Read the comments.

I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please retain its protections for inventoried roadless areas. Freshwater matters to me because my grandfather (called him Pops. He’s passed away now) used to bring me to this waterfall with a creek that feeds into a river in the Smoky Mountains and he said it was “our” waterfall. I know the waterfall wasn’t actually ours but it felt like and still feels like it’s ours to this day. I’m 24 now and it’s the first waterfall I ever remember visiting and I’d always visit it with him. I cried the first time I went there without him here. I know there are similar stories with so many other families at so many National Parks and if we keep these lands protected there will be many more stories to come. I am concerned that removing restrictions on road construction and timber harvesting could increase erosion and sediment entering streams, harming water quality and the aquatic habitat for fish I care about. Please fully evaluate these effects on watersheds and downstream communities. I urge the Forest Service to retain the Roadless Rule and prioritize clean water in its decision. Thank you.

I am an Environmental Engineer in the state of Georgia, currently employed in a regulatory field. The roadless areas closest to me are in the Chattahoochee National Forest, the Nantahala National Forest, and the Great Smoky Mountains. I spend a considerable amount of time recreating in these areas on my weekends and off hours. I have also taken trips across the country and recreated in roadless areas in Washington and California. I have experienced firsthand the beauty and value of these areas, and wish to highlight the importance in conserving them. I am writing this comment to oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. According to the USDA Forest Service's own assessment, rescinding the roadless rule will NOT meaningfully decrease wildfire risk - it is actually more likely to INCREASE wildfire risk. Page 86 of the DEIS report states: "the incidence of human-caused fires generally increases with proximity to roads." Additionally, there is already an exception in the existing Rule for cutting and removing small timber as a means of reducing wildfire risk. Page 102 of the DEIS states that "timber projects are the primary motivation and funding source for new roads", NOT reducing wildfire risk. However, the Forest Service already lacks the budget to maintain its existing roads and infrastructure, with a current deferred maintenance backlog of $7 billion. The DEIS states, on page 45: "revenue generated by timber sales or other...activities would be used for some road-related system management but would not be sufficient to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining all new roads related to a project." So where is the money needed to build these proposed new roads, at an estimated cost of $2 million per mile (as stated in page 42 of the DEIS), coming from? Rescinding the Roadless Rule will have negative impacts on soil, water, and air quality. Increased timber harvests will increase soil erosion, compaction, and landslide probability. Page 120 of the DEIS states that there are 7,000 municipal water intakes within watersheds in designated roadless areas, supplying water to nearly 5 million people just within the Pacific Southwest. Water quality will be degraded by the addition of new roads, as roading and timber harvest degrade water quality by increasing sediment and nutrient runoff into streams, creating warmer and hypoxic conditions (page 117, DEIS). Removing tree canopies will alter the timing of spring snowmelt and runoff. Increases in timber harvest will also result in increased emissions from trucks and other equipment (page 128, DEIS). Page 160 of the report states that roadless areas "overlap the range of more than 300 threatened, endangered, and proposed species, 79 final or proposed critical habitats managed by the USFWS, and 19 critical habitats...listed under the ESA". The DEIS projects negative impacts that include habitat loss and degradation, introduction and spread of non-native and invasive species, increased human-wildlife conflict, and detrimental impacts to fish and game species. (Pages 142, 151, 152) Though the current administration is waging a war against the Endangered Species Act, the USFS IS CURRENTLY STILL REQUIRED to comply with the ESA. It is unclear how the USFS plans to do so when its own report states that rescinding the Roadless Rule will directly lead to noncompliance with the ESA. Circling back to the financial questions posed in the second paragraph, it is known that recreation and tourism are more profitable than roadless timber. In 2024, visitors to roadless areas spend $8.5 billion total in local communities (DEIS page 212). Meanwhile, timber harvest value in 2024 across ALL national forest land was just $151 million (DEIS page 220). Roadless timber is only expected to generate $2.2-$11.4 million dollars annually (DEIS page 220). Even a 1% loss in visitation to roadless areas due to rescission of this rule could lead to a projected loss of $9 million annually. So again I ask, who stands to profit from these timber harvests? Seemingly not the USFS, since we have covered that profits from timber harvests will not be enough to cover the costs of building the roads required for such projects, and likely not the local economies poised to lose millions tourism dollars either. If there is no clear benefit, financial or otherwise, to increased timber harvests, then why is it being proposed? Who stands to benefit? In the current era of constant threats to our natural environment and the health and financial wellbeing of the American people, we must place the highest importance on protecting and conserving what natural resources we have left. Due to the financial concerns and projected negative impacts on wildfire risk, soil quality, water quality, air quality, biodiversity, recreation, and tourism as outlined above, I must oppose the recission of the Roadless Rule, and urge all others to do the same.

