Read the comments.

Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001, RIN 0596–AD66: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, Proposed Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 53827 (Aug. 20, 2026) I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule (removal of 36 C.F.R. part 294, subpart B). As a frequent visitor to the roadless areas of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia, and a very recent visitor to the roadless areas of White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, I urge the Department to withdraw the proposed rule, for these reasons: 1. The proposal is arbitrary and capricious under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). A rescission requires reasoned analysis, including why prior findings no longer hold and how reliance interests were weighed (Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983); DHS v. Regents, 591 U.S. 1 (2020); Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc)). The Department invites comment on reliance interests (91 Fed. Reg. at 53830). For 25 years, communities, water providers, outfitters, and state wildlife agencies have relied on these protections. The stated goal of reducing "regulatory burden" is also unexplained: the Department concedes the rule imposes no requirements on small entities (id. at 53831), because it constrains only the agency. 2. The wildfire rationale does not support nationwide rescission. The Department grounds its rationale in changed conditions "especially in the Western United States" (id. at 53828), and concedes that greater access can increase human-caused ignitions (id. at 53829). The Rule already allows small-diameter cutting to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risk (36 C.F.R. § 294.13(b)(1)(ii)) and roads for imminent fire threats (§ 294.12(b)(1)). The Department does not explain why Eastern forests such as the George Washington and Jefferson must lose protection. 3. The proposal is inconsistent with the forests' statutory purposes and the agency's own fiscal constraints. The Organic Act establishes national forests in part to secure "favorable conditions of water flows" (16 U.S.C. § 475). The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act requires due consideration of watershed, wildlife, and recreation values (16 U.S.C. §§ 528–529). The Department identifies 18.2 million acres where plans would allow new permanent roads, while acknowledging a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges (91 Fed. Reg. at 53829). 4. The NEPA analysis is incomplete (42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)). The Department acknowledges that later plan amendments "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," yet treats those effects as beyond scope (id. at 53830). These are reasonably foreseeable effects of removing the national protections. The Department also failed to analyze a region-specific alternative, such as retaining protections in Eastern forests. USDA's 2005 repeal was invalidated for NEPA and ESA failures (California ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009)), a history the Department itself recites (91 Fed. Reg. at 53827). 5. ESA consultation is required before any final rule (16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)). The proposed rule makes no ESA determination among its regulatory certifications. It says only that future local decisions will remain subject to the ESA (id. at 53828). Removing nationwide protections across tens of millions of acres "may affect" listed species, including the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat, whose ranges include the George Washington and Jefferson. Consultation is required on the rescission itself. The Department found tribal consultation warranted even where OMB guidance did not require it (id. at 53831). It should do the same under the ESA. 6. The Regulatory Flexibility Act certification is unsupported (5 U.S.C. § 605(b)). The Department acknowledges that outfitters, guides, and tour operators use these lands and estimates $6.1 million in annual recreation losses (91 Fed. Reg. at 53829–30). Yet it certifies no significant impact on small entities (id. at 53831). It is unconscionable for the department to ignore 25 years of success under the 2001 Roadless Rule and risk exacerbated wildfires and degraded water quality by rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I urge the Department to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule and withdraw the proposed rescission. Thank you, Alec Shobe

