Read the comments.

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As a trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences. As someone who not only recreates in Roadless Areas, but also works within the mountain biking and trail industry, I have witnessed firsthand how special these spaces are. Pisgah National Forest was one of the first places I got to experience mountain biking in a remote area and it was an adventure unlike any other. I continue to travel back and know so many individuals who travel from all over the country to experience the Pisgah trails, and other Roadless Areas, for the adventure and memories they provide. We need to protect these experiences for future generations while we still can. Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon. The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, Madison Taylor Lane

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences. While our forests may need better prescribed burns to make them healthy, this current government has shown zero signs of doing things for the benefit of our land. Hands off our land, you’ve lost your priveledge of touching it.

Brief summary of my letter, attached: I am submitting these formal comments to express my unequivocal opposition to the Department of Agriculture and Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001; 90 Fed. Reg. 42179). I write as an applied natural resource economist with nearly 40 years of academic research and field experience examining the complex relationships between public land policy, natural ecosystem functioning, and regional economic development. As a resident of Virginia's Shenandoah Valley—situated directly between the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests—and as the author of several empirical research reports on the economics of public lands conservation (e.g., Virginia's National Forests and the Virginia Economy, 2002; Windfalls for Wilderness: Land Protection and Land Value in the Green Mountains, 2000; et al.) I have studied firsthand how forest conservation drives sustainable prosperity across rural communities in the Appalachians and across the United States. From an applied economic and public policy perspective, the Forest Service’s proposal to dismantle nationwide protections across 44.7 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) is economically inefficient, fiscally irresponsible, and analytically unsupportable. The agency’s justification rests on two demonstrably false premises: first, that opening IRAs to road construction and commercial logging is necessary to expand domestic timber supply and stimulate rural economies; and second, that road building is required to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk. As demonstrated by the Forest Service’s own official Cost-Benefit Analysis (USDA Forest Service, 2025b) and 33-year empirical fire datasets (Aplet et al., 2025), repealing the Roadless Rule will: - Yield a negligible, less-than-trivial contribution to national and state timber supplies while incurring high, below-cost extraction expenditures; -Severely exacerbate an existing $7 billion to $10 billion road deferred maintenance backlog for an agency that currently receives less than 20% of necessary annual road upkeep funding; - Liquidate billions of dollars in high-value ecosystem services, including clean drinking water filtration, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, and municipal watershed protection; - Degrade the natural amenity assets that drive modern rural population growth, high-wage employment, and private property value enhancement; and - Directly increase wildfire ignition risks by extending road access—the primary vector for human-caused ignitions—into currently intact, low-ignition forest interiors. Furthermore, the agency’s rulemaking notice violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order 12866 by failing to evaluate "cumulative impacts" and "reasonably foreseeable" site-specific harms, while presenting a Cost-Benefit Analysis that reveals a negative Net Present Value (NPV) of up to -$92 million (USDA Forest Service, 2025b). I therefore urge the Department to withdraw this flawed rulemaking immediately. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule represents an unjustified economic and fiscal misstep. It liquidates high-value, self-sustaining natural capital—clean water, carbon storage, backcountry recreation, and amenity-driven regional growth—to deliver a fractional, below-cost timber volume while expanding a road network that the Forest Service cannot afford to maintain and that directly increases wildfire risk. I formally request that the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service: + Immediately withdraw Docket No. FS-2025-0001 and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety; + If the agency proceeds, prepare a comprehensive Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 that fully quantifies non-market ecosystem service losses, passive use values, and long-term road maintenance liabilities; and + Remedy the fundamental legal and analytical deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) by conducting a thorough, site-specific "hard look" at cumulative environmental impacts, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and watershed degradation across individual Inventoried Roadless Areas, rather than unlawfully deferring site-specific analysis to future project-level decisions. -Spencer Phillips, PhD, Staunton, Virginia

