Read the comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a young adult living in SF and working in tech which already has impact on the environment, I find it highly important to protect and ensure that wildlife and plant communities as well as endangered species have a space to thrive and grow. We need to protect that. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. We are lucky to share space with so many creatures and nature in general, we live in unprecedented times and protecting wildlife and our balance with the world is important so we are able to foster generations to come. The animals and nature play an important part in keeping the world balanced and we need to help where we can and give them space to thrive. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a college instructor in the San Francisco Bay Area, I care deeply about protecting the diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities that are an essential part of our natural environment. I believe we have a responsibility to preserve safe, healthy habitats for endangered and threatened species and to protect the biodiversity that future generations will inherit. I encourage our government to make the protection and restoration of these habitats a priority when making decisions that may affect our environment. Preserving these natural communities is not only important for wildlife and plant species—it is an investment in the long-term health and resilience of our communities and our planet. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. I encourage the USDA to consider my comments because protecting wildlife, native plant communities, and endangered species is essential to maintaining healthy and resilient ecosystems. As a college instructor in the San Francisco Bay Area, I also believe we have a responsibility to consider the kind of environment we are leaving to future generations. USDA decisions can have long-term consequences for habitats and biodiversity, and I believe these decisions should carefully balance current needs with the preservation of our natural resources for the future. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a rural Oregonian and staunch advocate, both professionally and personally I am against the expansion of roads into established roadless areas. These areas are critical to protecting wild spaces that wildlife depend on. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. The roadless rule supports local economies, creates rural jobs, and encourages low impact outdoor recreation. This is deeply valuable to me. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I would like to state that I am in favor of keeping the Roadless Rule because I believe it is important to protect regions of the world without much human influence. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. The roadless rule protects environments which have not been taken over by humans, which is important for maintaing biodiversity. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a young person living in Colorado, who enjoys spending time in outdoor spaces. It is important to protect and conserve these spaces to ensure that species that rely on areas away from developed spaces have a place to exist. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. The roadless rule allows for outdoor recreational spaces away from urban development, and for crucial species that rely on natural spaces to have a place to go. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in San Francisco and love spending time in Yosemite, where I hike, explore, and enjoy the beauty and solitude of the Sierra Nevada. Protecting nearby roadless areas like Cherry Lake matters to me because these wild lands are part of the larger landscape that makes Yosemite and the surrounding region so special. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. The USDA should consider my comment because decisions affecting roadless areas directly impact the public lands and natural landscapes that I and many others value and use. Protecting these areas helps preserve wildlife habitat, clean water, and opportunities for future generations to experience these places in their natural state. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. When I was young, my family would frequently go camping in the Sawtooth mountains, and later as a teenager my friends and I would also go. It would be a shame for future generations to not be able to experience the roadless areas. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Roadless areas help support the wildlife that make the United States a beautiful place to live and helped grow my appreciation of the outdoors. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an environmental scientist, a recurring concept is fragmentation of animal habitats. As soon as human development enters a natural area (particularly roads), it fragments the habitat and immediately results in declining of the ecosystem as 'edge habitat' areas where only a few species flourish increase and 'interior habitat' areas where more (often more sensitive) species thrive decline. On top of this, I'm from an area near Metamora, Michigan. This area is known to be 'horse country' which relies on undeveloped swathes of land for both pasture and trail riding. There is even a home owner's association "MECA", that is committed to the preservation and public access to this land. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Because preservation of land for the purposes of 'horse country' bolsters several kinds spheres that serve the economy; equestrians, hunters, and agriculture. All of which I have seen first hand in the Metamora area. These industries (alongside car manufacturing) power a large chunk of the local economy and culture. Plowing an area down to develop a road will place more economic strain in the area than benefit. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a software engineer in San Francisco, CA. I am against the repeal of the Roadless Rule. I've spent many weekends hiking and camping in the national forests in Northern California, and the repeal of the Roadless Rule will endanger those areas and the outdoor activities they support. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Our national forests protect important natural resources for our communities and serve as habitats for a great variety of plants and animals. America's pristine, untouched wilderness has long been an important part of our cultural identity, and the Roadless Rule ensures that we can maintain those regions. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an undergraduate architecture student, I care about roadless areas for myself and my community. I have spent many weekends in roadless areas in California this summer, including an upcoming trip to Desolation Wilderness in Tahoe National Forest. I am concerned that if the Roadless Rule be repealed, this pristine nature will no longer be experienced the same by backpackers and people like me who want to experience undisturbed nature. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. The roadless rule supports local economies, benefits tourism, and supports local communities. It is important that these communities are not an afterthought and the impact of the repeal on these stakeholders are fully considered in the USDA's final decision. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a student at UCLA, I spend much of my time with the climbing team. Going outdoors on trips as frequently as we do has led me to understand the depth to which roadless areas provide nature a place to thrive privately. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Roadless rules are one of many necessary barriers for our already atrophying environment to not keep declining. Without putting active effort into preservation, we will not be able to circumvent the destruction of our environment. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I'm a student at UC Berkeley who cares about roadless areas for biodiversity preservation, habitat protection, and mindful human recreation. As a Bay Area native, Point Reyes National Seashore's Phillip Burton Wilderness has been a peaceful hiking, camping, and backpacking area. To continue the preservation efforts of roadless areas such as the Philip Burton Wilderness, I am against the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. In summary, roadless rule preserves biodiversity and protects natural habitats, while supporting local communities economically. The USDA's final ruling should not neglect its impact on the environment and the aforementioned stakeholders. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a 21st century baby the only world I know is one disrupted by a changing climate. When I was in elementary school my favorite days were exploring the parks near the school or distant field trip sleepovers into the Appalachian forest. But I only truly discovered true roadless wildlife areas when traveling west away from my east coast home where there was still uninterrupted wildlife areas left. These trips to the southwestern desert, the meadows of Wyoming and Montana were some of the luckiest, freeing moments of my life. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. We must withhold what uninterrupted land we have left in North America. For thousands of years people and wildlife lived in harmony on this continent. But now with the expansion of human life we have endangered our natural neighbors’ homes and lives. We must protect these lands before the impact of our encroachment supersedes our ability to preserve and recover these ecosystems. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am against the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Although I do not live near Roadless Areas, I care about preserving wildlife habitat, watersheds, and opportunities to experience our remaining wild landscapes. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. The USDA should consider the scientific evidence on how new roads affect wildlife habitat, water quality, and ecosystem integrity before repealing the Roadless Rule. These environmental costs can be difficult or impossible to reverse once previously undeveloped areas are fragmented by roads. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in the SF Bay Area and use roadless areas all around California to document wildlife and enjoy nature. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Nature is already on the brink. We cannot afford to destroy any more of it. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an environmental news reporter, I am keenly aware of the ways that human transportation infrastructure impacts wildlife. Whether it is increased accidents from collisions or degrading sensitive habitats with air, noise, and rubber pollution, there are good reasons why the Roadless Rule was established. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Our protected spaces provide vital ecosystem services that we cannot afford to disrupt for extraction amid record global warming. The Roadless Rule must remain intact to safeguard and steward biodiversity, endangered species, and living systems. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a female in my 30s who greatly enjoys nature and wild life conservation. While roads are essential to human transportation, I think it is wrong to prioritize them over all the benefits roadless areas bring to humans and wildlife. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. I believe my comment should be considered as it is one of the many speaking out about this concern and as the people of this country, our voices should be heard and considered with sincerity. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Roadless areas are very important to save natural habitat and resources. There should be a balance between connectivity and natural areas. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Roadless rule support natural habitats and helps reduce pollution. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I'm from a very rural part of Northern California in Plumas and Lassen county. I now live in SF and am surrounded by people all the time. When I go back home I'm able to decompress, explore the forest, see the rivers and reservoirs, and animals. . Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. Unfragmented forests provide contiguous, undisturbed territory for over 1,600 threatened or sensitive species to hunt, migrate, and reproduce without human interference. When I was 16, my dog was attacked by a mountain lion. He lived, but humans cutting into forests and creating fragmentation forces more animals into human contact. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As someone who grew up in the Pacific Northwest, I care deeply about keeping the Evergreen State green and I believe roadless areas contribute to the beauty of the area known for its nature. Roadless areas support diverse and abundant wildlife and plant communities. Human activities, primarily road construction, are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation in the United States. Fragmentation is considered one of the leading causes of native species loss and the present extinction crisis (Heilman et al., 2002). The USDA highlighted an experimental study in a roadless area of southern Idaho that found road noise alone caused more than a quarter decline in bird abundance, with nearly a third of species avoiding the noise entirely (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Nearly one-fifth of roadless area watersheds rank in the top quartile for aquatic biodiversity within their states, supporting rich native aquatic fauna (Olden et al., 2026). Repealing the Roadless Rule threatens the intact habitat that supports this abundance and diversity of species. Roadless areas are essential habitats for many federally threatened and endangered species. A biological assessment in the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement made a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 ESA-listed species and 71 designated critical habitats under the proposed repeal (USDA Forest Service, 2026). Roadless Areas contain more than 220 threatened or endangered species, representing roughly 25% of all listed or proposed animal species and 13% of listed plant species in the United States (Loucks et al., 2003). For example, the six federally designated grizzly bear recovery zones in the northern Rockies include roughly 15,300 square kilometers of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), with nearly 24,750 square kilometers of nearly contiguous IRAs surrounding the Salmon-Selway Recovery Zone alone (Loucks et al., 2003). And wolf populations require road densities below about 0.5 km per square kilometer to persist long-term, yet very few places in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Forest ecoregion fall below that threshold (Heilman et al., 2002). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open critical habitat to new road construction and development, undermining recovery efforts for these already vulnerable species. The roadless rule protects the diversity of plant and animal life and provides safe habitats for endangered species. The environmental impact of a repeal needs to be considered in the USDA's final rule. Thank you for your time and considering my feedback and the data on key considerations regarding the future of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Heilman, G. E., Jr., Strittholt, J. R., Slosser, N. C., & DellaSala, D. A. (2002). Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: Assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. BioScience, 52(5), 411–422. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/5/411/236110 Olden, J. D., Postel, S. L., Dombeck, M. P., Kesting, H., Freeman, P., & Comte, L. (2026). Assessing the value of the U.S. Roadless Rule for people and nature. PLOS Water, 5(7), Article e0000538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2026, August 19). Draft environmental impact statement—2001 Roadless Rule rescission (Vol. I). Docket No. FS-2025-0001. Loucks, C., Brown, N., Loucks, A., & Cesareo, K. (2003). USDA Forest Service roadless areas: Potential biodiversity conservation reserves. Conservation Ecology, 7(2), Article 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss2/art5