Read the comments.

Years ago I took my teenage nephew into the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. He grew up in the suburbs of another state and had never been in real wilderness. That night he saw the Milky Way. Years later he told me it was still amazing to him. No screen gave him that. Silence, darkness, and open country did. I am an Arizona resident, a backpacker, hiker, kayaker, and angler, and I am learning to hunt. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule, because kids deserve the chance to have that experience, away from technology and noise, and roadless areas are where they can still find it. More than 1.2 million acres in Arizona are roadless, including about 285,000 acres on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Inventoried roadless areas exist on all four forests the Arizona National Scenic Trail crosses. Once these places are roaded and logged, they do not come back. This is also an economic issue. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that outdoor recreation added about $15.4 billion to Arizona's economy in 2024, 2.7% of state GDP, and supported roughly 118,700 jobs. Those jobs are in lodging, guiding, gear retail, restaurants, and gateway towns that depend on intact public land. Wild country is not a cost to our economy. It is an asset that cannot be rebuilt once it is lost. I also object to the process. In 2005, during a previous attempt to rescind the rule, the comment period totaled 182 days. This time the public has had just 53 days, including a 21-day initial period. A decision affecting more than a million Arizona acres deserves far more time for public input. The agency should also weigh public opinion. The Forest Service received more than 600,000 comments in the first round, and conservation groups report the agency's own count shows 99 percent opposed rescission. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule in place. The next generation is counting on us to leave them something worth seeing.

I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I believe these protections should remain federal and provide a consistent national standard for protecting the remaining inventoried roadless areas. I live in Arizona, and the more I have learned about the ecology of our National Forests, particularly the Blue Range, White Mountains, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, the more important I think these protections are. Roadless areas are unique because they have remained relatively undisturbed by permanent infrastructure. New roads can fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion and sedimentation, introduce invasive species, and increase access to previously remote areas. Once these landscapes are fragmented, reversing those effects can be extremely difficult. I am also concerned about what increased road construction and intensive logging could mean for watersheds throughout the drought-prone West. Relatively undisturbed forest watersheds protect soils, influence runoff, maintain water quality, and support streams and springs. Additional road construction, soil disturbance, and vegetation removal can put even more stress on watersheds already dealing with drought, increasing temperatures, and severe wildfire. Eastern Arizona is a good example of what could be affected. The Blue Range, White Mountains, Black River, and surrounding watersheds contain high-elevation forests, isolated streams, riparian habitats, and remote canyon ecosystems. They support native fish, including Arizona’s unique native trout, along with mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, insects, plants, and fungi. A lot of this biodiversity is directly connected to the health of these watersheds. I understand that forests still need to be managed. Restoration, wildfire mitigation, and other necessary work can already occur under exceptions to the Roadless Rule. I do not see that as a reason to remove the federal protection entirely. Local input should remain part of National Forest management, but protection of nationally owned public lands should not depend entirely on changing local political or economic priorities. Once an intact roadless landscape is lost, recreating it is extremely difficult. I ask the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and continue federal protection of Inventoried Roadless Areas.