Brief summary of my letter, attached: I am submitting these formal comments to express my unequivocal opposition to the Department of Agriculture and Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001; 90 Fed. Reg. 42179). I write as an applied natural resource economist with nearly 40 years of academic research and field experience examining the complex relationships between public land policy, natural ecosystem functioning, and regional economic development. As a resident of Virginia's Shenandoah Valley—situated directly between the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests—and as the author of several empirical research reports on the economics of public lands conservation (e.g., Virginia's National Forests and the Virginia Economy, 2002; Windfalls for Wilderness: Land Protection and Land Value in the Green Mountains, 2000; et al.) I have studied firsthand how forest conservation drives sustainable prosperity across rural communities in the Appalachians and across the United States. From an applied economic and public policy perspective, the Forest Service’s proposal to dismantle nationwide protections across 44.7 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) is economically inefficient, fiscally irresponsible, and analytically unsupportable. The agency’s justification rests on two demonstrably false premises: first, that opening IRAs to road construction and commercial logging is necessary to expand domestic timber supply and stimulate rural economies; and second, that road building is required to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk. As demonstrated by the Forest Service’s own official Cost-Benefit Analysis (USDA Forest Service, 2025b) and 33-year empirical fire datasets (Aplet et al., 2025), repealing the Roadless Rule will: - Yield a negligible, less-than-trivial contribution to national and state timber supplies while incurring high, below-cost extraction expenditures; -Severely exacerbate an existing $7 billion to $10 billion road deferred maintenance backlog for an agency that currently receives less than 20% of necessary annual road upkeep funding; - Liquidate billions of dollars in high-value ecosystem services, including clean drinking water filtration, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, and municipal watershed protection; - Degrade the natural amenity assets that drive modern rural population growth, high-wage employment, and private property value enhancement; and - Directly increase wildfire ignition risks by extending road access—the primary vector for human-caused ignitions—into currently intact, low-ignition forest interiors. Furthermore, the agency’s rulemaking notice violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order 12866 by failing to evaluate "cumulative impacts" and "reasonably foreseeable" site-specific harms, while presenting a Cost-Benefit Analysis that reveals a negative Net Present Value (NPV) of up to -$92 million (USDA Forest Service, 2025b). I therefore urge the Department to withdraw this flawed rulemaking immediately. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule represents an unjustified economic and fiscal misstep. It liquidates high-value, self-sustaining natural capital—clean water, carbon storage, backcountry recreation, and amenity-driven regional growth—to deliver a fractional, below-cost timber volume while expanding a road network that the Forest Service cannot afford to maintain and that directly increases wildfire risk. I formally request that the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service: + Immediately withdraw Docket No. FS-2025-0001 and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety; + If the agency proceeds, prepare a comprehensive Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 that fully quantifies non-market ecosystem service losses, passive use values, and long-term road maintenance liabilities; and + Remedy the fundamental legal and analytical deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) by conducting a thorough, site-specific "hard look" at cumulative environmental impacts, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and watershed degradation across individual Inventoried Roadless Areas, rather than unlawfully deferring site-specific analysis to future project-level decisions. -Spencer Phillips, PhD, Staunton, Virginia See attached file(s)

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences. My connection to the Pisgah National Forest is deeply personal. I chose to live in Brevard because of its extraordinary access to the Pisgah National Forest and, in particular, its world-class mountain biking trail network. The opportunity to ride from our community into an extensive network of natural, backcountry trails is a defining part of what makes Brevard special and one of the primary reasons I call this area home. Mountain biking and outdoor recreation are also a significant economic engine for Brevard and the surrounding communities. The Pisgah trail network attracts riders and other outdoor enthusiasts from throughout the country, supporting local businesses, restaurants, lodging, bike shops, guides, and other tourism-related businesses. The value of these public lands therefore extends well beyond the trails themselves—they help sustain the character, quality of life, and economic vitality of our community. For me, protecting the roadless character of these lands is about preserving something that cannot be recreated once it is lost. The primitive setting, interconnected trail experience, intact forests, and natural watersheds are precisely what make riding in Pisgah so exceptional. I want future residents and visitors to have the same opportunity to experience these places in their natural state that influenced my decision to make Brevard my home. Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon. The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.

