the costs that will attach to its recission, which would not significantly benefit the national forests or the nation. Thank you for considering my professional and personal views on this matter, which do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Robert B. Keiter Wallace Stegner Professor of Law University Distinguished Professor University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law Salt Lake City, UT 84112

I believe rolling back the roadless rule is well-intended. However, doing so will have adverse ramifications in the overall health of our western ecosystems, and (unintuitively) potentially threaten public access by encouraging development in once-wild areas. Please consider this perspective when deciding to lend--or not lend--your support. Sincerely, Kieran Balazs 7559 S Lincoln St Midvale, UT 84047-7319 kbalazs@rei.com

Dear Chief Schultz & Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) is writing to provide the attached public comment on the proposed rule to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Utah Public Lands Alliance would like to be considered an interested public for the Rule. Information can be sent to the following address and email address: Rose Winn Utah Public Lands Alliance PO Box 833, St. George, UT 84771 rose@utahpla.com Sincerely, Rose WinnLoren Campbell Natural Resources ConsultantPresident Utah Public Lands AllianceUtah Public Lands Association 559.862.6382909.499.3295

I am strongly against USDA’s plan to overturn the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless national forests represent some of the last pristine public forest landscapes we have. They ensure clean drinking water, provide wildlife habitats, support salmon streams, preserve old-growth forests, and offer spaces for outdoor recreation. These areas are essential for communities, Tribal Nations, and future generations. Once new roads, logging, and industrial activities fragment them, the damage is irreversible. I have hiked in these forest for more than 50 years. They are necessary for my physical and mental health. Don’t ruin them! Moreover, I am worried that rescinding the rule would transfer protection decisions to local forest plans, making intact forests more susceptible to political pressure and short-term exploitation. Public forests should be managed for clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience, Indigenous stewardship, and public welfare, not opened up for additional roadbuilding and logging. Please withdraw the proposed rescission, maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule, and select the strongest alternative to protect roadless areas within the National Forest System. Please do not ruin an irreplaceable asset! Thank you for considering my comment. Bonnie L. Mitchell Long-term resident of SW UT, currently in Taylorsville, UT 84123

I am greatly opposed to the rescinding of the roadless rule act. I backpack and fish in these roadless areas. Opening it up to roads will cause pollution and ultimately destroy these pristine areas. It will destroy hunting and fishing lands for millions of Americans that enjoy these remote places. John Dabler 11414 S. Willow Hill Dr. Sandy, UT 84092 717-376-4405

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 a citizen of the United States [or Utah or Wyoming] and have lived here most of my long life. Like most people of Utah, I have a high regard for wild beauty of our forests, rivers, and mountains. I want to preserve them at all costs for all life, including the wildlife that depends on them. I am adamantly opposed to rescinding the Roadless Rule. Numerous studies, including opinions of the Forest Service confirm that will not accomplish any of the objectives that are promised for it. It will not help prevent forest fire but result in additional human caused forest fire; it will degrade our precious water, both in quantity and quality; it is predicted to result in fewer outdoor recreationists, not more; and will result in a tremendous loss to the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat. There is simply no reasonable rationale for it. Not only will the roadless areas and their wild denizens be harmed, many of our roadless areas surround or are adjacent to federal wilderness areas and act as a buffer to their protection and will also therefore be degraded and harmed. To degrade the roadless areas would be to degrade the qualities of the wilderness. Sincerely, Kirk Robinson, PhD Executive Director Western Wildlife Conservancy Salt Lake City, UT 84105

Please keep protections in place 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. Please Keep our national forests wild. Sincerely, Erin Donaldson Logan, UT 84321

The Forest Service should 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. 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. I want to have the ability to grow old with public lands untouched. The Roadless Rule was placed for a reason and there is no good reason to rescind it other than selfish actions. Sincerely, Henry Frank Sincerely, Henry Frank 5647 N Timber Ln Stansbury Park, UT 84074-1285 henry.w.frank@icloud.com