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Oregon’s McKenzie River Valley and spend substantial time in western Oregon’s national forests hiking, studying and propagating native plants, and participating in trail work. My family survived the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire, but we lost our home and forest. Wildfire, forest resilience, roads, and water are concrete matters to me. Three Sisters Wilderness is one of the places I value most. I understand that rescission would not remove its statutory Wilderness protection. It nevertheless taught me the value of undeveloped lands surrounding and connecting protected places. Wilderness boundaries do not encompass every headwater, wildlife corridor, or ecological connection supporting the Cascade landscape. The Roadless Rule has limited road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas for approximately twenty-five years. USDA now cites changed conditions, improved forest planning, and different policy priorities. To the extent its decision relies on factual findings contradicting those underlying the 2001 Rule, USDA should identify and explain the changes. In Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit held that USDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by contradicting material findings supporting an earlier Roadless Rule decision without adequately explaining its departure. I support scientifically justified work that protects communities and improves ecosystem resilience. I do not accept that removing national protections from 44.7 million acres necessarily improves wildfire safety. USDA recognizes that roads may facilitate treatment and response but may also increase human-caused ignitions. Its analysis says high road-building costs and declining budgets mean the overall increase in treatment capacity would likely be modest. The existing Rule already permits roads needed to address imminent threats to public health and safety from fire or other catastrophic events and specified tree-cutting for restoration and reducing uncharacteristic wildfire effects. USDA should identify deficiencies in these exceptions and explain why targeted amendments could not address them with fewer consequences than nationwide rescission. I do not support Alternative 3. USDA estimates it would remove Roadless Rule designation and prohibitions from 31.7 million of the 44.7 million acres currently governed by the national Rule, retaining about 13 million acres. I mention it only because USDA itself identified approaches less sweeping than complete rescission. The economic analysis requires clarification. Its table labels $9.9 million to $22 million as annual timber benefits to society, while its narrative describes that amount as industry revenue and estimates producer surplus at $4.6 million to $10.6 million. USDA should reconcile those descriptions. USDA estimates that keeping existing roads and bridges in good repair would require $1.6 billion annually, compared with $270 million in FY2023 funding. Annual maintenance is estimated at $5,000 to $50,000 per mile. USDA should disclose expected additional mileage, funding, maintenance responsibility, backlog effects, and decommissioning costs—or explain how those uncertainties were considered. USDA says rescission would not itself authorize a particular road or timber sale, but it also identifies additional road construction and timber harvest as reasonably foreseeable. Later project review cannot recreate the national standard after rescission. The final analysis should address fragmentation, invasive species, watershed alteration, recreation settings, and wildlife connectivity. The DEIS reports that 40 percent of Pacific Northwest surface waters in the affected analysis are impaired. USDA should disclose regional consequences for water supplies, salmonid habitat, mature and old forest, wildfire ignitions, and habitat connectivity. The Tribal Summary reports that, as of December 5, 2025, the majority sentiment among consulted Tribal governments opposed rescission. Concerns included sovereignty, cultural sites, traditional foods, water quality, subsistence resources, and repeated project-level review. USDA should explain how consultation affected the proposal and address those concerns at the same policy scale. It should also assess significant reliance interests created during the Rule’s operation. I request that USDA select Alternative 1, No Action, and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I do not endorse Alternative 3 as a substitute. Before issuing a final rule, USDA should address prior findings, foreseeable effects, reliance interests, Tribal concerns, costs, and acknowledged uncertainties. Thank you for considering my comments. Respectfully submitted, Ken Rawles Vida, Oregon

Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation RIN 0596-AD66 | Docket FS-2025-0001 | 91 FR 53827 I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask the Department to withdraw it. My full comment is attached. The Department already knows what the public thinks. Its own preamble reports that the 2025 notice of intent drew more than 220,000 comment letters on behalf of over 625,000 individuals and organizations in twenty-one days, and that "the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition." Independent analysis found opposition above 99 percent of unique submitters. A December 2025 national poll by Susquehanna Polling and Research for The Pew Charitable Trusts found likely voters support the Roadless Rule 76 to 13 percent, with support highest among Republicans at 77 percent; 87 percent said national forest areas should be kept mostly undeveloped and intact, against 7 percent favoring more timber production and roads. The rule being rescinded was adopted on the largest public record in this agency's history: 600-plus hearings and over 1.6 million comments. I ask the final rule to state plainly what public support the Department believes exists for this action, and to identify the evidence for it. Notice-and-comment is not a referendum, and I do not ask the Department