“See Attached File: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001…”

See Attached File: As a South Dakota resident who enjoys using roadless areas, I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. My interest and passion come from experiencing these places. Their value to me includes solitude, viewing natural surroundings, and the opportunity to enjoy public land away from roads and vehicle traffic. Beyond my own personal enjoyment, it is also important to know that we are retaining large, intact landscapes and clean rivers and lakes. These roadless areas deserve consideration and respect. My comment concerns the proposed removal of the protections in 36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B, which restrict road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, subject to exceptions. USDA proposes relying on individual forest planning and management decisions in place of these national protections. My personal concern is what that change would mean for wildlife, water quality, and landscapes that sustain the activities I enjoy and contribute to my community's economy. (USDA, proposed rule, 91 FR 53827, August 20, 2026.). When I choose a roadless area for fishing or hiking, the undeveloped setting is part of the reason I go. The Sand Creek Roadless Area in Wyoming is a wonderful example of a Roadless Area that my husband and I have explored multiple times. We are drawn to the roadless area for the amazing water quality that sustains an incredible fishery. My husband and I explored the Sand Creek area and found it to be a wonderfully peaceful and beautiful location that my husband and I enjoyed for hours, catching Brown Trout and then releasing them back to the water for others to enjoy. My background and career were in a science-based field, and with that background I am fully aware that a good fishery depends on healthy watersheds. Forest Service research identifies effects of roads on hydrology and aquatic habitat and emphasizes that those effects must be evaluated in their local environmental context. This supports examining individual watersheds rather than assuming that national estimates adequately describe the risks to places people fish. (Gucinski and others, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information, 2001, PNW-GTR-509.) I feel strongly that the NOI and DEIS fail to provide science-based rationale for rescinding a Rule that has been in place for nearly 25 years. A Rule, for example, that protected large intact landscapes for recovery of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower 48. For this reason and so many other reasons, the 2001 Roadless Rule must be retained! I recognize and encourage that where the USDA identifies a specific management problem, it should first evaluate whether existing exceptions or a narrowly tailored approach can address it while preserving roadless characteristics. Over my career in the USDA Forest Service (USDA), I gained a practical working knowledge of Forest Plans (programmatic) and NEPA (site-specific). I acknowledge that Forest Plans vary in age and thus protection for Roadless Areas if “The Rule” is rescinded. More importantly, the limitations referred to in the NOI and DEIS do not tell me whether the places I value would retain equivalent protection over time. The agency should explain what protections would remain; how it accounts for the loss of quiet recreation, how it impacts wildlife that are dependent on large intact landscapes, and how it may impact water quality and quantity. My fishing and hiking experiences have taught me that the character of a place matters as much as the ability to reach it. Once roads and development change that character, the experience may be difficult to recover. I urge USDA to retain the Roadless Rule, address demonstrated management needs through targeted approaches, and clearly disclose the local recreation and watershed consequences of any proposed change. Future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy these public lands as roadless places. le(s)