Subject: Public Comment: Oppose the Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (DocketFS-2025-0001) Dear Secretary Rollins and U. S. Forest Service Officials, I’m writing as a 50-year resident of Utah and frequent user of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National forests. I strongly oppose rescinding or even weakening the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Utah has 8000 miles of roads and 2000 miles trails overseen by the BLM. And the Forest Service oversees 10,000 – 20,000 miles of roads and trails in Utah. Utah’s Fishlake National Forest is home to the largest living organism in the WORLD, “Pando”, a clone of quaking aspens covering 106 acres—this is something to cherish, celebrate and protect. Across the United States the U.S. Forest Service oversees 380,000 miles of roads—that’s 8x longer than the entire U.S. Interstate System. We’ve already seen cuts to the agencies who maintain these roads and trails—we don’t need any more. The roadless areas in our state provide wildlife habitat and corridors and they serve as watersheds for our community’s drinking water. Please preserve the integrity of Utah’s public lands keep the protections of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule intact, Sincerely, Julie Simonds 6315 Snowview Dr Park City, UT 84098

I strongly oppose the proposed full rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Utah’s national forests contain roughly 4 million acres of inventoried roadless areas that provide critical habitat for mule deer and elk and support high-quality hunting and dispersed recreation. These landscapes are already under pressure. While hunting in the Uinta Mountains this year, I was close enough to an active logging operation that I could clearly hear the equipment. The noise and activity displaced big game from the area and reduced the quality of the hunt and the overall recreational experience. Removing the Roadless Rule’s national protections would make it easier to expand roads and timber harvest into more of these areas, further fragmenting habitat, increasing disturbance, and diminishing the remote hunting opportunities I want to share with my children. I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule so that Utah’s remaining roadless areas continue to support healthy big-game populations and quality outdoor experiences for future generations. Austin Carney 3479 E Chadbourne Dr Unit B Salt Lake City, UT 84121

Dear Secretary Rollins, Leave the Roadless Rule in place, as it is. It was created for good, constructive reasons. Those reasons are now more important than ever. Sincerely, Lynn Anderson Sincerely, Lynn Anderson Bountiful, UT 84010-2855 l8y0n6n@yahoo.com

Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (RIN 0596-AD66) To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to submit a formal public comment in strong support of the proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66). As a private property inholder located directly west of George Peak in the Raft River Mountains (Sawtooth National Forest, Minidoka Ranger District), my family is directly impacted by the rigid restrictions of the 2001 national mandate. The Raft River range features a highly complex checkerboard of private inholdings and public land. While federal law guarantees inholders "adequate access" to their properties, the 2001 Roadless Rule introduces an extraordinary and punitive layer of federal bureaucracy for basic, low-impact private land use. Specifically, we are planning to construct an off-grid cabin on our private land. While we utilize existing classified system roads (FR-004 and FR-009) for transit, the surrounding Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) restriction severely complicates the logistics of moving structural materials and essential equipment across the final boundary to our property line. Under the current rule, even temporary, zero-impact access or staging requires exhaustive, multi-year NEPA reviews that strain both landowner finances and local Forest Service resources. Furthermore, the blanket 2001 rule severely restricts the flexibility of local forest managers to quickly approve necessary wildfire mitigation and hazardous fuel reduction efforts along our shared private-public boundaries. I strongly recommend that the USDA finalize this proposed rule to rescind the national 2001 Roadless Rule. Removing this blanket restriction will return land management authority to local Forest Service officials who possess a nuanced understanding of the Raft River division's unique topography and private property boundaries. Local managers are entirely capable of protecting the environment through standard Land and Resource Management Plans without maintaining a restrictive, nationwide barrier that infringes on the practical exercise of private property rights. Thank you for your time and consideration of these pertinent issues. Sincerely, Daniel Patrick Gorney, A Utah Inholding Landowner Manager, Oquirrh Endevours LLC, a Utah Corporation Tremonton, UT 84337

Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (RIN 0596-AD66) To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to submit a formal public comment in strong support of the proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66). As a private property inholder located directly west of George Peak in the Raft River Mountains (Sawtooth National Forest, Minidoka Ranger District), our family experiences firsthand the severe, on-the-ground consequences of the current "one-size-fits-all" national mandate. The Department’s rational statement correctly notes that the 2001 Roadless Rule has "contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which in turn has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns." Our private property is a stark, urgent example of this reality. Currently, the vast majority of the timber on our inholding is dead or dying due to severe insect infestations and disease outbreaks. Because our property is entirely surrounded by an Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), the strict prohibitions on timber cutting, road reconstruction, and heavy equipment access have made it virtually impossible to actively manage or mitigate this ecological crisis. We cannot safely clear the dead and infested timber, nor can we establish critical fire breaks to protect our upcoming off-grid cabin build and the surrounding public lands. The 2001 rule’s insistence that exceptions be "infrequent" and clear a gauntlet of inconsistent administrative reviews has effectively tied the hands of both landowners and local rangers while the forest health rapidly deteriorates. The dead fuel load on our property and the adjacent federal land poses a catastrophic wildfire risk to the entire George Peak area. As stated in the proposal, conditions in the Western United States have changed substantially since 2001, marked by "increasing drought, extreme temperatures, wildfire frequency and severity, and insect and disease outbreaks." A blanket national prohibition is no longer a viable conservation strategy; it has become an administrative barrier to ecological survival. We strongly agree with the Department’s position that returning primary authority to the local level via the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) framework is the correct path forward. Local decisionmakers at the Minidoka Ranger District thoroughly understand the unique "checkerboard" private-public boundaries and specific environmental crises of the Raft River division. Giving local officials the place-based discretion and flexibility to approve collaborative, active management tools will allow us to address our forest health concerns safely and efficiently. For these reasons, we urge the USDA to finalize the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule to restore responsible, localized balance to our public and private forest lands. Sincerely, Rebecca Jane Gorney, Inholder Tremonton, UT 84337

Dear Chief Tom Schultz, Please do not rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We want all of our Roadless Areas left intact. Opening roadless areas to timber harvesting will NOT help lower the cost of wood construction materials nor reduce wildfire risks, that justification is ludicrous. The Roadless Act protects remote areas. There are also the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA). Congress amended the RPA by enacting The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). This legislation is well researched and documented with public support. It is fully supported by years of study by hundreds of wildlife, fishery and rangeland biologists. The environmental damage caused by building new roads will be significant. There will be impacts to water quality, wildlife habitat, and there is a high risk of the introduction of invasive plants and insects elevating not reducing wildfire risks. There will be a small short-lived benefit to local economies, with little to no long-term economic gain. Wildfire fuels reduction from timber harvests would be offset by the increased road access elevating the risk of human-caused fires in more remote limited access areas. In the past four decades ATV and UTV operators have proven they do not stay on. Opening new roads will generate numerous braided trails and will cause more damage and further fragment wildlife habitat. The increased use will disrupt elk calving, deer and moose birthing areas, and the noise and activity will destroy a lot of the few remaining sanctuary areas wildlife needs to remain viable and healthy. Most Roadless Areas in the U.S. are roadless because the costs of building the roads to access the timber and administration costs to oversee the harvest make the roadless areas economically unprofitable. Most of the timber in the Roadless areas would be below-cost sales, most of which would occur in locations where costs are high because of the need to build an access road, and when the volume or value of the harvested timber is low. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) should be kept. It is a needed protection for the health of our forest lands and currently helps to protect a large number of our country’s clean water sources. One spring, while I was working grading roads on the Cache National Forest in the Blacksmith Fork River drainage area of Cache County Utah, it started raining. Soon the road got too wet to grade. It continued to rain for the next several days so we started doing other types of road maintenance work in the local drainage basins. All of the streams were running high and muddy until we got to High Creek, and it was running high and clear. What made that stream different? High Creek drains out of Mount Naomi Wilderness Area (a roadless un-logged area). All of the surrounding drainage areas with muddy streams had roads and most of those the timber had been cut, some multiple times. Without exception, every drainage with roads in them the streams were muddy, some worse than others. High Creek’s drainage basin is currently roadless, and hopefully will remain so. This is one event I personally witnessed. It changed the way I drained the roads I graded roads for the rest of my career. I worked as an operator first and supervisor later for the Construction and Maintenance crew on the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest in northern Utah. Best regards Craig Weir Millcreek, UT 84124 801 580-6438

I wish to express my support for keeping roadless roadless to reduce wildfires, protect watersheds, wildlife habitat, and our dwindling acres of unaltered natural systems. Thanks you for accepting my concerns. Jack Greene 500 Summit Creek Dr. Smithfield, UT 84335

Dear Secretary Brooke Rollins, I write to you in strong opposition to USDA's proposal to eliminate, weaken, or alter the 2001 Roadless Rule. Rescinding this rule risks intact forests critical to tackling the climate crisis and providing clean air and water to millions of people. I urge the agency to take Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. The Roadless Rule conserves wild areas for their ecological, recreational, and cultural value by protecting more than 58 million acres of our national forests from harmful logging and roadbuilding. The Rule is tremendously popular. Over the last three decades, millions of people from across the country have weighed in to support it. The Roadless Rule was created under the most extensive public comment process in the history of US federal rulemaking, and with 95% of commenters supporting protections. Last year, when the administration first announced this attempted rollback, over 600,000 people made their voices heard, and over 99% were in OPPOSITION to this administration's attempted rollbacks! The agency's proposal is also costly to American taxpayers. It's extremely expensive to build new logging roads in remote backcountry areas, plus the long-term maintenance for these rarely, if ever, used roads. The economics don't make sense. Meanwhile, these public lands support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry that would be severely impacted by logging and development. This bedrock environmental protection preserves some of the most intact and resilient wildlands that provide clean drinking water for 1 in 10 Oregonians, and millions of Americans nationwide. These public lands also provide wildlife habitat, boundless recreation, and protect sacred sites and traditional foods for Indigenous communities. We must uphold the Roadless Rule to protect these public lands now and for future generations. Building roads and clearcutting forests leave permanent damage to the landscape and ecosystem. Research also shows that wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads, so more roads means more wildfires. Oregonians cannot afford more wildfires-- our communities are suffering too much already. Fighting fires in remote areas is also dangerous, expensive, and takes resources from protecting homes and communities. In addition to increased wildfire risk, roads also increase the spread of invasive species which further jeopardize our forests and all they provide for humans and wildlife alike. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has been a cornerstone of sound forest management, balancing ecological, economic, and cultural values. Weakening or repealing it would be a grave mistake. I urge USDA to take No Action on the Roadless Rule to keep current protections in place. Thank you for your consideration, Cheryl Fergeson West Haven, UT 84401

Dear Secretary Rollins, Over 25 years ago, roadless protections were established after more than 600 public hearings nationwide, and over 1.6 million public comments supporting the Roadless Rule—the most public input ever received on any federal rule. These wild places matter to us. In Alaska, the Tongass and Chugach National Forests highlight what is at risk if we lose this rule. The Roadless Rule currently protects millions of acres in Alaska from road construction and large-scale clearcut logging, safeguarding intact landscapes that support recreation, guiding, subsistence use, and healthy salmon watersheds. Repealing these protections would threaten the trails, wildlife habitat, and coastal ecosystems that local communities and outdoor businesses need to thrive. Roadless areas provide essential habitat for wildlife, safeguard clean drinking water, and support outdoor recreation and subsistence practices that communities rely on. Roadless areas also safeguard vast stretches of remaining old- and mature-growth forests, irreplaceable trees that fight climate change by storing carbon and cooling temperatures through natural canopy cover. Weakening these protections would accelerate pollution, while undermining our ability to reduce it through natural processes. Our public forests belong to all of us - and they are not for sale. Thank you, Cheryl Fergeson West Haven, UT 84401