This comment is in response to Docket (FS-2025-0001) Document ID: FS-2025-0001-223869 Rescinding the Roadless Rule and opening up our National Forests to logging, mining, and other destructive pillaging is a tremendously horrible idea. We have many managed timber land that should provide plenty of supply. I drive my many timber yards in Oregon and Washington where large piles of timber continue to sit unused and unmilled. The thousands of trees that once stood tall, created shelter for wildlife, and a refuge from daily life now lifeless piles of wood. Perhaps if we weren't in a trade war with Canada, their abundance could offset when our domestic supply is not matching demand, but the Trump Administration continues picking fights with our allies, neighbors, and dependable trading partner. Mining these USFS lands for oil or gas is also ridiculous. The majority of the land currently protected in Oregon is in the Cascade Mountain range, semi-extinct volcanoes. Although "semi-extinct" feels like an understatement when many of them are monitored for tremors and have active sulfur spouts. Mining these areas would be dangerous and based on your own study, would likely yield too little and be too costly. Maybe if we didn't start a pointless war with Iran and bomb their oil fields and oil tankers there would be plenty of petroleum supply to keep gas prices down. Ideally we wouldn't be dependent on fossil fuels, a non-renewable resource that we have to constantly drill and pillage the Earth to satiate our modern conveniences. I recreate in these areas that you want to log and mine. The Columbia Gorge is basically my backyard and continues to awe me in its natural beauty every time we drive down 84. I snowshoe White River Sno Park every year on bluebird days along with hundreds of other Oregonians taking their kids to sled. We were just camping at Cinder Hill campground at Paulina Peak and Cultus Lake where we celebrated the Fourth of July, red and blue voters sitting side by side enjoying the water. Or the annual girl glamping trip to Lost Lake Resort, where you want to remove protections to likely log the western half of the hillside increasing its already high risk of rockslides and destroying one of the most photographed spots in Oregon. But it doesn't have to impact me for me to care about it. I want there to be natural beauty for the next generation to enjoy even though I don't have kids of my own. I want them to make memories with their parents camping in these wild places. I want them to experience the beauty I have seen across this great and beautiful country. We need to continue to protect these lands because there is so little left to protect. In your own document, you contradict your purpose to rescind the Roadless Rule, the idea that it would prevent wildfires, because it won't. Many studies have shown that clear cuts, especially ones with brush piles left sitting for decades, usually with a bit of thin plastic on top, are just creating even more kindling and drying out our soil and air by removing the trees to begin with. "Wildfire risk. While greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential in some locations..." This proposal is really to sell our public lands to the highest bidders to pillage and leave a wasteland in their wake. Making the rich richer and the rest of us just trying to survive. Someday we will have cut our last tree and mined our last well to realize we have destroyed all that was beautiful and our reason for living. "Minerals and Energy. Under this proposed rule, there is additional flexibility for potential future leasable mineral development (primarily oil, gas, and coal) opportunities and it is reasonably foreseeable that some development could occur in potentially affected inventoried roadless areas, resulting in associated costs and benefits. Some industries, including recreation and tourism, could experience trade-offs as a result of the proposed rule... estimated $6.1 million annually" You have already heard from hundreds of thousands of us in 2025, but you ignore your citizens when billionaires are involved. "On August 29, 2025, the USDA published in the Federal Register a notice of intent (90 FR 42179) to prepare an environmental impact statement and rulemaking concerning the management of inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. During a 21-day public comment period, the USDA received more than 220,000 comment letters on behalf of over 625,000 individuals and organizations." Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule and keep public lands in public hands. Allison Mendenhall Portland, Oregon