to treat it as one. But this record is evidence the APA requires the Department to engage: of the reliance interests it must weigh in reversing a settled policy, of the public values MUSYA and NFMA require it to consider, and of the 2001 factual findings it must confront before abandoning them. The attached comment sets out 49 reasons. The principal ones: Rescission is unnecessary. The preamble itself notes that any State or Tribe may petition for tailored roadless provisions under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7 CFR 1.28. Idaho and Colorado did exactly that, and this proposal preserves both state rules. Local flexibility does not require eliminating the national baseline. The legal questions are settled. The rule was challenged in the Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits and prevailed in each; the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2012. No challenge to the 2001 Rule has ever succeeded on final judgment. The suits that did succeed struck down attempts to weaken it, including Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), which held the 2003 Tongass exemption arbitrary and capricious precisely because the Department reversed its own 2001 findings without explanation. That is the defect in this proposal, on a national scale. The preamble cites that litigation history as a reason to rescind; it shows the opposite. The economics do not work. The Department projects $5.2-11.4 million per year to the Treasury from timber, against roughly $6.1 million in annual recreation losses and a conceded $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges. It calls the rule economically significant under E.O. 12866 and says impacts "could exceed $100 million," yet certifies no significant impact on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Those findings need reconciling. The wildfire rationale is self-contradicting. The preamble concedes "greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential." Only 24 percent of inventoried roadless acres overlap the wildland-urban interface, so a nationwide rescission is far broader than the stated community-protection purpose requires. The current rule already allows fire and fuels work. The NEPA analysis is segmented. The Department concedes that subsequent plan amendments "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," then declares those effects beyond scope while soliciting comment on them. It also declines to fully analyze the No Action, Strengthened Roadless Rule, and Traditional Homelands alternatives commenters requested. Tribal consultation is unfinished. Of 64 requests, 34 were scheduled and 29 held. The final Tribal Impact Summary Statement is to issue with the final rule, after comment closes, so neither Tribes nor the public can comment on it. The ANILCA 810 subsistence analysis is likewise outside this period. I ask the Department to withdraw the rule; failing that, to select No Action, fully analyze the requested alternatives and foreseeable plan amendments, publish the Tribal and subsistence analyses for comment before any final rule, reconcile its economic findings, confront its 2001 findings and the reliance built on them, and use the existing petition process for documented local needs. I have hiked the entirety of the Pacific Crest Trail and the Tahoe Rim Trail and explored National Forests in more than twenty states. Much of that ground was inventoried roadless area. These places are drinking water, habitat, and the last unfragmented country we have, and there is no process that makes more of them.

To the Department of Agriculture: As someone who has used roadless national forest in multiple regions and in multiple seasons, I am submitting these comments to establish that the public value the 2001 Rule has protected is observable, documented, and not recoverable once road infrastructure has been authorized and constructed within currently protected areas. I remember walking with my husband on some of our very first dates in Cheaha park and now we love to take our children. Sitting at the top of the lookout always felt like stepping back in time and getting away from all of the stress of modern life. My family loves to hike the area and bulldozed roadbeds would ruin those experiences. Regarding the Cheaha B in the Talladega National Forest, Alabama: “In 2001 the Agency Found These Prohibitions Benefited Listed Species; the Rescission Never Engages Its Own Prior Finding Both Draft Biological Assessments open with the same acknowledgment (USFWS BA p. 10; NMFS BA p. 7): "In the promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Forest Service found that the Rule's prohibitions on road construction and timber harvest were not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated or critical habitat; were not likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat; and may beneficially affect threatened, endangered, and proposed species and critical habitat… The Services concurred with the determination." The agency thus stands on a concurred-in finding that the prohibitions it now proposes to delete benefit listed species — and the current assessments anticipate widespread adverse effects from deleting them. When an agency reverses course, it "must show that there are good reasons for the new