Read the comments.

10/6/2026 Dear Forest Service, Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. As a lifelong Virginian, I believe roadless areas are essential for our state. They supply fish and wildlife habitat we can secure nowhere else, they are sources of drinking water for nearby communities and millions more downstream, and they are loved places for outdoor recreation. All of these values and resources benefit our quality of life and economy in Virginia. I grew up on a farm in southern Augusta County, in the Shenandoah Valley, and still live in the area. The George Washington National Forest – and roadless areas specifically – is the scenic backdrop to Valley communities and a refuge for locals and visitors alike. Areas like Kelley Mountain on the east side and Elliott Knob, Crawford Mountain, Little River, Oak Knob, Gum Run/Dry River west of the Valley are popular places to get out for a hike or mountain bike ride, run the dog, camp, fish, or just quietly enjoy these beautiful mountain forests. As a fly fisher, I know our Virginia roadless areas have some of the best native brook trout habitat left in the entire Southern Appalachian region. Our communities also benefit from the scenic beauty and outdoor recreation opportunities that roadless areas provide to our area, where drawing visitors for tourism and recreation is critical to the local economy. Beyond the benefits to Virginia, the national Roadless Rule should remain in place. The rule represents a balanced approach to managing our national forests. All Americans benefit from a consistent approach that sets this strong base level of protection for all roadless areas. Fish and wildlife and water resources often move across state lines. I want to have the opportunity – and all Americans deserve the same opportunity – to visit and enjoy roadless areas in other states, across the public National Forest System. The rule is also incredibly popular. I would be hard-pressed to identify any single issue on which 99% of Americans agree, but the public comment numbers shows that 99% of those who have expressed an opinion to the Forest Service agree that the Roadless Rule should stand. This support has not wavered since the agency began developing the rule in the 1990s, in fact, support may have grown. The popularity of the rule belies the agency’s claims that local Forest Service officials should make decisions for roadless areas in their bailiwick, informed by input from stakeholders, communities, and local, state, and tribal governments. Many voices have already spoken up strongly for keeping the nationwide Roadless Rule in place. If the Forest Service actually intends to listen to the public, then it should withdraw this misguided proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. The Forest Service should retain the Roadless Rule of 2001 in entirety. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, Sarah Francisco Staunton and Lyndhurst, VA

As members of the National Parks Conservation Association’s (NPCA) Mid-Atlantic Regional Council we urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the water, air quality, climate resilience, and wildlife that sustain our national parks including the Blue Ridge Parkway, New River Gorge, and the Appalachian Trail. It was from the 27,000-acre Little River roadless area just west of Shenandoah National Park, that the Roadless Rule was formally announced in 2001, thus elevating the incredible value these intact forests play to our region. The Council works with NPCA’s Mid-Atlantic regional staff and includes business and community leaders committed to securing the future of our national parks. We work with communities and businesses to support national parks and broader park landscapes in Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Healthy national parks depend on healthy forests, clean waterways, and intact public lands beyond their boundaries, including many places protected by the Roadless Rule. More than 45 million acres of national forest lands are designated roadless, and nearly 30% of those acres are within 30 miles of national park sites. Rescinding these protections would leave some of our last intact forests vulnerable to increased logging, mining, oil and gas development, and other harmful uses. This includes more than 202,00o acres of roadless area in West Virginia, 394,000 acres in Virginia, and 25,000 acres in Pennsylvania Across the Mid-Atlantic Region, roadless areas protect upstream forests, watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation landscapes that support local economies and the national parks millions of Americans visit each year. These protections include: Roadless areas in the Jefferson and George Washington national forests that help sustain the viewshed, outdoor recreation access, and air quality for portions of the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian Trail. These two national park service sites saw more than 16 million (Blue Ridge Parkway) and 6 million (AT) visitors in 2025. The 9,444-acre Northern Massanutten and 11,985-acre Southern Massanutten roadless areas that lay to the west of Shenandoah, which support federally listed species including the Indian Bat and Northeastern bulrush, contain portions of the headwaters of the Shenandoah River drainage, and offer outdoor recreation opportunities such as hiking, mountain biking, trout fishing, and birding. More than 310,000 acres of roadless areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Roadless lands in the George Washington and Jefferson national forests protect the headwaters of the James and Potomac rivers which flow into the ecologically rich Chesapeake Bay and provide clean drinking water for millions. If Roadless Rule protections are rescinded, these lands—and more than 45 million acres of public lands nationwide—could be opened to roadbuilding, large-scale logging, mining, and oil and gas development, putting nearby national parks, gateway communities, clean water, and wildlife at risk. As national park advocates and community leaders from across the region, we urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect roadless forests and the national park landscapes they sustain. Thank You, Donald Ayer McLean, VA Bill Hafker Oakton, VA Bob Lane and Diane Clark McLean, VA Bob Rosenbaum Bethesda, MD Deirdre Gibson Media, PA Alexandra DeCandia Washington, D.C. Grace Sica Swarthmore, PA Susan Cooper Delaware Water Gap, PA Jason Zogg Tysons, VA