Re: Docket ID FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 - Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (91 FR 53827, Aug. 20, 2026) To the Forest Service (Attn: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination): I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294, Subpart B) and to request that USDA select the No Action alternative in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, retaining the rule in its entirety. Who I am: a Montana resident and lifelong backcountry hiker, hunter, and angler. I come from a multi-generation Montana hunting and fishing family; my father is a professional forester, and I grew up recreating in the inventoried roadless areas addressed by this rule. My comment draws on direct, sustained experience with these specific landscapes. What is proposed: USDA proposes to remove and reserve Subpart B in its entirety (91 FR 53831-53832), returning management of all 58.5M acres of inventoried roadless areas to individual national forest land management. The stated rationale (91 FR 53828-53829, "Rationale for the Proposal") is that a single national prohibition limits local flexibility to address wildfire risk, insect and disease outbreaks, and wildland-urban interface (WUI) protection. My experience with these specific lands: Last July, I backpacked for 4 days with my family into the Quigg Peak inventoried roadless area in the Lolo National Forest. We camped in a valley with lush green waist-high vegetation. A creek in the center of the valley tumbled and sang over the rocks. We saw no one around our campsite for miles. As a child, I harvested deer and elk with my father in this same country and the neighboring Silver King and Quigg Peak roadless areas. Coming home to those places, unchanged, is priceless. These areas provide critical summer and winter range for elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep, and they feed cold, clean water into Rock Creek, which supports outfitters, trail-ride operators, and fly-fishing guides whose livelihoods depend on that fishery. The wildfire rationale is not evidence-based and does not align with the agency's own analysis. The Summary of Potential Impacts (91 FR 53829) states that only 9.8M acres (24 percent) of potentially affected roadless acreage overlaps with the wildland-urban interface. If community protection from wildfire is the actual goal, that WUI overlap is where resources should be targeted, not a blanket rescission covering the other 76 percent of acres. The document also acknowledges (91 FR 53829) that greater public access can increase human-caused ignition potential, meaning new roads add fire risk. Separately, the same section notes a $6.9B existing deferred maintenance backlog on Forest Service roads and bridges, which undercuts the claim that new road access is a realistic fire-management tool in the near future. The economic case for rescission is marginal and would harm recreation-dependent communities. USDA's own cost-benefit analysis (91 FR 53830, "Summary of Potential Impacts") projects $4.6M to $10.6M yearly in timber revenue gains, against an estimated $6.1M yearly loss in recreation economic benefit. This trade-off is, by the agency's own math, close to a wash and uncertain both ways. In the Rock Creek drainage, recreation losses would land on guides, outfitters, and small businesses that depend on the health and character of these areas. Tribal consultation does not support this change. USDA's summary (91 FR 53831-53832) states that the majority of Tribes consulted oppose the rule change given how it threatens sovereignty and cultural resources, with several requesting a "Strengthened Roadless Rule" or co-management alternative instead. That should weigh heavily. Requested alternative: I ask USDA to adopt the No Action alternative and retain the 2001 Roadless Rule nationwide. If the agency believes flexibility is warranted, I still oppose full rescission but would find a narrower alternative, limited to fuel-reduction treatment within the already-identified 9.8M-acre WUI overlap, without opening remaining acreage to road construction or timber harvest, less objectionable than the current proposal. Broader public support: My position is not a minority view. Comments on the notice of intent (90 FR 42179) ran more than 99% opposed to rescission among over 625,000 individuals and organizations (91 FR 53831). Independent polls found broad, bipartisan public support for keeping the rule intact. This sort of quiet and isolation is incredibly rare, too rare, today, and irreplaceable if lost. To repeal the Roadless Rule is shortsighted. Such a change does not seek to give but to take and take without reciprocity. Not to expand but to contract the gifts nature seeks to give us. We do not need more roads. We need more places to get lost, to find our way, to feel more wild. Sincerely, Anjeli Doty, EdM, Harvard University Missoula/Seattle area, Montana backcountry recreationist

Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 8 September 2026 Dear Director, The Wyoming Native Plant Society is writing to address the proposed rescinding of the Roadless Rule (90 FR 42179) as posted on 20 August 2026. These comments underscore and update those we submitted on 25 Sept 2025 in response to the initial announcement. It is apparent to our members that this proposed action would promote activities and development that have been historically associated with undermining ecological functions of intact landscapes, threatening whole ecosystems and specific habitats for sensitive and/or threatened plant and animal species and their capacity to contribute to healthy air, soil and water qualities in Wyoming and throughout the western United States. We also maintain that this proposal is not consistent with the stated goal of improving forest management as implied by an act of rescission. Instead, it is proposes rolling back standards, promoting development work detrimental to healthy landscapes. It is based on flawed arguments: roads and logging don’t prevent wildfire but are frequent contributing factors. This is supported by the following facts: Over 7% of the total roadless area is in Wyoming. In 2022, we experienced the biggest fire event in state history, the Mullen Fire, as started by human cause, virtually all outside of roadless inventory area (spanning a number of timber sales). In 2024, Wyoming had the biggest fire year since the Yellowstone Fires that was started by lightning strikes and which burned more acres of private property below the mountains than in roadless inventoried areas of the Bighorn National Forest (3 converging rangeland fires and the Elk Fire, respectively). By contrast, in 2025, with an exceptionally early start to wildfire season, a lightning strike ignited on June 13 in a roadless inventory area of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (Horse Creek Fire) only burned a limited area thanks to the time of year and considerable fire-fighting effort. Wyoming needs its own plan to address Roadless Inventoried lands that span greater than 33% of the 9.2 million acres (about 14,375 mi²) of national forest in our state. Many of Wyoming’s roadless areas represent the “Wildland-Urban Interface” as cases of urban sprawl and accompanying local development pressure. Turning over national decision-making to individual forests jeopardizes the entire process of “giving due consideration to the relative values of the various resources in particular areas” by national standards. A Wyoming plan is also needed to address unique Wyoming conditions as with the mining areas that boomed 150 years ago, creating a multitude of primitive roads which later became national forest in the Shoshone National Forest. Finally, a Wyoming plan is needed to address the many roadless areas that are critical in maintaining designated wilderness landscape intactness. Any change to the current rule has heightened needs for fair and consistent public communication and management planning on the part of the U.S. Forest Service. However, the U.S. Forest Service at the level of each of the eight national forests in Wyoming is least able to address these needs in general or the complexity of coordinating at the wildland-urban interface at any point in its recent history in light of these 2025-26 events: •mass firings in the U.S. Forest Service starting in February 2025, and •massive reorganization of the U.S. Forest Serivce underway (https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/reorganization) as eliminating a regional level of coordination and transferring regional responsibilities to each national forest, while also creating a new level of state offices in locations with virtually no U.S. Forest Service presence. These events created unprecedented turmoil for personnel at all levels of work making it impossible for the Forest Service to fairly implement this proposed action. A recent paper posted by the University of Wyoming (Aragon 2025) presents an interpretation that the risks of the proposed action may exceed the benefits (https://www.uwyo.edu/law/centers/center-for-land-and-water-law/blog/long-road-rescinding-roadless-rule.html ). Any action on the Roadless Rule should be put on hold or only considered insofar as States demonstrate the capacity for addressing plans that in turn, are approved by Congress. Sincerely, Lyle King, Conservation Committee Wyoming Native Plant Society