policy," FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009), and where the prior policy rested on factual findings, it may not simply disregard them — the principle applied to this very rule's Tongass history in Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–68 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Neither the DEIS nor the assessments explain what changed in the biology. I request the FEIS directly address the 2001 beneficial-effect finding and state the factual basis for departing from it.” “Road networks cause habitat fragmentation and create edges with high resource availability that can act as important channels for the spread of invasive alien plants in various habitats, including nature reserves. In natural secondary forests, species richness, density and the proportion of invasive species significantly decreased with distance from the road; natural secondary forests contained only 5 invasive versus 67 native species, yet invasive species were concentrated near road edges. Human-induced changes to environmental conditions along roadsides increase soil moisture, soil disturbance, soil nutrients, exposure to sun and soil temperature, all of which are factors known to promote plant invasions. — Diversity and Distributions / Wiley Online Library, 2025 (https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.70002)” The Analysis Concedes Recreation Losses Are "Most Likely," Quantifies Them as Costs, and Cannot Even Count the Visitors at Risk The Economic Analysis concedes at page 25: "In the long-term, any changes in aggregate economic benefit to recreationists that occur under the proposed rule are most likely to be losses because timber harvest and road construction is anticipated to negatively change the recreation settings and opportunities for trail-based and dispersed area recreation within potentially affected IRAs… The magnitude of those losses is unknown." At page 30 it books real costs: "Costs include forgone recreation benefits (minimum of $6.1 million annually) and forgone passive use values ($5.3 to $11.5 million annually) from increases in timber harvest in roadless areas." At page 28 it concedes the mechanism: "The construction and use of roads can degrade the unique characteristics of roadless areas… leading to loss of conservation values… These impacts from road development could negatively impact tourism and outdoor recreation." And at page 16 it admits it cannot even measure the exposure: "The number of recreation visits to IRAs is unknown and, thus, the recreation visitor spending in local communities associated with IRA recreation cannot be directly quantified." Certain-direction losses of unknown and unmeasured magnitude are precisely what NEPA requires an agency to analyze rather than wave through. Robertson, 490 U.S. 332; State Farm, 463 U.S. 29. I request the FEIS quantify recreation exposure (visitation and spending) in affected IRAs before relying on an analysis that concedes losses it cannot measure. When this process is over, I want the Roadless Rule still standing. I'm filing this comment to help make that happen. Most respectfully, CommentID: RLC-20260909-GQZC8R

To the USDA Roadless Rule Rulemaking Team: As a conservationist, I track public land outcomes, not just rules. The Roadless Rule's outcomes have been good. Rescinding it ends them. Since I was a kid I’ve wanted to explore public lands which lead me to making a career out of it. I’ve seen how special these places can be for generations of people and wildlife. You can’t recreate these places once they are gone. Losing more public land protections is going to affect not just me, but future generations from being able to explore these spaces. Regarding the Williams Fork Ptarmingan Adjacent in the Arapaho & Roosevelt NFs, Colorado: Alpine Tundra Habitat for White-tailed Ptarmigan — The roadless area encompasses Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra at elevations above 11,800 feet, providing the specialized habitat that white-tailed ptarmigan depend on year-round. Colorado populations of this species have declined significantly since the 1970s, and the area's intact alpine ecosystem—with its characteristic low-growing vegetation and minimal disturbance—represents critical refuge as climate warming pushes treeline upward and reduces available tundra. Loss of connectivity between alpine patches through habitat fragmentation would isolate remaining ptarmigan populations and accelerate local extinctions. Roadless areas fill gaps in the existing protected-area network. Adding all Inventoried Roadless Areas to the U.S. protected-area system would reduce the number of imperiled wildlife species considered "poorly represented" in protected areas by 38 species. Roadless areas particularly increase representation of underprotected ecosystem types, including temperate grasslands (+57%) and cool temperate forests (+52%) (Talty et al. 2020; Dietz et al. 2021). — Talty et al., 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288); Belote, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288); Dietz et al., 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943); UNKNOWN, 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Williams Fork Ptarmingan Adjacent, Arapaho & Roosevelt NFs to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. Removing the protections of the