I support alternative 1 and to keep the Roadless Rule so that we can maintain this natural beauty so it can exist forever for everyone to enjoy. I am a young taxpayer who enjoys the fresh air, clean drinking water and peace of mind found through walks at some of my favorite hiking spots at Reddish Knob, Little River, and Shenandoah Mountain. I appreciate that there is no large commerce operations such as logging / energy generation to disturb this natural beauty.

I recreate in the George Washington National Forest, specifically in the Shenandoah Mountain area and the Little River District. I take my kids there. I hike, ride, and hunt. This is a unique area of land in the Eastern United States, and one that should be protected from further development. What makes this recreational opportunity distinct is its vast acreage of uninterrupted forests. Being able to walk or ride for dozens of miles without needing to cross major or minor roads. I support Alternative 1, so please keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Please protect the watersheds of the Shenandoah Valley. Help enhance the recreation-based tourism of the area that is still in it's nascent phase. Maintain the roads and facilities that already exist before building new ones that will have an uncertain future once constructed. Once a forest is interrupted by roads and development, it takes a generation or more to recover.

October 5, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Comments on Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Docket No. FS-2025-0001; RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director: The City of Harrisonburg respectfully submits these comments in opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The City requests that the Forest Service select the No Action alternative and retain the Roadless Rule. The Rule provides nationally consistent safeguards that generally prohibit road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas, subject to limited exceptions. Those safeguards are essential to protecting the water resources, recreation opportunities, and community benefits on which Harrisonburg relies. Harrisonburg has a longstanding and direct interest in management of the George Washington National Forest (GWNF). In 2008, the Harrisonburg City Council adopted a resolution calling on the Forest Service to provide comprehensive management and protection of drinking-water resources within the GWNF. In 2010, the City reiterated that maintaining protection of its water resources was the most significant issue associated with the Forest Plan. Those concerns remain unchanged. The GWNF is integral to the protection of Harrisonburg's drinking-water supply. The City provides drinking water to more than 60,000 people and relies on surface-water intakes on the Dry River and North River; as well as constructing a new supply from the South Fork of the Shenandoah River. These supplies are fed by headwaters that flow from nearby roadless areas. The Skidmore Fork, Gum Run, Oak Knob, Little River, Ramseys Draft Addition, Crawford Mountain, and Elliott Knob Roadless Areas all help protect watersheds important to the City. The City's Dry River source illustrates the public value of maintaining these protections. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the source as minimally affected by development, of sufficiently high quality to require relatively little treatment, and positioned to provide gravity flow to the Water Treatment Facility. Protecting this type of high-quality source water avoids or reduces future treatment and energy costs borne by utility customers. Protecting drinking-water watersheds also supports long-term water-supply resilience for Harrisonburg and other Shenandoah Valley communities. Road construction and associated ground disturbance can increase erosion and sedimentation, adversely affecting streams and downstream water supplies. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would eliminate an important preventive safeguard. Local forest planning and site-specific environmental review should reinforce, not replace, the Rule's clear, nationally applicable protections for inventoried roadless areas. Roadless areas also provide significant recreation, habitat, and economic benefits to Harrisonburg and the surrounding region. They support hiking, mountain biking, hunting, angling, and backcountry experiences that draw visitors to the Shenandoah Valley and sustain local businesses. Their intact forests and cold, clean streams support wildlife, including native brook trout, while helping preserve the natural character that makes this region a destination for residents and visitors alike. The City recognizes the Forest Service's need to address wildfire, forest health, and other management needs. The existing Roadless Rule already includes exceptions and does not preclude all management activity. Rescission is neither necessary nor appropriate to preserve the ability to address site-specific risks. Any forest-management approach affecting roadless areas must continue to protect source-water quality and quantity and provide meaningful early coordination with the local governments that depend on those watersheds. For these reasons, the City of Harrisonburg strongly opposes rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urges the Forest Service to retain the Rule. Maintaining these safeguards is a prudent and cost-effective means of protecting Harrisonburg's drinking-water supplies, supporting the regional recreation economy, and preserving important natural resources for current and future generations. Sincerely, Alexander Banks VI City Manager City of Harrisonburg

I am firmly against the repeal of the Roadless Rule. I live in Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, surrounded by Roadless Areas. The water in my tap comes from the North River reservoir, in the watershed of Little River Roadless Area. Clean water matters to me. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are human caused; nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within half a mile of roads. Clean air matters to me. Keeping large tracts of the George Washington & Jefferson National Forest roadless protects them from careless human activity that can pollute streams and spark wildfires. In addition, current funding for the Forest Service is inadequate to maintain all the existing roads to intended safety, service, and environmental standards to permit efficient and safe use. The current estimate of the agency wide maintenance backlog, or “deferred maintenance”, was over $8.6 billion in FY2023. The effects of rescinding the Roadless Rule would be fiscally irresponsible, environmentally dangerous, and negatively impact neighboring communities, like mine. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

It was only 500 years ago when the United States had no roads at all. I ask you to reflect on what the forests, the streams, and lands must have looked like then. Imagine cresting a hill to see nothing but wild lands until the far ocean. Imagine watching buffalo and salmon migrating by the millions. Today in 2026, we cannot fathom what the lands and streams once looked like, just like future generations will be shocked that we had the chance to protect what we have and squandered it – our fresh water, our clean air, our game and fishing populations, our recreation spaces, our wild places. To date, we have only managed to protect a fraction of our lands (for example, the Roadless rule protects fewer than 60 million of the nearly 2 billion acres in the US). I am writing in strong support of maintaining the protections of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This is deeply personal. Many of the regions protected by the Roadless rule are areas that I frequent. I hike, bike, go birding, do photography in Southern Massanutten dozens of times a year. I have also hiked, camped, birded, and explored other Virginia/West Virginia regions including: Dry River, Skidmore, Oak Knob, Gum Run, Little River, Seneca Creek, and Dolly Sods. On the West Coast, I have hiked, camped, birded, and explored Quilcene, Mt. Zion, Alpine Lakes Adj, Thorp Mtn, Teanaway, Eagle, Larch, and San Dimas regions – among many others. As an outdoors enthusiast, I believe the DEIS inadequately addresses the recreation losses from road construction and downstream activities, and I ask that the FEIS provide a thorough analysis of lost visitor spending and local economic multipliers in all impacted regions and specifically the regions named above. Without such analysis, the agency misrepresents the economic impact of rescinding this rule. The USDA’s argument that rescinding the Roadless rule will prevent large wildfires is not credible. 78% of human-caused wildfires on National Forest start within ½ a mile of a road (based on USDA data). The Roadless rule does not preclude forest management activities that help reduce the risk of wildfire. I ask the agency to quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions resulting from new road access and to quantify it against claimed reductions in wildfire hazard. I am specifically interested to see this analysis in the regions mentioned above and also in all impacted regions. Furthermore, building new roads will fragment ecosystems, which are already fragile as humans continue to develop and build. Fragmentation by roads has been found to reduce biodiversity by 13-75% (Haddad et al. 2015). Once again, healthy ecosystems gives us clean air, clean water to drink, pollinators to keep our crops productive, healthy soils to grow healthy food for healthy children, beautiful lands that people travel from around the world to see, etc. I ask that the agency provide an economic and environmental analysis of the negative impact of ecosystem fragmentation from new roads on these critical environmental benefits and ecosystem services. Finally, if the agency is looking to create more rural jobs, which I wholeheartedly support, I suggest creating jobs that help preserve these precious ecosystems - it would be a win-win for everyone. Given the agency’s goal of wildfire management and rural job creation, I ask that the FEIS include an analysis of alternative methods to accomplish their goal. I believe that it would be insufficient to consider rescinding the Roadless Rule without a careful economic and environmental analysis of alternative options, including greater funding for job creation around fire fighting, invasive species management, existing road repair, and forest management. I am writing this as an outdoor enthusiast, an angler, a birder and wildlife lover, an artist whose work is inspired by the natural places that I explore, and a passionate environmentalist. The Roadless rule preserves ecosystems – lands, rivers, flora, and fauna. It provides access to people who love to hike, camp, and fish (like me), and who simply want to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and eat healthy food (also like me). Let us keep our lands as wild and healthy as possible – for the land, for ourselves, and for our children. Thank you.