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, I have enjoyed mountain biking throughout the southeastern United States for ave thiry years, often within areas that are currently protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule. In my opinion there is no legitimate purpose to rescind the rule, most DEFINITELY NOT TO FURTHER CORPORATE PROFITEERING ON PUBLIC LAND. While corporate profits and executive pay have exploded, our most precious natural resources (clean air, clean water, mature forests, biodiversity) are under constant and escalating attack. It is our personal and governmental imperative to protect these beautiful places and direct corporations to repair the public lands they have already spoiled! I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences. Please DO THE RIGHT THING. Your grandchildren will thank you.

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking experiences.

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, I am a business owner employing over 250 people in North Georgia. I am also Executive Director of the non-profit Prima Tappa Athletic Club that builds and maintains mountain bike trails. To date we've constructed 3 trails to IMBA standards totaling 14 miles. My non-profit also fosters the creation of community mountain bike programs for elementary aged students and middle & high school teams for high schools through the statewide GeorgiaCycling.org non-profit for which I'm on the board. We currently practice 10 teams (150+ students) from the northeast Georgia area alone. Our elementary program had 45 students in the spring program. I work with over 40 volunteer coaches and parents to make all this happen. I say all this so that you know I'm a true advocate for the outdoors and its preservation. Our youth development programs bring students out of their rooms and into the world. It's growing. People are longing for this alternative to traditional youth sports. After reading the proposed rule I would like you to know that the company and non-profits I represent support “No Action” alternative in the current DEIS. Thank you for the great work you already do!

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an active trail advocate, mountain biker, and member of the Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association (SORBA), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry mountain biking and hiking experiences. As someone who regularly rides the backcountry trails in the Pisgah & Cherokee National Forest, these Roadless Areas offer a remote, high-quality riding & hiking experience that cannot be replicated on developed lands. Protecting these corridors ensures future generations of trail users can enjoy the same primitive, pristine environment. Rescinding the 2001 Rule threatens to open these prized lands to road construction and resource extraction, risking the integrity of beloved non-motorized trail networks, increasing the spread of invasive species, and damaging the outdoor recreation economy that local communities rely upon. The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Subject: Public Comment Supporting the “No Action” Alternative – Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: USDA Forest Service Planning Team Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (90 FR 42179) Dear USDA Forest Service Planning Team, As an outdoor enthusiast and someone who cares deeply about our national forests, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to select the “No Action” alternative, maintaining the vital protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) protect intact watersheds, preserve natural landscapes, prevent harmful forest fragmentation, and safeguard irreplaceable backcountry experiences. My connection with the outdoors began as a Boy Scout camping and backpacking in East Tennessee. The tranquil, reverent experience you feel in the deep woods cannot be replicated. And the damage done by roads cannot be undone. The Forest Service should prioritize protecting these unique backcountry spaces. Please uphold existing protections and adopt the “No Action” alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement.