Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Camping, rafting, and backpacking throughout the West has been part of my entire life. I rely on these places for solitude and the chance to connect with nature, and the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens both. I oppose it. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale at the center of this proposal. The DEIS 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 sits in the same document being used to justify opening these areas. The agency must explain how it can cite wildfire management as a reason for rescission while its own analysis documents that road access drives ignition rates upward. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and how it reconciles the rescission with its own conclusions about ignition risk. The ignition data makes the contradiction more precise, not less. The DEIS reports that "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." A ratio that wide is not a rounding error. The places I have spent my life traveling through, camping and backpacking in the backcountry of the West, are precisely the kind of low-ignition environments this data describes. The agency has not explained how new road access into these areas would produce a net improvement in fire conditions. It must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh that number honestly against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. Access to clean water should be a basic human right. Adding roadways to America's already over-taxed watersheds will do irreparable harm, and the agency's own analysis does not contradict that concern. The DEIS acknowledges that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The watersheds fed by these roadless areas supply drinking water to millions of people. Opening them to road construction is not a reversible experiment. The agency should explain what safeguards, if any, it has analyzed that would prevent the kind of sediment loading its own documents describe, and it should respond to the water quality implications of this rescission. The regulatory flexibility certification in this rulemaking does not hold up. "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." The no-impact conclusion is reached by spreading projected losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. Some of those firms may lose these receipts entirely. Spreading the damage thinly across a national average does not make it disappear for the businesses actually exposed. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the specific small entities operating inside the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the agency has not fulfilled its own invitation. "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." This comment is one such interest. I have organized my outdoor life around the existence of these protected areas. Under established administrative law, an agency reversing a longstanding policy must assess the reliance interests its prior rule created, not merely ask for them and then set them aside. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Kate Lips Salt Lake City, UT

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Washington State and regularly use public lands in Oregon and throughout the West for hiking, camping, climbing, and recreation. The repeal of the Roadless Rule will put public lands in danger for current and future generations' fresh water, will increase risk of forest fires, and introduce development without appropriate planning or regulation. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. thank you.

I strongly oppose eliminating the Roadless Rule. These protections safeguard some of our nation’s most valuable undeveloped public lands, wildlife habitat, clean water, and outdoor recreation opportunities. Once these areas are opened to roads and development, the damage can be permanent. Please preserve the Roadless Rule and protect these public lands for future generations.

I am a lifelong hiker and backpacker, a kayaker, a forager, a naturalist, a lover of wild places. The Roadless Rule has had a deeply impactful and beneficial role in protecting what small amount of wilderness is left to Turtle Island. Roads do so much harm, from introducing invasive species, creating erosion, increasing the risk of wildfire, and facilitating the wanton extraction of our last remaining stands of wild timber. Even as an outdoor enthusiast who has used and appreciated roads that take me deep into the wilderness, I firmly oppose and weakening or rewriting of the roadless rule that would create more roads. We do not need more roads. We do not need more access. We need stewardship. We need ecosystem repair, we need clean water and fish habitat and places where mountain lions, bears, otters, wolves, and other wild creatures can take refuge. What has been done to our natural history and our ecosystems is criminal and ugly. The shame of it should haunt us all for generations. We must not cut the last trees, mine the last bedrock. We don't need more roads, don't need more access for multinational companies to strip our wilderness of resources. We need courage and integrity from our leaders, not a short-sighted selloff destined to benefit only a few, while despoiling our last wild places. Protect the Roadless Rule. Protect our water and our forests and our earth and our history. No new roads. No more extraction. The only honorable action is one of resistance to this onslaught of extractive greed and terror. I will lay down in front of the bulldozers rather than see more of this horrific harm from this morally bankrupt, intellectually corrupt, and utterly vile administration. Protect the Roadless Rule.

Submit your public comment opposing the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Here's a comment you can use: I am firmly against USDA’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. Roadless national forests represent some of the last unspoiled public forest landscapes. They safeguard clean drinking water, wildlife habitats, salmon streams, old growth forests, outdoor recreation, and essential areas relied upon by communities, Tribal Nations, and future generations. Once these lands are disrupted by new roads, logging, and industrial access, the damage cannot be easily reversed. The USDA should not dismantle a national protection that has shielded roadless forests for over twenty years. The current Roadless Rule already enables necessary measures to mitigate wildfire risk, so rescinding it is unnecessary for community safety. In reality, more roads may increase human ignition risk, habitat fragmentation, erosion, and long-term management costs. Additionally, rescinding the rule could transfer protection decisions to local planning processes, making intact forests more susceptible to political pressure and short-sighted extraction. Public forests should be managed for clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience, Indigenous stewardship, and public good, not for increased roadbuilding and logging. Please withdraw the proposed repeal, retain the 2001 Roadless Rule, and select the strongest alternative to protect roadless areas throughout the National Forest System. Thank you for taking my comment into account.

Please keep the Roadless Rules intact for our national parks!! I cherish the quiet solitude that hiking in our national forests and on our coastline brings me! It is important to have an escape to untouched nature!

To the USDA Roadless Rule Team: As a Coloradan, and a wildlife enthusiast, I believe the 2001 rule is the single most important land management instrument and the threat of its removal is not only catastrophic but infuriating. Every year, I take a fall trip to explore these beautiful mountains and every year I am left with wonder. Seeing new wildlife, a new sunset, a new plant, a riverbed - it never ceases to amaze me. The protection of these ecosystems are imperative for us, but also for all. Being able to backpack through these undisturbed mountains and connect with other life is one of the few things that bring me joy and peace in such a hectic world. Roads end that possibility. Regarding the Mount Antero in the Pike & San Isabel NFs- Alpine and Subalpine Climate Refugia Connectivity — The area spans from 13,600 feet to 14,276 feet across multiple subalpine and alpine ecosystem types—Rocky Mountain subalpine spruce-fir forest, alpine tundra, and bristlecone pine woodland—creating an intact elevational gradient that allows species to shift their ranges as climate conditions change. This vertical connectivity is critical as warming temperatures push suitable habitat upslope; species dependent on cool conditions can only persist if they can move continuously to higher elevations without fragmentation. Road construction fragments this gradient by creating edge effects, altering microclimate through canopy removal, and introducing invasive species along disturbed corridors, which would trap populations in lower-elevation refugia that are becoming increasingly unsuitable. DEIS Narrative Exceeds the 150-Page Statutory Limit With No Extraordinary-Complexity Determination on the Record The Draft EIS exceeds the statutory page limit and contains no determination authorizing it to do so. Volume I of the Draft EIS is 333 pages. Its narrative text runs from the Introduction at page 9 through page 248. References Cited occupies pages 249 through 285, and the List of Appendices and Appendices 1 through 5 occupy pages 286 through 333. Excluding citations and appendices, as the statute directs, the environmental impact statement is therefore approximately 240 pages long. The applicable limit is 150 pages. 42 U.S.C. 4336a, enacted by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, limits an environmental impact statement to 150 pages excluding citations and appendices, and permits 300 pages only where the proposed agency action is of extraordinary complexity. USDA's NEPA procedures implement the same limits at 7 CFR 1b.7(a) and (i). The Draft EIS expressly adopts those procedures, stating at page 9 that the Forest Service "has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations," and that "all references to 7 CFR 1b within this document refer to the interim rule." The document therefore exceeds the 150-page limit by approximately 90 pages. The only lawful basis for an environmental impact statement of this length is a determination that the proposed action is of extraordinary complexity. Volume I contains no such determination. The phrases "extraordinary complexity," "page limit," and "Fiscal Responsibility Act" do not appear anywhere in the document, and 42 U.S.C. 4336a is cited nowhere in it. The Draft EIS asserts compliance with "other relevant laws and regulations" while exceeding the one quantitative constraint those laws place on the document itself, and without invoking the exception that would authorize the excess. This is not a matter of formatting. The page limit operates together with 7 CFR 1b.7(i), which directs that issues not of a substantive nature receive the briefest possible discussion. A ceiling of 150 pages applied to a rescission affecting approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System lands compels the agency to compress its effects analysis, and the extent of that compression depends directly on which ceiling the responsible official was working to. A document written to 150 pages must omit substantially more analysis than one written to 300. The public reading this Draft EIS cannot tell which constraint shaped it, because the document never says - and the difference is roughly 90 pages of effects analysis across 44.7 million acres. I request that the responsible official make and document the extraordinary-complexity determination required by 42 U.S.C. 4336a and 7 CFR 1b.7(a) as the predicate for a Final EIS exceeding 150 pages, or, if no such determination is made, that the Final EIS text comply with the 150-page limit. Under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3), the response to this comment should cite where in the Final EIS or the supporting proposal record that determination is accounted for. A rule that has survived twenty-five years, multiple administrations, and repeated judicial review deserves more deference than this. CommentID: RLC-20261006-9WBQV3