Roadless Rule would be heartbreaking. The habitat and species that could be destroyed… we only have so few of these protected spaces left. Why take them away to? In 2001 the Agency Found These Prohibitions Benefited Listed Species; the Rescission Never Engages Its Own Prior Finding Both Draft Biological Assessments open with the same acknowledgment (USFWS BA p. 10; NMFS BA p. 7): "In the promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Forest Service found that the Rule's prohibitions on road construction and timber harvest were not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated or critical habitat; were not likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat; and may beneficially affect threatened, endangered, and proposed species and critical habitat… The Services concurred with the determination." The agency thus stands on a concurred-in finding that the prohibitions it now proposes to delete benefit listed species — and the current assessments anticipate widespread adverse effects from deleting them. When an agency reverses course, it "must show that there are good reasons for the new policy," FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009), and where the prior policy rested on factual findings, it may not simply disregard them — the principle applied to this very rule's Tongass history in Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–68 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Neither the DEIS nor the assessments explain what changed in the biology. I request the FEIS directly address the 2001 beneficial-effect finding and state the factual basis for departing from it. Keep the protections, please. With thanks, Kyla Nurkowski

I oppose USDA’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001) & urge the USFS to select the No Action Alternative. This is not an abstract issue for me. I’ve lived in WNC for 35 years & have always used these mountains & forests. I hike/recreate on these public lands weekly. Their roadless character—the solitude, clean streams, intact forest, wildlife habitat, scenery, & absence of development is precisely what I use/value. My past & future use of these lands is publicly documented on my Insta account.⁷ The Nantahala & Pisgah National Forests contain approximately 152,488 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs).¹ The current Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan recognizes their undeveloped character & value for wildlife, biological diversity, & dispersed recreation. Critically, that plan expressly states that IRAs are governed by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule & directs that the undeveloped character be retained.² USDA should not assume that individual forest plans are an equivalent substitute for the national rule. The current local plan was written against a regulatory baseline in which the Roadless Rule (RR) exists. Before rescission, USDA should identify exactly what protections survive independently, which depend upon the RR, & whether remaining protections would actually be equivalent. The issue is urgent after Hurricane Helene. The Forest Service documented winds over 100 mph, washed-out roads,trails, extensive treefall, & hundreds of miles of blocked roads.³ Recovery is ongoing. WNC is not entering this rulemaking from an undisturbed environmental baseline. More roads & associated timber activity can create erosion, runoff, stream crossings, culvert/drainage impacts, & long-term obligations. USFS research specifically recognizes forest roads as potentially major sources of erosion & stream sediment.⁴ Risks are particularly consequential in this area following Helene’s landslides, debris flows, erosion, stream alteration, & slope disturbance. These forests are drinking-water infrastructure. USFS’ current plan states that many WNC communities obtain more than 50% of their municipal water from the Nantahala & Pisgah National Forests.**² USDA should specifically evaluate overlap between IRAs & source-water watersheds & analyze the cumulative effects of new roads, timber ops, & associated soil disturbance with Helene watershed damage. APA also requires reasoned decisionmaking when an agency rescinds existing regulation. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (‘83),Supreme Court held regulatory rescission subject to arbitrary-&-capricious review & requires the agency to consider important aspects of the problem & provide reasoned explanation.⁵ FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (‘09), Court further explains when a policy change contradicts prior factual findings or implicates serious reliance interests, those matters must be addressed.⁵ That principle has been applied specifically to the RR. Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. ‘15)(en banc), USDA’s Tongass exemption was invalidated due to the agency failed adequately to explain its reversal of previous facts.⁶ Although persuasive rather than controlling precedent in North Carolina, Kake applies State Farm & Fox to this same agency & same RR. Existing RR also contains exceptions for public health/safety, catastrophe, restoration, existing rights, & other specified circumstances.