Read the comments.

To the USDA Forest Service: I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to ask that the Forest Service keep the Rule in place in full. Let me be direct about where I stand. I do not want a single acre given up. I am deeply disappointed by the broader pattern of public land being taken from the American people, including the shrinking of national monuments and other protections we have lost. I want more public land, not less. These are our children's lands, and I do not believe it is fair or right to rescind this Rule and take them away from the next generation. I am an elementary teacher, a graduate student in education, and a mom. My family's best memories happen on public land. On a spring break camping trip, my husband and I watched our two kids spend an entire afternoon kneeling in a creek on the Ouachita National Forest, holding quartz up to the sunlight and asking where it came from. There was no admission fee and no gift shop, just wild ground that belongs to all of us. That very forest, which covers most of the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma, contains about 35,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas across six roadless areas. In other words, the backcountry my children explored is precisely the kind of land this rescission would open to road building and logging. We are saving for a small travel trailer for one reason: to see more places like that before our children grow up. Those places only stay wild if they stay roadless. I see the same thing in my classroom. When my students learn outside, the child who cannot sit still becomes the one who spots the animal tracks, and the quiet child starts asking questions. Research supports what teachers see every day. Kuo, Barnes, and Jordan (2019) reviewed hundreds of studies and found converging evidence that experiences with nature boost children's academic learning, personal development, and environmental stewardship. Roadless forests are the outdoor classrooms of the next generation, and once a road is cut, that classroom is changed for good. The wildfire justification for this rescission does not hold up. A 2026 peer reviewed study of more than three decades of national forest fire records found that ignition density was about four times higher within 50 meters of roads (7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares) than in Inventoried Roadless Areas (1.97 per 1,000 hectares). The authors concluded that building roads into roadless areas is likely to result in more fires (Aplet et al., 2026). Most human caused fires start where people and vehicles can reach. Presenting new roads as fire prevention asks the public to accept more ignitions in the name of fewer. The current Rule already allows fuel reduction work where it is needed. What it prevents is new road building and commercial logging. Rescission also threatens the water families drink. Olden et al. (2026) found that watersheds influenced by roadless areas supply drinking water to at least 25 million Americans and protect over 130,000 kilometers of streams and rivers. They concluded that rescinding the Rule may compromise drinking water quality and affordability, reduce recreation, and threaten freshwater biodiversity. Even in Arkansas, where my kids found their crystals, about 9.5 percent of the population depends on these watersheds. Meanwhile, the Forest Service already carries a multibillion dollar maintenance backlog on the roughly 370,000 miles of roads it has now. Building more roads the agency cannot afford to maintain is not stewardship. Finally, the process matters. In 2001, the Forest Service held hundreds of public meetings and received 1.6 million comments. This time, the public was given a short comment period and no federally hosted hearings. A decision this permanent deserves far more public input. Please keep the Roadless Rule, every acre of it. My students and my children are counting on these places still being wild when it is their turn to explore them. Sincerely, Kyrietta Weber Apple Valley, Minnesota References: Aplet, G. H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M. S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology, 22, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305 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

As a hunter, angler, and someone who cares deeply about our public lands, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Before addressing the more serious and practical matters of why I believe the roadless rule is important, I’ll start by saying why they’re important to me. I grew up and currently live in Oklahoma. We are a state with few public land options, but my hunting journey began on them. I was an adult onset hunter who spent my first years hunting in the Ouachita National Forest in southeastern Oklahoma until I moved to another part of the state. This is an area that is currently protected by the Roadless Rule but would no longer be if this proposal to rescind is accepted. This area provides Oklahomans—those in a particularly poverty stricken area of our state—land to hunt for food, fish, and recreate when they cannot afford private lands. This area was critical in the reintroduction of black bears, first on the Arkansas side which eventually led to repopulation in Oklahoma as well. Being roadless was a huge part of what has allowed these populations to thrive. Beyond my own experience, I also believe the Roadless Rule makes practical sense. The rule doesn’t mean these lands can’t be managed. Hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, wildfire mitigation, and other management activities can still happen in roadless areas. What it does provide is some protection against building new roads and fragmenting some of the most intact public lands we have left. As someone who loves to hunt and fish, keeping those large, connected landscapes matters to me. Wildlife need them too. Roadless areas provide habitat for elk, deer, native trout, black bears, and countless other species. They also protect headwaters and watersheds that provide clean water for both people and wildlife. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of roads and has a maintenance backlog of about $10.8 billion, with more than half of that tied to roads. I have a hard time understanding why we would prioritize building more roads into currently roadless areas when we already struggle to maintain the roads we have. More roads also mean more fragmentation, more maintenance, and more long-term costs. Once we put a road into an intact landscape, we can’t really put that landscape back the way it was. I also think it’s important to remember that these lands belong to all of us. Public land is one of the few places where someone doesn’t have to have a lot of money or a lot of land to experience the outdoors. For hunters and anglers especially, public lands provide opportunities that simply wouldn’t exist otherwise. I’m not opposed to responsible forest management, and maybe every roadless area should be treated exactly the same, but I do think there is a big difference between making thoughtful, locally informed improvements to how these lands are managed and removing protections from millions of acres. The Roadless Rule has been in place for more than 20 years. We should be asking how we can take care of these places, improve the public lands infrastructure we already have, and keep these opportunities available, not how quickly we can build roads into some of the last intact landscapes we have left. For me, this comes back to something pretty simple. I want other people to have the same opportunity I had to discover hunting, fishing, and public lands. I want the wildlife and wild places that made that experience possible to still be here for them. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Heavenly Father owns everything. He spoke and said let there be light. He spoke and said let's make Mankind in my image in my likeness Male and Female he created them. He blessed them and said it is very good. We aren't Slave's to this system. The water is for all of Mankind it's not for selfish egoestic greedy politicians for capital gain. Jesus Christ is coming soon repent thy kingdom is near. Money isn't what makes the World go around. Money is fake it has no value it's a promissory note that ties you to a debt, it's an I owe you to the government that has been deciveing Mankind for over 2000 years. Cardinal and hummingbirds and all of the Heavenly Father's wing animals are to soar high not be in a cage. Ozark -St. Francis National Forests has historically been owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service but Governor Sarah Sanders has decided to designate Blanchard Springs State Park! Why you ask? Governor Sarah Sanders is doing a slight of the hand's she states that it's getting a updated face lift but what is really happening behind the sence! FROM WHITE COUNTY TO HOT SPRINGS the earthly systems are executing a coordinated push to lock our land into a global debt script. The STATE is asserting control over natural aquifers from from Blanchard Springs Caverns up north to the thermal water tables of Hot springs to lock down cooling loops for out of state tech corporations! The Apartment of Truth: Overcoming the Script In Genesis 1:31 The Heavenly Father spoke and declared that Creation is very good. In Palsm 1:48 The word records that we were all there in the beginning clapping and rejoicing as he spoke the universe into a unalterable decree. Isaiah 28.8 warns that forums of men are covered in filth,with vomit on the tables no place clean. The political parties both Republicans and Democrats are the same failing system. The Lamb Jesus Christ is the only one who can save you. Follow him stand in the Stillness and you will completely override this failing lower government. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about these inventoried roadless areas: - East Fork (13,037 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Penhook (6,566 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Little Blakely (3,342 acres), Ouachita NF, Arkansas - Clifty Canyon (1,963 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Pedestal Rocks (21,957 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Bear Mountain (1,910 acres), Ouachita NF, Arkansas - Richland Creek (571 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Hurricane Creek (2,279 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Gee Creek (7,957 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Dismal Creek (9,160 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Twenty-four million people's drinking water is asserted away Clean water matters to me, and my own tap may trace back to this country. I do not accept assurances in place of analysis. Approximately 24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas, through more than 7,000 municipal intakes, and less than 12 percent of these watersheds are currently impaired. The DEIS says forest plans address sources of public drinking water without identifying one enforceable provision. I ask that the agency identify, forest by forest, which plan provisions are equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, [The Watchman on the Wall] [Bald Knob, Arkansas]

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The birds and the terrain keep pulling me back. I backpack, fish, and take in the scenery in the Ozark National Forest, and I also backpack in the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests. I ride the Syllamore Mountain Bike Trail in the Ozark and the Ouachita Trail in the Ouachita National Forest. I paddle the Buffalo River, the White River, and Syllamore Creek. Wherever I go, I am looking for birds, especially woodpeckers and songbirds, and for deer and other mammals. Every one of those pursuits depends on forests that remain unroaded, and the agency's own record explains why opening them to roads would damage what I go there to find. I oppose this rescission. The wildlife case against this proposal is written in the agency's own science. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. The woodpeckers and songbirds I seek in the Ozark are exactly the interior-forest species this research describes. I want the agency to explain, by direct reference to those cited studies, how it concludes that expanding the road system inside currently protected areas will not degrade the bird communities its own DEIS describes as road-sensitive. On deer, the agency's own record is equally plain: the DEIS cites Wyoming research finding that roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed, and the agency's Tribal Summary Impact Statement credits the rule's protection with the recovery of deer populations by preserving old-growth winter shelter. Those findings come from the agency, not from opponents. The agency should explain how it reconciles the rescission with its own documentation of what unroaded security provides to deer populations. The wildfire justification the proposal offers collapses against the agency's own ignition data. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." That is the agency's language, in its own draft environmental impact statement, and it directly contradicts using fire management as a rationale for road construction in currently protected areas. I ask the agency to explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic arithmetic the agency offers does not hold up either. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against those figures, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million, all while the road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. An analysis that cannot establish a net benefit is not a justification. The agency must reconcile those numbers before it acts. The legal ground under this proposal is also shaky in ways the agency has not confronted honestly. When the agency last abandoned the national rule for a state-by-state approach, it described its own dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and "highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient. The agency needs to explain how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies and address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. On the question of statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit has already spoken: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." That court held the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency has not explained on the record the basis for any contrary position, and it should be required to do so before this proceeding advances further. Sincerely, Dennis Powers Heber Springs, AR 72543

I am an avid outdoorsman that likes to hike and camp in Roadless areas of Arkansas. I enjoy the peace and solitude of being away from roads and the noises that accompany them. Rescinding the Roadless Rule threatens these peaceful environments in Arkansas. There are roadless areas in the Ozark National Forest and the Ouachita National Forest. These areas of little to no pollution offer a natural water filter to clarify the water that comes downstream to towns and cities. They are a quality source for drinking water. Roadless areas are far less likely to have wildfires. The most common occurrence of wildfire ignitions happens within 5 miles of roads. We do not need more fires threatening property and lives. The cost of building and maintaining roads in these remote areas is waste of taxpayer money. We already have 370,000 miles of roads that we cannot maintain adequately right now. The existing contracts for logging in these areas of Arkansas already have a lack of bids. The commercial and industrial demand is not adequate to support more taxes to maintain these proposed roads. In Arkansas, rural roads tend to become dumping grounds for people who do not want to pay a fee to dump large bulky waste. These untouched areas do not need litter to increase. Pollution affects our drinking water and our environmental well-being. Keep roadless lands in the United States intact! Take NO ACTION

As an outdoor enthusiast and a hunter I urge you to leave Roadless Areas roadless. The 2001 Roadless Act protects wildlife and habitat. I live near the Ouachita National Forest in SE Oklahoma. Every where there is a road it seems as if the USFS is hell bent on selling off timber and abandoning that area to allow it to grow into a huge thicket. If they would use controlled burns in those places it would benefit everything, but they don’t. The few places where controlled burning is done it’s usually too little & too late. Leaving the roadless areas roadless would keep help tremendously.