I have a family who cares about recreation and natural spaces. Taking away the Roadless Rule would endanger those spaces and make them unusable for recreation and tourism. It is a fallacy that this will create fewer fires. Fires are FOUR times more likely to start near a road. Fires are sparked by roads, this was observed BY the Forest Service. We need MORE fire fighters, not more roads! We need more funding for the USFS. This is only being done because of special interests groups and loggers. My family EMIGRATED here for logging, but they would hate to see the roadless rule repealed. This is a disgusting exercise of priories based on capitalistic endeavors by rich people. The only people who are benefiting are the rich (who pay LOWER taxes somehow). The poor and middle class who need these areas to be UNTRAMMELED by man are losing millions of acres of sacred spaces.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Backpacking and hiking through places like Pyramid in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Paiute roadless area in Inyo National Forest to commune with nature, watch birds, and observe wildlife, I have come to understand what these landscapes hold. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put that at risk, and the agency's own analysis does not support the step it is proposing to take. I am an avid backpacker and day hiker who lives in Northern California. I have travelled all over the United States to hike and backpack. The impact of roads and off road vehicles on wildlife, the land and the experience being in the “wilderness” is obvious and depressing. Bird watching is not incidental to why I go into roadless areas. It is a central reason. The agency's own record, drawing on research the DEIS cites, documents 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. California already holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and the birds I go to find depend on the quiet and the unbroken canopy those areas provide. Opening that landscape to road-building does not simply alter the scenery. It restructures the acoustic and ecological conditions that determine whether those species stay or go. I ask the agency to explain, with specificity, how the benefits it claims from rescission can be weighed against documented declines in bird abundance and species presence that its own cited science predicts. The wildfire rationale the agency offers for this rescission conflicts directly with what its own record says. The DEIS 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 DEIS further reports human-caused ignition density of 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas, and states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The agency must explain why its proposal departs from these findings, reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, and quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access weighed against any claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. The regulatory flexibility certification also cannot stand as written. The agency certifies no significant impact on small entities while its own DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and its Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification is reached by spreading expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the guides and outfitters holding permits in the specific affected areas. The agency concedes some firms may lose those receipts. It should withdraw the certification and assess impact on the small entities actually operating in and permitted for the potentially affected roadless areas. The Chugach National Forest in Alaska is the most roadless national forest in the entire system. Ninety-nine percent of it has never had a road built through it. It holds 40 inventoried roadless areas totaling 5,439,110 acres. The Copper River Delta within it hosts the largest concentration of shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere during spring migration, including western sandpiper in the millions. Bald eagles, trumpeter swans, brown bear, moose, and mountain goat depend on this landscape at a scale that exists nowhere else in the national forest system. The 2001 rule is the structural protection that has kept those conditions intact. A state-petition process substituted for a national rule creates no guarantee that protection continues, and the agency's own record does not model what happens to that ecosystem if the rule falls. Finally, the proposal itself solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. My years of hiking, birding, and backpacking in California's roadless areas, and my expectation that federal policy would continue to protect them, are exactly the kind of reliance interests the agency invited and then declined to assess. The agency must identify and weigh those interests as part of this proceeding, including what this comment represents. Sincerely, Kristen Sorensen Petaluma, CA

I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. There are 63 roadless areas along 288 miles of the PCT in California, Oregon and Washington. These miles represent roughly 11% of the trail. Roadless areas provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans, and these undeveloped lands are critical to our nation’s ecological health. Even after thru hiking the PCT in 2026, I enjoy recreating along the PCT for day hikes and longer backpacking trips; it is beneficial for my physical and mental health.

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed changes to the roadless rules. Resending this rule will have monumental impacts on our country’s national forests, which are some of the most pristine and valuable resources for recreation and ecosystem preservation. Once they lose their integrity through road construction, it will be difficult to get them back. Removing the rule will increase wildfire risk, as wildfires are much more likely to begin near roads. Our country already spends $3 billion each year fighting fires on federal lands and rescinding this rule will only increase that number. Resending the rule will also affect wildlife populations, whose habitat will be further fragmented and lost by roads and other activities. I often frequent national forest areas in my free time for recreation and would be devastated to lose any of these areas that help make our country so great.