I strongly oppose any proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My name is Jon Morgan, and I live in Blountville, Tennessee, in the heart of the Southern Appalachian region and within reach of both the Cherokee and Pisgah National Forests. These mountains are not an abstract concept to me. They are part of the landscape I live in, enjoy, and want my children and future generations to inherit. We need to be honest about what is at stake. For generations, we treated our public forests as if the resources they contained were unlimited. We logged these mountains aggressively, altered watersheds, fragmented habitat, and nearly lost iconic species such as the American chestnut, once one of the dominant trees of the Appalachian forest. Thankfully, we learned from those mistakes. Our forests have recovered. Our streams have improved. Wildlife has returned. Conservation efforts have helped make possible the reintroduction of elk to the Great Smoky Mountains and the recovery of species such as the hellbender salamander in places like Rocky Fork State Park. That progress did not happen because we built more roads. It happened because we protected the land. The roadless areas protected by this rule are not empty pieces of federal property waiting for someone to find a reason to develop them. They are some of the last remaining places where Americans can experience a landscape that has not been divided, paved, graded, developed, and commercialized. And that matters. The true beauty of America isn’t found in castles, ancient pyramids, or man-made monuments. America’s great treasure is the land itself. People travel to the Appalachian Mountains because they want to experience something they cannot find in a parking lot or behind a ticket booth. They come to hike, backpack, hunt, fish, camp, watch wildlife, photograph waterfalls, climb ridges, and experience solitude. They come because they have seen these mountains in photographs and want to stand in them themselves. If we continue putting roads through these places, we risk destroying the very thing people came to see. There is also an economic argument that cannot be ignored. Communities throughout Appalachia increasingly depend on outdoor recreation. Trail towns, outfitters, restaurants, hotels, campgrounds, gas stations, and small businesses benefit from visitors who come specifically to experience public lands. A road through a previously roadless area doesn’t necessarily help these communities. In some cases, it can actually hurt them by changing travel patterns, bypassing established communities, fragmenting trails, and diminishing the wilderness experience that brought visitors to the region in the first place. We should also remember that a road is not just a line on a map. A road requires construction, maintenance, bridges, drainage, erosion control, snow and storm management, and eventually rehabilitation. Those costs ultimately fall on taxpayers. Before we open additional roadless areas, we should be asking a very simple question: Is the permanent environmental and financial cost worth whatever short-term benefit we believe the road will provide? In many cases, I believe the answer is no. Once a road is constructed, the decision is essentially permanent. The trees can be cut down in a matter of days. The road can be built in months. But the wilderness character that existed before it may take generations to recover—if it ever does. We have enough developed land. We have enough roads. We have enough places where Americans can drive their vehicles, park, shop, and build. What we don’t have enough of is wilderness. The federal government should not treat every acre of public land as an opportunity for development. Some land should simply be protected because its value is greater left intact than it would ever be after development. That isn’t anti-growth. It is responsible stewardship. I urge you to reject any proposal that would weaken or rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Protect these lands not just for the people who hike them today, but for the children and grandchildren who will judge us by what we chose to preserve. We have already learned what happens when we take too much from these mountains. Let’s not make the same mistake twice. Some places are worth more left wild. The Appalachian Mountains are one of those places. Please protect them.