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping protections from nearly 58.5 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) nationwide—including over 330,000 acres across Virginia’s national forests—threatens regional biodiversity, climate resilience, and public health. Threats to Virginia’s Intact Wildlands: Virginia contains more roadless national forest land than any other state in the eastern U.S., anchored by key tracts in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (such as Bear Creek and Little River). Opening these irreplaceable Appalachian strongholds to roadbuilding fragments core mature hardwood habitats, introduces non-native invasive species, and destabilizes steep mountain slopes prone to severe erosion. Critical Wildlife Refugia and Corridors: Nationwide, roadless areas support 57% of vulnerable terrestrial wildlife species and over 400 species listed or proposed under the Endangered Species Act. In the Central Appalachians, these intact forests serve as crucial migration corridors for wide-ranging species like black bears, bobcats, and native brook trout, which depend on cold, unpolluted headwater streams. Wildfire and Human Encroachment: Forest Service data shows that over 90% of human-caused wildfires originate within a half-mile of a road. Adding new roads into remote, rugged terrain directly increases fire risks rather than aiding management, while expanding human access into previously untouched backcountry. Water, Air Quality, and Climate: Virginia’s roadless forest areas protect municipal watersheds that deliver clean drinking water to hundreds of thousands of residents. Constructing roads through these areas increases stream sedimentation, harms native aquatic life, and releases stored carbon from old-growth forest soils—undermining regional air quality and regional climate resilience. With the Forest Service facing a multi-billion-dollar backlog in maintaining existing roads, opening intact Appalachian wildlands to new construction is fiscally and ecologically irresponsible. I urge the agency to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact.

Roadless areas are among the wildest and least developed parts of our national forests — beautiful, peaceful, biologically rich landscapes that are currently designated for protection. The agency plans to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule which has protected these wild areas for the past 25 years. Repealing the rule is environmentally reckless, fiscally irresponsible, and unfair to rural communities who increasingly rely on outdoor tourism.Here in Virginia, the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest has the most roadless acres (394,000) and the largest roadless areas of any national forest in the East - places like Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain. These areas are not labeled with signage: you might recreate in one without knowing it.

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Secretary Rollins and U.S. Forest Service, I am writing because I strongly disagree with the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I believe these areas are worth protecting, and I don’t think removing these protections is in the best interest of the people who live near and use these forests. This is especially important here in Virginia. The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests contain nearly 394,000 acres of designated roadless areas, which is the largest amount of roadless forest in the eastern United States. From what I understand, getting rid of the current protections could leave more than 332,000 acres, or about 84% of these areas, open to potential commercial development. I am particularly concerned about places such as Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain. These aren’t just empty pieces of land. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and places for people to hike, hunt, fish, bike, and enjoy being outdoors. The Appalachian Trail also passes through some of these areas. Building more roads and increasing timber activity could have consequences that are difficult or impossible to reverse. Roads can break up wildlife habitat, contribute to erosion and water-quality problems, and increase the risk of animals being hit by vehicles. The streams and forests in these areas are also important habitat for native brook trout. I also have concerns about the practical cost of expanding the road system. The Forest Service already has a large backlog of roads that need maintenance, while the agency has fewer employees than it did previously. It doesn’t make much sense to take on thousands of additional acres of roads and development when maintaining the existing system is already such a significant challenge. These forests belong to the public, and I believe their value goes far beyond whatever short-term revenue could come from additional logging or development. Once an undeveloped forest is fragmented by roads, it cannot simply be put back the way it was. For these reasons, I ask that the Forest Service keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and reject the proposal to rescind it. Thank you for taking the time to consider my comment. Thank you.

I am writing as a environmental advocate to oppose the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RR). I urge the Forest Service (FS) to retain the current RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alt. 2 & any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response & fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800m of a road (Pacific Biodiv. Inst.). More roads= more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads & resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities & firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the FS to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve community protection, & to fully account for the increased ignition risks & long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose & analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, & future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System (NFS). Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction & logging, mining, & drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, & other ecological values. The RR was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected & biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction & timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the RR is rescinded or revised. The FS should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss & fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the NFS. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction & timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights & interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, & other culturally significant areas. Regarding Indigenous sovereignty, I am particularly concerned about treaty-reserved resources. I urge the FS to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration & to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge & concerns. The roadless area with which I am most familiar is in the Olympic National Forest and abuts my sister's property above the Little River, a tributary to the Elwha River in Washington State, where the federal government spent $300 million removing two dams which blocked habitat for treaty-protected salmon and steelhead. There are multiple examples of catastrophic road failure in Olympic National Forest, and these failures can be attributed to a combination of climate change and lack of maintenance; climate change is sure to accelerate in coming decades, and road maintenance is sure to decline if the Roadless Rule is rescinded; the Forest Service has a backlog of over $10 billion on the roads it already manages; new road construction would make the situation completely out of hand. Road failures here typically occur during catastrophic flooding events, which are made even more catastrophic by the erosion coming from a road failure. And even when roads remain intact, the timber harvest likely to result from road building will reduce the watershed's ability to retard the drainage of water during a storm, and therefore will make any flooding worse. In addition to the harm to aquatic resources, the potential impact to water quality is also most concerning; I live in the City of Port Angeles, whose water supply comes off of the Elwha River, downstream of several Roadless Area tracts; fouling of our water system would severely harm the health and welfare of our town. For these reasons, I urge the FS to retain the RR under Alt. 1 & reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge & rights, & the long-term safety of firefighters & communities.

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Subject: Strongly Oppose the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Dear Secretary Rollins and the U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For 25 years, this rule has successfully protected 45 million acres of America’s wildest public lands from reckless commercial logging, mining, and unnecessary road construction. While I object to this nationwide rollback, I am particularly deeply concerned about the devastating impacts this decision will have on the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia holds the most designated roadless acreage in the eastern United States, spanning nearly 394,000 acres across the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Stripping these protections will instantly expose 84% of these fragile lands—over 332,000 acres—to commercial development. Unmanaged roadbuilding and timber harvesting in pristine areas like Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain will permanently harm our state by: Endangering Clean Water: Fragmenting these forests threatens critical watersheds that supply clean drinking water to downstream communities. Destroying Outdoor Recreation: These areas contain world-class hiking, hunting, angling, and mountain biking trails, including invaluable sections of the Appalachian Trail, which drive our local outdoor recreation economies. Fragmenting Wildlife Habitats: Increased road construction will destroy vital habitat connectivity, increase vehicle-animal collisions, and degrade the cold, clean waters required by dwindling native brook trout. Taxpayer & Operational Burden: It is fiscally irresponsible. With U.S. Forest Service staff reduced by nearly 20%, and a nationwide road maintenance backlog of over $6 billion, it is unrealistic to expect the agency to manage new road systems or safely administer expanded commercial exploitation. National forests are a shared public trust belonging to all Americans, not short-term financial assets to be liquidated at the taxpayers' expense. The existing rule provides a balanced, popular, and deeply valued framework for conservation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this misguided proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Casey Witt Clifton Forge, Va

I am submitting this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, specifically as it affects the George Washington National Forest's North River District in Virginia. I live in the Shenandoah Valley, where five roadless areas — Oak Knob, Gum Run, Skidmore Fork, Little River, and Ramseys Draft Addition — together comprise roughly 70,000 acres and represent the largest concentration of roadless areas in the eastern United States. These areas are currently part of the proposed Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area (SMNSA), legislation now before the Senate Agriculture Committee that reflects 25 years of community-driven work to secure permanent protection for this landscape. These roadless areas provide three benefits that rescission would directly threaten: Clean water: These lands protect the headwaters of streams that supply drinking water and support native brook trout populations in the region. Outdoor recreation: The undeveloped character of this landscape supports hiking, hunting, and other recreation central to the regional economy and quality of life. Wildlife habitat: This concentration of roadless acreage provides some of the last large, unfragmented habitat blocks in the eastern national forest system — a resource that, once roaded and logged, cannot be restored on any meaningful timescale. I have specific concerns about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: The DEIS does not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of road construction and logging on watershed health in areas like the North River District, where roadless status has protected water quality for 25 years. A blanket, nationwide rescission does not account for regions like the Shenandoah Valley, where roadless areas have been identified through extensive local and congressional review — via the pending SMNSA legislation — as having exceptional conservation value distinct from areas where wildfire risk may be a legitimate management concern. Rescinding the rule while SMNSA legislation is actively pending before Congress undermines an ongoing legislative process and risks foreclosing options Congress itself is still considering. I request that the Forest Service withdraw this proposed rescission, or at minimum exempt the roadless areas within the proposed SMNSA boundary from any final rule, pending the outcome of the legislative process already underway in the Senate Agriculture Committee.

I am an avid mountain biker, hiker, runner, and volunteer trail maintainer in the George Washington National Forest. I strongly oppose repealing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge you to keep it fully in place. I spend countless hours in roadless areas of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, including Skidmore Fork and Little River, both for recreation and trail maintenance. I see firsthand how these unroaded lands support clean water, healthy wildlife, and high‑quality outdoor experiences that cannot be restored once roads and industrial development arrive. Clean Water and Fiscal Responsibility Roadless areas protect headwaters and reservoirs that supply drinking water to communities like Harrisonburg and Staunton. Building new roads and logging steep slopes will increase erosion, sediment, and pollution, raising treatment costs for tens of thousands of people downstream. The Forest Service already faces a multibillion‑dollar road maintenance backlog; adding more roads when existing ones are failing is fiscally irresponsible and guarantees further water quality problems. Wildlife and Biodiversity Virginia’s roadless areas hold exceptional biodiversity, including at‑risk species and unique habitats. Roads and industrial logging fragment core habitat, introduce invasive species, and permanently reduce ecosystem quality. Once these wild areas are cut up by roads, they cannot be returned to their current condition on any meaningful human time scale. Recreation, Hunting, and Local Economies There is a robust local economy built around outdoor recreation and hunting in these forests. Hikers, runners, mountain bikers, anglers, campers, horseback riders, and hunters come precisely because these lands are wild and undeveloped. They buy gas, food, lodging, gear, and services in nearby communities, providing steady, renewable income. Large-scale logging, mining, and new roadbuilding would degrade scenery, reduce game habitat, fragment hunting grounds, and drive away the visitors these communities rely on. This would be a serious, long‑term blow to surrounding towns in exchange for short‑term extractive gains. Wildfire Risk and Roads Most wildfires in Appalachia are human‑caused, and nationally most ignitions occur near roads. Fires are far more likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless tracts. The current Roadless Rule already allows fuel reduction and thinning for legitimate wildfire mitigation. Cutting new roads into these areas will increase human access and ignition risk, not reduce it. National Interest and Long-Term Stewardship These roadless lands are national public assets, not just local industrial reserves. The Roadless Rule was adopted because local control alone did not adequately protect them. Public input has consistently and overwhelmingly supported keeping the rule. From my years on the ground, I know how rare large, unroaded areas are in the East and how quickly they can be lost once roads and clearcuts arrive. For these reasons, I respectfully urge USDA and the Forest Service to: Withdraw the proposal to repeal the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Maintain or strengthen protections for existing roadless areas in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and nationwide. Focus limited funds on maintaining and right‑sizing the existing road system rather than expanding it. Prioritize clean water, biodiversity, and recreation‑ and hunting‑based economies in all decisions affecting roadless areas. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place and protect these irreplaceable public lands—and the communities and economies that depend on them—for current and future generations.

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Subject: Strongly Oppose the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Dear Secretary Rollins and the U.S. Forest Service, - I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am horrified and disgusted, in fact, about this proposal. - I feel strongly that the United State's natural resources are vital to our natural heritage. I am an avid recreational user of National Forests and other nationally designated wild places like Wilderness Areas and National Parks. Whenever I travel, I choose to go to these places. I particularly look on the map for roadless areas because I know that the quality of my experience will be best in roadless areas, due to the intact vegetation and superior wildlife viewing opportunities. - I feel that, as an American citizen, our National Forests and other federally owned wilderness, are mine. The government merely manages these properties for me. I strongly object to the current management proposition to build more roads in roadless areas because it detracts from my experience, will encourage the growth of invasive species, and will deeply further endanger many endangered species that depend on large stretches of uninterrupted habitat. These aspects of roadless areas (native plants, wildlife, and the size of roadless areas) matter greatly to me. - I do not believe the government's excuse that more roads are needed to combat forest fires. I believe, to be plain, this is a lie, and a gross betrayal of myself and other citizens. If the government cared about proper management of our forests, it would be to maintain and enhance them - we would see MORE funding for all our federally owned properties (for example to hire many ecologists who would plan and implement management for public-benefiting ecology not private profit), not the give aways (theft) we are seeing from the public to corporate holders such as Space X, AI companies, and timber companies. We would see our National Parks fully funded instead of wrung dry so they can barely operate, degrading park goers experience. We would see bans on using glyphosate and other herbicides in national forests for the purpose of timber harvesting, which poison ourselves, our water, and our wildlife while creating monocultures instead of forests, AND leave behind huge swaths of completely dessicated fuel for fires. Also, if roads are needed to combat active wildfires, they are already legal in roadless areas. -While I object to this nationwide rollback, I am particularly deeply concerned about the devastating impacts this decision will have on the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia holds the most designated roadless acreage in the eastern United States, spanning nearly 394,000 acres across the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Stripping these protections will instantly expose 84% of these fragile lands—over 332,000 acres—to commercial development. Unmanaged roadbuilding and timber harvesting in pristine areas like Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain will permanently harm our state by: -Endangering Clean Water: Fragmenting these forests threatens critical watersheds that supply clean drinking water to downstream communities. Destroying Outdoor Recreation: These areas contain world-class hiking, hunting, angling, and mountain biking trails, including invaluable sections of the Appalachian Trail, which drive our local outdoor recreation economies. -Fragmenting Wildlife Habitats: Increased road construction will destroy vital habitat connectivity, increase vehicle-animal collisions, and degrade the cold, clean waters required by dwindling native brook trout. -Taxpayer & Operational Burden: It is fiscally irresponsible. With U.S. Forest Service staff reduced by nearly 20%, and a nationwide road maintenance backlog of over $6 billion, it is unrealistic to expect the agency to manage new road systems or safely administer expanded commercial exploitation. National forests are a shared public trust belonging to all Americans, not short-term financial assets to be liquidated at the taxpayers' expense. The existing rule provides a balanced, popular, and deeply valued framework for conservation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this misguided proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Joanna Salidis Barboursville, VA

Letter opposing rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule15 September 2026 I am one of many US citizens who strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This Roadless Rule has protected old growth and mature forests that provide essential habitat for wildlife, birds, and fish, provide for backcountry recreation, protect water quality, and serve for carbon sequestration which reduces the negative trajectory of climate change. On Washington's Olympic Peninsula where I live, salmon and steelhead are essential to the commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as the tourism industry. There are several salmon and steelhead-bearing streams and lakes that flow through or alongside Designated Roadless Areas on the Olympic Peninsula, including Lake Quinault, Little River (Elwha), the Dungeness, the Dosewallips, the Duckabush, Lake Cushman, and associated headwaters of these water bodies. We all know that road development leads to degraded aquatic habitat, and less consistent stream flows. There are currently about 370,000 miles of roads in the National Forest System. The backlog on maintenance and reconstruction of the existing road system exceeds $10 billion. It doesn’t make sense to allow construction of more roads in Designated Roadless Areas when the National Forest System cannot keep up with maintenance of the existing road system, and poorly maintained forest roads are notorious for causing erosion and siltation of streams and degradation of salmon habitat. Olympic National Forest has experienced many such failures, which are certain to intensify under a regime of climate change and a burgeoning, poorly-maintained road system. In addition to the harm to aquatic resources, the potential impact to water quality is also most concerning; the City of Port Angeles’s water supply comes from the Elwha River, downstream of the McDonald Mountain roadless area above the Little River; failure of the City’s water system would severely harm the health, welfare, and future of the town. Finally, the proposal will likely harm rather than achieve the proposal’s purported goal of decreasing wildfire damage, because expanding roads and timber harvest will increase rather than reduce fires. Most fires are caused by human activity in proximity to roads, and there is no practical way to keep out human activity no matter what kind of gate you build; I have seen truly impressive engineering and earthworks designed get ATVs around gates, and in dispersed rural areas, there is no way to adequately patrol the activity. For these reasons, please select the No Action alternative of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Sincerely, Liam Antrim 207 Pond Lane Sequim, WA