² If USDA believes provisions impede necessary forest-health or emergency work, it should consider targeted amendments, not wholesale rescission of nationwide protections. I also ask USDA to consider my interest personally. I continue weekly use. If these forests lose their roadlessness, my injury would be direct & cannot be remedied by the existence of other public land. A roadless forest is itself a public resource. Solitude is a use. Backcountry recreation is a use. Clean water is a use. Wildlife habitat is a use. Multiple use does not require every use on every acre. For these reasons, as a WNC resident with documented, longstanding use, I strongly urge USDA to retain 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. ¹ USDA Forest Service, Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (2014) (152,488 IRA acres). ² USDA Forest Service, Final Land Management Plan, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, R8-MB-160 (2023). ³ USDA Forest Service, Wildfire in Wake of Hurricane Helene (2025). ⁴ USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Grace, Modeling Erosion from Forest Roads with WEPP (2007); Kochenderfer, Erosion Control on Logging Roads in the Appalachians, RP NE-158 (1970). ⁵ Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 41–57 (1983); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 514–16 (2009). ⁶ Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–70 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

To the U.S. Forest Service: I have grown up in an area surrounded by wilderness protected by the Roadless Rule. These lands are a huge draw for people to visit and live in the area as they provide innumerable opportunities for hiking, backpacking, fishing, hurting, paddling, whitewater rafting, and just spending a day by the river or in the woods alone. Rescission of this rule would cause a loss of habitat for plants and animals and a source of recreation for humans that will never be able to be replaced I have spent 33 years in these forests protected by the Roadless Rule, they are precious to me and many people I know. As a 9 year old with my family, I backpacked 35 miles of the Foothills Trail which introduced me to the wild beauty of the wilderness of Upstate South Carolina. We planned this 3 day trip specifically to connect with nature and each other, away from "real" life and its distractions. If this rule was rescinded, I would lose access to the beauty of areas where I regularly hike and spend time on the river (or those areas would be degradated as a consequence). My 80 year old father also spends the equivalent of weeks out there each year, drawn by their peace and quiet. We are risking the loss of connection to ourselves by rescinding this rule, as well as risking the lives and well being of countless species of plants and animals who call it home. “In 2001 the Agency Found These Prohibitions Benefited Listed Species; the Rescission Never Engages Its Own Prior Finding Both Draft Biological Assessments open with the same acknowledgment (USFWS BA p. 10; NMFS BA p. 7): "In the promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Forest Service found that the Rule's prohibitions on road construction and timber harvest were not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated or critical habitat; were not likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat; and may beneficially affect threatened, endangered, and proposed species and critical habitat… The Services concurred with the determination." The agency thus stands on a concurred-in finding that the prohibitions it now proposes to delete benefit listed species — and the current assessments anticipate widespread adverse effects from deleting them. When an agency reverses course, it "must show that there are good reasons for the new policy," FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009), and where the prior policy rested on factual findings, it may not simply disregard them — the principle applied to this very rule's Tongass history in Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–68 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Neither the DEIS nor the assessments explain what changed in the biology. I request the FEIS directly address the 2001 beneficial-effect finding and state the factual basis for departing from it.” “On the topic of the Forest Service's claim that this action would reduce fires: The Draft EIS reports that "77 percent and 74 percent were reported as naturally ignited in wilderness areas and potentially affected IRAs, respectively," while "the majority (57 percent) of fires with cause determinations on other NFS lands were reported as human caused" (Environmental Impacts, Wildfire Occurrence section), yet no dataset or cause-determination methodology is cited to support either figure. These percentages materially qualify the fire-risk rationale for opening IRAs to road construction, since a peer-reviewed 2026 study found ignition density highest within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires/1000 ha) and lowest in wilderness and roadless areas (1.75 and 1.97 fires/1000 ha respectively) — evidence directly bearing on whether expanded road access would increase, not decrease, fire risk. Did the agency consider this or comparable ignition-density research, and if so, where does the record explain its rejection? An agency must rely on accurate, disclosed data rather than unsupported statistics. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998). I request the agency cite its fire-occurrence dataset and cause-determination methodology and reconcile it with contrary ignition-density findings.” The Department should keep the Roadless Rule in place. I think the record supports that, and so does the public. Respectfully submitted, CommentID: RLC-20260904-JTO8PV