I am vehemently opposed to the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Rule. Sam Knob in Pisgah National Forest is a place that my family explores, recreates, and stewards. It’s a place full of delicate native plant life, animals, and trails. I have spent many years dedicated to learning about the biodiversity of this region and the ins and outs of native plant and animal life. I am a former student of the UNC botany program and a 4 year volunteer with the national parks service, where I act as a citizen scientist by gathering wildflower phenology data alongside a dedicated team of volunteers like myself. I live nestled amongst the Great Smoky Mountains, Nantahala, and Pisgah National Forests and I consider all three an extension of my own backyard. Our state is already overrun with unregulated development and urban sprawl. Wild spaces are sacred not only to North Carolinians, but to human civilization as a whole. Wild land like this is essential for our long term success and happiness. There is substantial research showing that logging is not beneficial to our forests. There is a three decade long study that shows correlation between logging and increased wildfires. Ultimately, logging will not help decrease wildfire numbers, in fact it would have the opposite effect. Building roads and disturbing ground leads to the spread of invasive, non native plants. These species can choke out and eventually annihilate native vegetation that supports a healthy and thriving ecosystem. This is also land that locals have fished, hunted and foraged for generations. We were predated by the Cherokee. This agency has obligations under the Constitution, treaty rights and federal law "to protect and preserve the inherent rights of American Indians into perpetuity," including access to lands, use of forest products, freedom to practice traditional religions, and protection of sacred sites. These are binding obligations. The last thing our area needs after Hurricane Helene is MORE destruction of our natural resources. Our land is still healing, and it cannot survive more disruption. The Forest Service should uphold this 25 year old ruling and protect our national forest for all North Carolinians and Americans.

One of our great country’s finest assets is our wild, roadless lands. From Smoky Mountains National Park to Baker-Snowqualmie National Forest, I’ve spent the better part of 3 years traversing this landscape. Every single European I’ve encountered along the way has marveled at our wild spaces. These don’t exist in most developed nations. Our wild spaces stand unique above the rest of the world. They are one way that makes America great. To rescind the roadless rule would quite literally cut our greatness and thwart decades of conservation efforts. Our wild spaces deserve to stay wild. Do not rescind the roadless rule.

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , As someone who cares deeply about national parks, national forests, complete ecosystems and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Moreover, roadless areas in our national forests protect the headwaters of numerous rivers that provide cities miles away with the water resources they need to keep the economy running. Clean water and clean air is essential for everyone's health and supports future generations. Wildfires start near roads, so more roads are more risky! A study highlighted by science communicator Ross Reid found that one of the strongest predictors of wildfire risk may be something many people use every day: roads. The finding is prompting renewed scrutiny of federal officials' claims that building more roads into forests could help with fire response and prevention. In a TikTok post, Reid said researchers at the U.S. Forest Service found a strong link between roads and wildfires, with most ignitions occurring within 164 feet (50 meters) of a roadway. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Dawn Tesorero 18 Wellsmere Park Roslindale, MA 02131 Sincerely, Dawn Tesorero

My name is Dr Heidi Middendorf and I have lived and paid taxes in North Carolina for 38 years. During my medical residency at UNC Chapel Hill I was assigned to a clinic in Asheville North Carolina. I have maintained a deep connection with the region, including the Blue Ridge, Nantahala and Smoky Mountains where my family and I have visited several times a year, enjoying camping, hiking, fishing and kayaking. As a physician, I am particularly concerned about the impact on water quality with roadways and logging. It is well established that undisturbed forest has greater water quality and biodiversity as noted by DelaSalla et al 2011. Those resources draw people to the region for tourism in North Carolina. I am also gravely concerned about the economic impact of the loss of tourism dollars in a region that continues to recoever from Hurricane Helene. I strongly recommend that the Forest Service keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact and choose the No Action Alternative. Thank you. Heidi Middendorf MD