I was a USFS forester in timber management on the Plumas NF and Ouachita NF culminating my forest management career of 31 years as a Forest Measurements Specialist (Mensurationist) for SE US for Region 8. Timber planning cooperated extensively with engineering for road development and maintenance. Heavy road building in years past put a difficult burden for road maintenance backlogs that affected our ability to plan for future timber removals without significant monetary mitigation needs to protect downstream water values. In fact engineering routinely did not get adequate funding to maintain the roads that existed from previous sales year in to year out. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will simply exacerbate this dilemma likely leading to more downstream erosion if the Rule elimination leads to even more road building on even more extreme rocky steeper terrain. The areas that were inventoried and designated as part of the Roadless Rule are typically areas with higher recreational values (scenic and hiking), water quality headwater needs, and wildlife values very difficult or rocky terrains than a significantly identified timber resource value or the remote possibility that there are valuable mineral resources to mine. Sec Rollins has often said she wants to return the decision-making back to the "land managers". These Roadless Areas, contrary to what she has said, were actually identified by the actual land managers (Forest Supervisors and District Rangers), and their specialists such as timber specialists, biologist, hydrologist, soil scientists and planners that actually worked and lived in the villages and towns that they served not some distant planners at a Regional or DC headquarters. We involved our communities in the discussions and the planning just like we did in developing individual timber sales. A majority of our publics were strongly in favor of a light touch or no touch conservation approach for these set asides. I'd also warn that creating more access to extreme terrains by rescinding the Roadless Rule is likely to make for more man made fire ignitions in places you don't want to send firefighters into. Fires in those terrains are more erratic and endanger their lives. You've already lost 5 lives this year. In regards to the Tongass NF. I do not know all that went into their effort for their Roadless area but I know 2 significant elements on the Tongass. They have an enormously unique ecosystem in the temperate rainforest throughout the designated Roadless area. You simply cannot find that any where else in the US. It includes enormous water resources for wildlife and downstream users. My friends that used to work there would tell me how they worked very closely with the native tribes to manage the resources for their communities as part of the unique ecosystem. My fear is that Sec Rollins and our current FS Chief have designs on doing industrial clearcut logging. That would be ruinous and moving ahead with such a plan without concurrence from their publics, the tribes in particular, will likely result in endless lawsuits. Thank you for your time.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Ozark and Ouachita mountains make Arkansas a beautiful state, and they are beautiful largely because the parks and forests have been so careful about where roads go. Those choices left lovely untouched hiking spots, breathtaking overlooks, and the kind of silence that even rowdy Scout boys could feel when I took a troop to Little Blakely, all 3,342 acres of it in the Ouachita National Forest. That peacefulness is not an accident. It is the product of rules like the one this administration now proposes to discard, and I oppose that rescission. I have filed public comments several times regarding the dismantling of the Forest Service and the dangers of new road construction. No one answered me or explained why the agency was moving in this direction. This letter is my attempt, again, to place my concerns where they must be addressed. Arkansas holds 15 inventoried roadless areas totaling 95,015 acres. Bear Mountain, 1,910 acres in the Ouachita National Forest, is among them. My neighbor has hiked there for years. When she comes home from those hikes she is renewed and refreshed, and I understand why: that kind of restoration is something we desperately need in this technological age. Pedestal Rocks, 21,957 acres in the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, is another. In Arkansas we know that roads through forests are the number one cause of fire and contamination of pristine waterways. The agency's own record agrees. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The proposal nonetheless uses wildfire management as a justification for rescission. I ask that the agency reconcile that claimed justification with this ignition data and explain in its response why it is departing from findings already in its own draft environmental impact statement. The water issue is one I know from lived experience. We have had to fight to save the Buffalo River, the First National River, more than once. Back in the 1960s and again in the 2000s, a great deal of energy and money went into fighting hog farm runoff that was contaminating the river. I remember times when we could not swim because of the high bacteria count. The agency's own data shows that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, and that across the Southern region, which includes Arkansas, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Opening 95,015 acres of Arkansas roadless land to new roads puts those intakes and the people who depend on them at documented risk. I ask that the agency explain what specific finding supports its conclusion that this risk is acceptable. The agency's road maintenance backlog makes the proposal harder to defend, not easier. I am sick and tired of my tax dollars going to destroy our public lands. So much has already been cut that skeleton teams of rangers cannot keep up maintenance on the roads already there. The agency is already billions behind on its existing road system. The case for punching new roads into country that has none, when it cannot maintain what it has, has not been made, and the agency should be required to make it before proceeding. The supporting regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS identifies outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and its own Cost Benefit Analysis records lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The birdwatching, hiking, and photography that draw people to these forests, where someone hoping to spot a Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Finally, The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before any final rule issues. Sincerely, Margaret Cameron Little Rock, Arkansas

I am writing to express my strong support for Alternative 1 – No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to keep the existing 2001 National Roadless Rule fully in place across the 44.7 million acres of inventoried roadless areas. As an avid outdoor recreationist who frequently visits public lands, these roadless areas are vital to my experience. I regularly visit the Ouachita National Forest to enjoy a multitude of activities such as hunting and fishing. Rescinding the rule (Alternative 2) or heavily modifying the boundaries (Alternative 3) threatens the integrity of these backcountry spaces, which provide accessible adventure without the strict prohibitions found in Wilderness areas. I support Alternative 1 for several critical reasons: 1. Wildlife Habitat & Conservation: Inventoried roadless areas serve as crucial biological strongholds. They provide unfragmented habitats and essential migration corridors for species like elk, mule deer, and black bear. Opening these areas to commercial logging and new road construction would fracture this habitat, directly threatening the sustained big-game populations that hunters and wildlife watchers depend upon. 2. Wildfire Mitigation Realities: I understand the agency’s concern regarding forest management and wildfire risk, but rescinding the Roadless Rule is not the solution. Historical data shows that roughly 90% of all wildfires start within a half-mile of a road, largely due to human causes. Building new roads into these intact landscapes risks introducing more ignition sources into the backcountry, rather than preventing fires. Furthermore, the 2001 Roadless Rule already contains narrow, common-sense exceptions that allow for tree cutting, fuel treatments, and road construction in cases of imminent threat or public safety emergencies. We do not need to repeal the rule to fight fires. 3. The Outdoor Recreation Economy: Our national forests already provide an excellent balance of multiple uses. These 44.7 million acres contain thousands of miles of motorized trails, singletrack, and backcountry routes that fuel local outdoor economies. Stripping these protections to allow for industrial extraction and road-building will irreversibly alter the backcountry character that draws millions of Americans to these forests every year. The 2001 Roadless Rule was established after one of the largest public input processes in USFS history. It remains overwhelmingly popular and highly effective. Please listen to the outdoor community and prioritize the protection of our remaining unfragmented public lands. I urge you to select Alternative 1 – No Action. Thank you for your time and for considering my input.

Dear Secretary Brooke L. Rollins and the USDA: For someone who has spent thousands of hours in roadless country, I don't need a policy brief to understand what could and would be lost here — I've been in these places more than most, and I know what makes them what they are. Roadless regions are bastions of the natural world; regions in which we can exist, as closely as possible, outside of the bustle and noise of cities. These places are rare and sparse - I have to travel more than an hour, frequently multiple hours, to reach the nearest ones. And yet I do so, frequently, because I treasure the beauty, recreation, and history that these areas maintain. The Little Blakely region of Arkansas stands for much more than what I can share in a single comment; thousands of people have traveled themselves in these undisturbed lands, not to mention the unique and threatened creatures that call this place home. There is too much that stands to be lost.

 ___ Regarding the Little Blakely in the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas: By limiting vegetation analysis to Ozark-Ouachita Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest in the Little Blakely IRA, the DEIS would omit Ozark-Ouachita Shortleaf Pine - Black Oak Woodland from its impact assessment entirely. The presence of Black Hickory, shortleaf pine, and sparkleberry in Ouachita National Forest confirms this Vulnerable community occurs here; the DEIS must evaluate how road construction affects its characteristic floristic composition, microsite requirements, and long-term viability. The proposed rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule jeopardizes nearly 58 million acres of undeveloped backcountry forestland managed by the U.S. Forest Service, comprising around a third of the territory in our national forest system. These forests have only remained intact because of the Forest Service's nearly 25-year-old commitment not to build roads in these areas for harmful activities like major logging operations, mining, and oil-and-gas drilling. “Species-level modeling shows 57% of vulnerable U.S. wildlife species have suitable habitat in roadless areas. Adding unprotected roadless areas to protected areas markedly reduces poorly-represented species of conservation concern. — Research - Wildlife Habitat” “Builds the first national forest-fragmentation database using high-resolution land cover data combined with road density. Demonstrates a methodology for assessing forest intactness across the U.S. and quantifies how few large intact forest patches remain, strengthening the case that the remaining roadless tracts are disproportionately valuable for biodiversity and ecosystem function. — Research - Forest Fragmentation” “Road networks cause habitat fragmentation and create edges with high resource availability that can act as important channels for the spread of invasive alien plants in various habitats, including nature reserves. In natural secondary forests, species richness, density and the proportion of invasive species significantly decreased with distance from the road; natural secondary forests contained only 5 invasive versus 67 native species, yet invasive species were concentrated near road edges. Human-induced changes to environmental conditions along roadsides increase soil moisture, soil disturbance, soil nutrients, exposure to sun and soil temperature, all of which are factors known to promote plant invasions. — Diversity and Distributions / Wiley Online Library, 2025 (https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.70002)” “Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) increase the size of—and reduce isolation between—protected areas, likely buffering them from external stressors. IRAs protect watersheds that deliver drinking water to over 48 million people. Adding IRAs to the protected network would increase representation of Cool Temperate Forest and Woodland by 52.2%, Temperate Grassland and Shrubland by 57.4%, and Mediterranean Scrub and Grassland by 35.5%. Only 25% (median 17.9%) of the current extent of each vegetation formation is represented in the protected area system. — Conservation Science and Practice / Wiley Online Library, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288)” Rescission of the 2001 Rule is not in the public interest; the Department should decline to proceed. Earnestly, Travis Howk

Dear Chief: Submitting these comments as a wildlife observer rather than as a represented party, I respectfully but firmly oppose the proposed rescission on grounds the Department's own NEPA record substantiates: that the affected acreage is disproportionately occupied by species of high conservation concern. If this rule becomes nothing then our protections wholly become nothing. The more our policies crumble, the more we are at risk of losing everything for the gain of rich getting richer. Water is life. These forests are our lives. Do not give up on them so quickly. The Department's obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act and its own governing statutes requires genuine consideration of interests of the kind described here; this comment invites that consideration. Ground disturbance, sedimentation, and stream crossings in roadless areas degrade drinking-water supplies and aquatic habitat downstream. Freshwater extinction risk. Aquatic species face disproportionate extinction risk globally. A multi-taxon assessment of 23,496 freshwater species found that 24% are threatened with extinction, driven primarily by pollution, habitat fragmentation, and sediment loading from upstream disturbance (Sayer et al. 2025). — Sayer, Catherine A.; Fernando, Eresha; Jimenez, Randall R.; et al., 2025 · Nature (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08375-z) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would my local Ouachita National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. Water is life. Water remembers. Do not forget what we cannot lose. Twenty-five years of implementation, repeated judicial affirmation, and the absence of a reasoned basis for change all counsel against rescission; the Rule should be maintained. Yours sincerely, CommentID: RLC-20260828-PRH3W9