I oppose USDA’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001) & urge the USFS to select the No Action Alternative. This is not an abstract issue for me. I’ve lived in WNC for 35 years & have always used these mountains & forests. I hike/recreate on these public lands weekly. Their roadless character—the solitude, clean streams, intact forest, wildlife habitat, scenery, & absence of development is precisely what I use/value. My past & future use of these lands is publicly documented on my Insta account.⁷ The Nantahala & Pisgah National Forests contain approximately 152,488 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs).¹ The current Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan recognizes their undeveloped character & value for wildlife, biological diversity, & dispersed recreation. Critically, that plan expressly states that IRAs are governed by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule & directs that the undeveloped character be retained.² USDA should not assume that individual forest plans are an equivalent substitute for the national rule. The current local plan was written against a regulatory baseline in which the Roadless Rule (RR) exists. Before rescission, USDA should identify exactly what protections survive independently, which depend upon the RR, & whether remaining protections would actually be equivalent. The issue is urgent after Hurricane Helene. The Forest Service documented winds over 100 mph, washed-out roads,trails, extensive treefall, & hundreds of miles of blocked roads.³ Recovery is ongoing. WNC is not entering this rulemaking from an undisturbed environmental baseline. More roads & associated timber activity can create erosion, runoff, stream crossings, culvert/drainage impacts, & long-term obligations. USFS research specifically recognizes forest roads as potentially major sources of erosion & stream sediment.⁴ Risks are particularly consequential in this area following Helene’s landslides, debris flows, erosion, stream alteration, & slope disturbance. These forests are drinking-water infrastructure. USFS’ current plan states that many WNC communities obtain more than 50% of their municipal water from the Nantahala & Pisgah National Forests.**² USDA should specifically evaluate overlap between IRAs & source-water watersheds & analyze the cumulative effects of new roads, timber ops, & associated soil disturbance with Helene watershed damage. APA also requires reasoned decisionmaking when an agency rescinds existing regulation. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (‘83),Supreme Court held regulatory rescission subject to arbitrary-&-capricious review & requires the agency to consider important aspects of the problem & provide reasoned explanation.⁵ FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (‘09), Court further explains when a policy change contradicts prior factual findings or implicates serious reliance interests, those matters must be addressed.⁵ That principle has been applied specifically to the RR. Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. ‘15)(en banc), USDA’s Tongass exemption was invalidated due to the agency failed adequately to explain its reversal of previous facts.⁶ Although persuasive rather than controlling precedent in North Carolina, Kake applies State Farm & Fox to this same agency & same RR. Existing RR also contains exceptions for public health/safety, catastrophe, restoration, existing rights, & other specified circumstances.² If USDA believes provisions impede necessary forest-health or emergency work, it should consider targeted amendments, not wholesale rescission of nationwide protections. I also ask USDA to consider my interest personally. I continue weekly use. If these forests lose their roadlessness, my injury would be direct & cannot be remedied by the existence of other public land. A roadless forest is itself a public resource. Solitude is a use. Backcountry recreation is a use. Clean water is a use. Wildlife habitat is a use. Multiple use does not require every use on every acre. For these reasons, as a WNC resident with documented, longstanding use, I strongly urge USDA to retain 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. ¹ USDA Forest Service, Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (2014) (152,488 IRA acres). ² USDA Forest Service, Final Land Management Plan, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, R8-MB-160 (2023). ³ USDA Forest Service, Wildfire in Wake of Hurricane Helene (2025). ⁴ USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Grace, Modeling Erosion from Forest Roads with WEPP (2007); Kochenderfer, Erosion Control on Logging Roads in the Appalachians, RP NE-158 (1970). ⁵ Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 41–57 (1983); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 514–16 (2009). ⁶ Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–70 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). ⁷https://www.instagram.com/j_mess91