Keep the roadless rule - don't rescind it. Roadless areas are important beautiful, peaceful, biologically rich landscapes that are currently protected. Repealing the rule is environmentally reckless, fiscally irresponsible, and unfair to rural communities who increasingly rely on outdoor tourism. Our national forests are important areas that preserve biodiversity, especially in a country that is increasingly developed. Roads kill wildlife: both in the construction, but also with vehicle traffic. The impacts don't stop there. Opening up forested land to roads increases fire risk, at a time when the federal government is already drastically underfunding wildfire and forestry staffing. Gaping holes in forests create new vectors for invasive plants, reducing habitat and increasing maintenance costs and / or degrading habitat quality. Here in Virginia, the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest has the most roadless acres (394,000) and the largest roadless areas of any national forest in the East — places like Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain. These areas are not labeled with signage: you might recreate in one without knowing it. These forests belong to the American people and they deserve to be protected from development and exploitation.

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Subject: Strongly Oppose the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Dear Secretary Rollins and the U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For 25 years, this rule has successfully protected 45 million acres of America’s wildest public lands from reckless commercial logging, mining, and unnecessary road construction. While I object to this nationwide rollback, I am particularly deeply concerned about the devastating impacts this decision will have on the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia holds the most designated roadless acreage in the eastern United States, spanning nearly 394,000 acres across the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Stripping these protections will instantly expose 84% of these fragile lands—over 332,000 acres—to commercial development. Unmanaged roadbuilding and timber harvesting in pristine areas like Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain will permanently harm our state by: Endangering Clean Water: Fragmenting these forests threatens critical watersheds that supply clean drinking water to downstream communities. Destroying Outdoor Recreation: These areas contain world-class hiking, hunting, angling, and mountain biking trails, including invaluable sections of the Appalachian Trail, which drive our local outdoor recreation economies. Fragmenting Wildlife Habitats: Increased road construction will destroy vital habitat connectivity, increase vehicle-animal collisions, and degrade the cold, clean waters required by dwindling native brook trout. Taxpayer & Operational Burden: It is fiscally irresponsible. With U.S. Forest Service staff reduced by nearly 20%, and a nationwide road maintenance backlog of over $6 billion, it is unrealistic to expect the agency to manage new road systems or safely administer expanded commercial exploitation. National forests are a shared public trust belonging to all Americans, not short-term financial assets to be liquidated at the taxpayers' expense. The existing rule provides a balanced, popular, and deeply valued framework for conservation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this misguided proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely Chad Oba Friends of Buckingham Chado108@icloud.com

To whom it may concern; I am opposed to the roadless rule repeal for national forests. Roadless areas are among the wildest and least developed parts of our national forests — beautiful, peaceful, biologically rich landscapes that are currently designated for protection. Repealing the rule is environmentally reckless, fiscally irresponsible, and unfair to rural communities who increasingly rely on outdoor tourism. Here in Virginia, the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest has the most roadless acres and the largest roadless areas of any national forest in the East — places like Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain. These areas are not labeled with signage: you might recreate in one without knowing it. I trust that you will reconsider this repeal. Thank you, Peter Kohn

Rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in America's National Forests is not necessary, nor responsible. Especially in the Eastern United States, thoughtless clear cutting and mismanagement of forests resulted in the creation of the National Forest Service, whose purpose includes the following: sustainable management, scientific forestry, and public benefit. The forests are not simply for sustainable management and cutting; science and public benefit are part of the three purposes for the Forest Service. Public benefit includes areas for outdoor recreation, clean water, and wildlife habitat. In the Shenandoah Valley, where I live, there is a proposed 70,000 acre roadless area which includes the Oak Knob, Gum Run, Skidmore Fork, Little River, and Ramseys Draft Addition. This would be the largest roadless area in the Eastern United States. It is an incredibly small area considering the George Washington National Forest comprises over 1.8 million acres. Surely, we can spare less than 4% of an immense area for public benefit, scientific discovery, and wildlife habitat of an area undisturbed by roads and all that roads would introduce into such an area. There is simply no need for the rescinding of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In the Bible, we are urged to be stewards of creation, not only exercising dominion, but tending and caring for Creation. Allowing for such a small portion for that Creation to NOT be developed is surely good for our nation as well as for future generations who will benefit from such undisturbed areas.