My family has been rooted in the mountains of Western North Carolina for generations. On a recent trip, my best friend and I hiked trails in both the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests, staying with my great-grandmother's sister. We photographed trees, mountains, bodies of water, wildlife. What drew us was how pristine and intact everything was. The rivers and watersheds that move through these lands supply drinking water and water treatment for people in Haywood and surrounding counties near the Smoky Mountains. I am opposing the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule because it puts all of that at risk, and the agency's own document does not justify it. The agency's data on forest composition undercut the case for opening these lands to timber harvest. In the section titled Implications for Forest Vegetation, Health, and Carbon, the document states that "approximately 11-16 percent is old-growth forest, 54-63 percent is mature forest, and 26-31 percent is young forest" in the operable areas most likely to be affected. Old and mature stands together make up the overwhelming majority of the timberland the rescission would open. The document identifies no old-growth-specific protections beyond general land management plan compliance before those irreplaceable stands could be harvested. The agency must respond to this gap: what analysis justifies exposing predominantly mature and old-growth forest to logging without a dedicated protection framework? The agency's stated rationale for rescission rests on a forest health argument that the document itself does not consistently support. In the section titled Rationale for the Proposed Rule, the agency states that "The 2001 Roadless Rule limited the Forest Service’s ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns." Yet elsewhere the document cites research finding that the rule did not meaningfully constrain fuel treatments as a share of forested land, and it acknowledges that insect and disease risk in western roadless areas is similar to or lower than on managed forest land. The agency needs to reconcile its forest health rationale with those findings before treating rescission as a valid remedy. The fire management argument fares no better. Under the Fire Control section, the agency asserts that "With increased road access, initial attack success rates would be expected to increase." But the document's own data show 94.4 percent initial attack success in roadless areas compared to 97.2 percent on other forest land, and it acknowledges that less-than-full suppression strategy is applied more often in roadless areas, a factor the comparison does not isolate. The document also expects most new roads to be temporary timber spurs, not strategic fire access routes. The agency should separate the effect of roads from suppression strategy in the initial attack figures, and estimate how many fire-useful roads are actually expected given real funding constraints. I want my tax money flowing toward hiring new employees, maintenance, equipment, and resources for the agencies that actually protect these places. How are we supposed to steward and protect our public lands if we cut funding and freeze hiring for the people who are supposed to make that happen? Public lands are managed by individuals with histories in extractive industries, and combined with this proposal, I do not trust that what is meant for the benefit and enjoyment of the people will be treated that way. Leave the Roadless Rule intact. Degrading what is meant to be cherished and preserved is irresponsible and insulting to ourselves and to future generations who are supposed to receive these lands as well.

I strongly support continuing protections for roadless areas. I have been fortunate to visit Yosemite National Park with my grandparents and have returned many times as an adult with family and friends. I have also traveled to Wyoming to backpack in Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park, and I have taken camping trips to Acadia, Great Smoky Mountains, and the Cohutta Wilderness. These experiences have shown me firsthand how valuable protected, undeveloped lands are. These areas provide critical habitat for countless species and protect ecosystems that cannot simply be replaced or replicated elsewhere. Once these intact landscapes are fragmented or developed, the biodiversity and ecological functions they support may be permanently affected. Roadless areas are an important part of our natural heritage, and protecting them means preserving opportunities for future generations to experience these places as we have. I hope these protections will continue so that our children, grandchildren, and generations to come can enjoy and learn from these irreplaceable ecosystems.

Hello, my name is Lyn Oliver. I am writing to ask you, sincerely, please do not move forward with the 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission. Although politicians and businesses may debate its merits, the roadless rule is widely supported by sportsmen, hunters, hikers, native peoples, and fishermen who understand the importance of protecting wild places. I was born and raised in Tennessee, surrounded by the Appalachian foothills and the Smoky Mountains. After moving west as an adult, I came to appreciate even more just how rare roadless places are. In much of the east, including where I grew up, it is difficult to find large areas where you can truly get away from roads, traffic, noise, and development. Roadless areas are treasures that should remain Federally protected. They are something people around the world envy, and once they are gone, they are gone forever. There is enormous value in being able to visit a wild place without the noise of automobiles, the pollution, or the intrusion of roads and development. For many people, these places provide an essential respite from the stresses of everyday life. That opportunity should not belong only to those who can afford expensive vacations or travel far from home. Public lands and roadless areas give people from all walks of life a chance to experience peace, solitude, and nature. The value of these places cannot be measured simply by the resources that can be mined, drilled, or extracted from them. The recreational, tourism, ecological, and personal value of keeping these lands wild is far greater, and unlike a resource that can be extracted, the wilderness experience cannot be restored once roads and development have permanently changed a place. Alaska may seam vast and wild, but it is a shrinking oasis in this world for hunters, wildlife, fishermen, photographers and native Alaskans. These lands are not just ours to use today. We have a responsibility to leave something wild and beautiful for the people who come after us. Please protect these places, not only for ourselves, but for our children and future generations. Thank you.