Roads disturb wilderness areas by inviting people and vehicles and creating soil disturbance and runoff. The point of a wilderness area to to protect the wild - from the fungi in the soil to the insects to the birds and animals to the wildflowers and trees. Leave it be. Roads are not necessary, and they are harmful. I'm an American citizen, and this land is something we all share and care about. I like hiking and want to protect the ever-shrinking and increasingly endangered parts of our country that are yet not paved, settled, and mostly dead.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I grew up on the edge of the El Dorado National Forest; a place that will forever be dear to my heart, though I now live in the also-magical realm of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. As someone who recreates in these public lands, I am -not- in support of building more roads in them. I have seen the tragedies of additional road-building in these wild areas too often; habitat is fragmented and animals are often killed trying to access breeding grounds, forage, and other essential habitat. Hazardous chemicals and tire dust from vehicles are dispersed into these environments, threatening drinking water and our Western salmon populations. Though some claim that the Roadless Rule has increased the incidence of wildfire, this is untrue, and wildfires are more likely to ignite near roadsides.(1) Please leave the Roadless Rule in place as it is. I absolutely do not support any of the proposed alternatives that would weaken it. Please spend taxpayer money responsibly on conservation endeavours that support these irreplaceable lands instead of paving them over. References: (1)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 Sincerely, Nicole Johnston Vancouver, WA 98683 nljohnston.ast@gmail.com

I strongly support keeping roadless areas roadless and oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the USDA Forest Service to retain the rule and its protections against road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas. Our remaining undeveloped forests deserve lasting protection. I value these places for their clean water, wildlife habitat, natural beauty, and opportunities to experience quiet and solitude. Their value extends beyond what can be extracted from them, and future generations deserve the opportunity to enjoy them. The proposal acknowledges that expanding road access could increase human-caused wildfire ignitions and diminish opportunities for quiet, remote recreation. It also identifies an existing multibillion-dollar road and bridge maintenance backlog. These concerns weigh against opening additional areas to road construction and taking on further maintenance obligations. I support responsible forest management and efforts to protect communities from wildfire. However, the existing rule includes limited exceptions, and the agency should demonstrate why those provisions cannot address specific needs before removing protections nationwide. Any necessary changes should be narrowly tailored and supported by evidence. Local knowledge and public participation are important, but they should operate within a durable national conservation standard. Individual project reviews cannot substitute for protecting roadless landscapes from the cumulative effects of development over time. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and fully account for the long-term value of intact forests, clean water, wildlife habitat, and undeveloped recreation in your decision. Keeping roadless areas roadless is a commitment to responsible stewardship of public lands that belong to all of us.

I writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1: Status Quo/No Action in your final ruling on the proposed Roadless Rule Rescission. There are many compelling reasons to oppose the rescission. I’ll list just a few of them, focusing on ones that are particularly pertinent in Montana, which is where I live. I’m sure that you’re hearing about most of these from other folks, so I don’t think there’s a great deal of need for me to go on and on. The public is opposed—overwhelmingly so—to removing protections for roadless areas. More than 99% of responses received thus far are against the rescission of the Roadless Rule. Even amongst folks who can’t be bothered with writing letters, support for Roadless Areas has been around 76%. These are public lands we’re talking about, and how the public would like to see them used ought to weigh heavily in the decision-making process. Municipal Watersheds will be degraded. Building more roads in our National Forests will increase erosion, which will add to run-off and water purification costs. More than a third of Montanan’s water comes directly from or is downstream of roadless areas. Wildlife habitat will be further fragmented. I’m lucky enough to make my home in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (outside Livingston, MT), which is “the most intact temperate ecosystem in the world,” according to wildlife biologist Doug Smith. Removing the roadless buffer along the edges of this ecosystem will harm wildlife habitat if/when extractive industries move in. The Greater Yellowstone area draws visitors from around the world and has been studied and written about by many. We need more protections—not fewer—for an ecosystem as important as this one. Recreation Economy. Tourism is a big deal Montana, supporting 1 in 11 jobs. Outdoor recreation is also important to Montana residents, making up 4.9 percent of Montana’s GDP. 5.9 of Montanans work in fields related to outdoors recreation. Much of this recreation takes place on public lands that are easily accessible from cities and towns, and these places often include IRAs. It seems unlikely that the extractive industries enabled by rescinding roadless protections will provide a net gain for Montana’s economy, since tourism and outdoor recreation would likely suffer. Maintenance Backlog for Existing Forests Service Roads. If we can’t take care of the ones we already have, we probably don’t need more. Enough said. Private Inholding Access. This is a big one, especially for those of us who live near or like to recreate in the Crazy Mountains. The Crazy Mountains are made up of “checkerboard” public and private land ownership, though some sections (not the right ones, in my opinion) were consolidated a couple of years ago. Most of the checkerboard is currently within the Crazy Mountain IRA. If roadless protections are removed, it will be easier for owners of private inholdings to petition for permission to build a road to their property. These roads would fragment wildlife habit, disrupt public recreation, and have a negative impact on tribal resources. The boon this would provide for owners of formerly difficult-to-access private inholdings is substantial, and casts new light on the checkerboard consolidation deal brokered by the Yellowstone Club in 2025. Wildfire Reduction. This is one of the primary reasons given by the Forest Service for its need to rescind the Roadless Rule. However, scientific evidence does not support the building of roads as a way of reducing wildfire risk—in fact, human caused ignitions in Montana are more than 8 times higher within 100 yards of a road than they are on more remote forest service land. I live a couple of miles from an IRA that runs along the northern edge of Absarokas, and the wildfires we’d had in this area since I’ve lived here tended to be fought by air. Some ignitions occurred on private property (often, a vehicle was involved), others were caused by lightning strikes, but the outcome was the same: the sky was abuzz. At times, firefighters were dropped into wilderness areas to fight fire on the ground—but roads provided little in the way of meaningful firefighting access. Plus, there’s enough wiggle room in the current Roadless Rule to allow for forest thinning and controlled burns in the WUI. Though it will never be perfect, I believe that the Roadless Rule and wildfire protection for our towns and neighborhoods in the urban interface can successfully coexist. Thanks for hearing me out. There’s plenty more I could say, but I believe I’ve gone on for long enough. I hope you make a decision that serves the general public, not a select few. Please go with Alternative 1. The other options serve neither our forests nor the people who love them.

Keep the 2001 roadless rule intact exactly how it is!! It has helped preserve old growth forests and water sources for 25 years. Roadless land is so important and such a special part of America, having access to beautiful camping, hiking, skiing, fishing, ect spots is something we can't take for granted. The land should also be protected for current flora and fauna that is existing, we don't want to destroy animal habitats and cause them to relocate or die out. There's so much land that is expanded upon in our country for cities already we should preserve the nature we have left.

I support the current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The current Roadless Rule helps to protect public land from threats to its protected water and wildlife, from human caused fire and from developments that decrease its value to this citizen who cherishes and enjoys wild lands. Our dry western lands are under threat. The Roadless Rule helps to protect our decreasing water resources on public lands. It supports the genetic connectivity that wildlife species need to survive. Limiting roads decreases the threat of accidental or intentional human-caused fire ignitions. Many of us who live in the western United States recreate in remote public lands. We are willing to put in the energy to access these lands because we know that they are untrammeled and provide home for creatures and plants we value. They have deep inherent value to us. The U S Forest Service has a huge backlog of work needed to maintain current roads on the public lands it manages. It has not been provided with the money to do this. Do not defile our lands further by increasing the number of roads. Do not diminish the value of our federally owned lands (read: owned by us, the citizens of the United States) by making it easy for mining or logging or other commercial interests to access and exploit them. Maintain the current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Sincerely, Skip

I support increased flexibility for wildfire mitigation, forest health treatments, and community protection, but I want strong safeguards to maintain important wildlife habitat, water quality, hunting opportunities, and the roadless character of high-value backcountry areas.

I am writing to respectfully request the USDA discontinue efforts to abolish the Roadless Rule. This rule that has protected endangered species and fauna, wildlife corridors, tourism revenue, wildfire prevention, pristine watersheds/drinking water, and more. These lands and waterways belong to the American people. They provide opportunities to connect with the natural world, to understand the environment in which we live, how our lives are connected to the natural world. Ending this for corporate profits is short sighted. The American people need these spaces as much as they need healthcare, jobs, and family. Please protect the Roadless Rule.

Please do not rescind the roadless rule. Rescinding or changing this rule and allowing roads and motorized vehicles has the potential to cause serious damage to our beautiful public lands, and the wildlife that lives on them, that could take decades, or even generations, to undo. U.S. citizens should be able to enjoy the beauty and peacefulness of nature and our public lands without worrying about vehicles causing damage or noise. Thank you