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , It's important to have places that are untouched and left wild. We should keep these places intact now and preserve them for future generations. Studies have shown that allowing the forest canopy to develop traps moisture near the ground and naturally prevents wildfires. Logging removes this natural defense and dries out the forest. Adding more roads means more maintenance costs for taxpayers for years to come. The Forest Service should take future maintenance into account because many current USFS roads I have been on are not well maintained due to poor funding. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Nicholas Britz 2316 E Hastings Ave Coeur D Alene, ID 83814 Sincerely, Nicholas Britz

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , As someone who cares deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. I am begging. Please look at the destruction this would bring to our public lands and stop this. Katie Shaw PO Box 223 Kingston, WA 98346 Sincerely, Katie Shaw

This summer I got to spend time with my little girl at the Nantahala Outdoor Center nestled in the magical Great Smoky Mountains. Her eyes lit up at the roaring water as it hit each bolder, she dipped her toes in the crisp, cool water and skipped rocks across its surface. She marveled at the little butterflies that floated by, and giggled at the ducks that came right up to the shore looking to share a snack. Please protect this area by keeping the 2001 Roadlesss Rule intact. I want to keep reliving this magic with her for years to come.

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I am writing alongside many like-minded individuals who care deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, urging you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. The Roadless Rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands for over two decades, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water and air, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy, the very ecosystems of which all life depends on- us humans included. Rescinding the rule puts our public lands at risk, exposing these treasured and sacred landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and doing immediate and long-term irreparable harm. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. We are at a very critical time in our brief history as humans on this planet, in which each and every decision we make concerning the only home we have and share with other beings will define our future. We are facing an existential crisis, and now more than ever, we need and must protect the lands, waters and biodiversity that sustain the delicate balance that is life on Earth. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, national parks, and our future. Thank you for your time. Blanca Diaz Alejandro 6821 Udall Pl. SE Auburn, WA 98092 Sincerely, Blanca Diaz Alejandro

I am in fierce opposition of resending, the roadless area conservation rule put in place in 2001. I live in Tennessee near the great Smoky Mountains national Park. I have grown up hiking camping and exploring these mountains and forest that surround where I live. I have also explored many public lands and national parks across our nation. Our public lands and national parks support the economies of the towns and cities that surround them. These towns and cities are supported by like-minded people who cherish outdoor experiences fresh air nature, God‘s creatures, clean water and the beauty of these areas. I would ask that you keep intact the roadless rule so that the beauty and all that our public lands and national parks have to offer can be here for us now and for generations to come. Please Do Not resend the Roadless Rule. Thank you

I strongly oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in East Tennessee, near the Great Smoky Mountains, and I know firsthand that our forests are not simply timber waiting to be harvested or land waiting for another road. They are living ecosystems, watersheds, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, and an essential part of our communities and economy. The proposed rule would rescind protections covering approximately 44.7 million acres of inventoried roadless National Forest System lands. The current Roadless Rule generally prohibits road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in these areas, with limited exceptions. Repealing that nationwide protection would shift decisions to individual forest management plans and local Forest Service officials. That matters enormously in Appalachia. The Great Smoky Mountains are the most biologically diverse national park in the United States. More than 22,000 species have been documented there, including approximately 1,000 species new to science, and scientists estimate that tens of thousands more species may remain undiscovered. The park contains more than 2,900 miles of streams, 79 vegetation communities, and eight major forest types covering 96% of its area. These forests are not scenery. They are infrastructure. Healthy, intact forests protect watersheds, reduce erosion, provide wildlife corridors, store carbon, support biodiversity, and help regulate water and soil. Roads through previously undeveloped forests can fragment habitat, increase human disturbance, alter drainage, and create pathways for invasive species and other ecological impacts. Once an intact landscape is fragmented, the consequences can persist long after construction ends. And here in East Tennessee, protecting forests is also protecting our economy. Great Smoky Mountains National Park welcomed approximately 12.2 million visitors in 2024. Those visitors spent more than $2 billion in surrounding communities, generating a cumulative economic benefit of more than $2.8 billion. Our forests are already producing enormous public value without being converted into road networks or timber projects. I recognize that the Forest Service has legitimate responsibilities involving wildfire management, forest health, emergency access, and responsible stewardship. Those needs should be addressed with targeted, science-based management—not by eliminating a nationwide safeguard covering tens of millions of acres. The fact that individual future projects would still require environmental review does not make repeal harmless. Preventing unnecessary fragmentation in the first place is fundamentally different from trying to evaluate and mitigate damage after a road or timber project has been proposed. I urge the Forest Service and USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an East Tennessee resident, I believe we have a responsibility to protect the Appalachian forests that surround us—not just for the people who live here today, but for our children and the generations who will come after us. The Smokies have endured for millions of years. We should not be the generation that makes them more fragmented, more vulnerable, and less wild simply because previously protected forests became easier to develop. Please preserve the Roadless Rule and protect America’s remaining intact forest ecosystems.

Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Rule. Throughout my life some of my greatest memories have been exploring the preserved wilderness of this country through its many national forests and parks like Yosemite and the Smoky Mountains. In my home state I have spent so much time exploring Daniel Boone National Forest and hiking Mammoth Cave National Park. These places are so special because they give me, and countless others, a place to go away from technology and progress and connect to nature and ourselves. Outside of myself, keeping these areas roadless is important to so many habitats and helps preserve migration corridors that are few and far between. Preservation of this land is necessary to preserve biodiversity. I object whole-heartedly to the entirety of this rule change for many reasons. This rule would allow increased logging and building of new roads that would increase wildfire risk and jeopardize clean water in those areas. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2) These actions will also increase the spread of invasive species that are detrimental to our wild areas. (https://roadless.org/learning/concerns/invasive-species) The best thing you can do is leave our wild areas as they are, untouched by roads. Our protected, roadless areas are so important, and they deserve preservation not destruction. Please do the best thing for our environment, our health, and our economy and leave our wilderness roadless.

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , Please choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. This rule protects so many acres of national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. By rescinding this rule, new roads and development would break up untouched habitat, degrade waterways, and put our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important to keep intact. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Sue Hammond 2507 Norwalk Court Martinez, CA 94553 Sincerely, Sue Hammond

To the U.S. Forest Service: I am writing to express my strong opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate for our nation’s public lands, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit the Smoky Mountains National Park near my home in North Carolina. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I depend on these watersheds for clean drinking water, hike the backcountry trails, and value the pristine wildlife habitats. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Sincerely, Zack Eller

The rivers of Idaho's Wood River Valley and the Sawtooth Basin have changed in front of me, and watching that happen firsthand has made clear how much protection matters, not just for people now but for whoever comes next. I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask that the record reflect the following concerns. The agency's own findings on fire make the wildfire justification for this proposal impossible to square. The record 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." If the agency is using fire and fuels management as a rationale for opening roadless areas to road construction, it must explain why that rationale is consistent with its own prior findings, and it must reconcile the proposal with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the record shows reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I want that reconciliation in writing before any final action is taken. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. The agency itself found that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The record also shows that the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The road network already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The mountains I hike and photograph in the Pioneer, Boulder, and Smoky Mountains, the Big Lost Range, and the Sawtooth are places people travel to precisely because they remain intact. The agency has not shown that expanding a system it cannot afford to maintain, for resource extraction that by its own numbers amounts to a fraction of a percent of national production, produces a net benefit to the public. I ask the agency to explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a positive net present value justifies that expansion. On the question of state-by-state substitutes for the national rule, the record notes that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency has tried this before, and courts found problems with it. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that were identified the last time the agency moved away from a national rule toward state-specific management. The statutory authority question is not open in the way the proposal implies. A federal appellate court reviewed whether the 2001 rule exceeded congressional authorization and held, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291: "we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The Tenth Circuit found the rule consistent with the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and found it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state plainly, on this record, what legal basis supports a contrary position now. Idaho holds 280 inventoried roadless areas totaling 9,285,371 acres, and 1,466 municipal water intakes across the Intermountain region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The Boulders, Pioneers and Smoky mountain forests are ones I know well. The rivers there are connected to everything downstream, and I have seen what changes look like. This proposal deserves answers it has not yet provided.