Read the comments.

Dear Ms. Rollins, I am an Alabamian who has lived in multiple states and countries and have recently chosen to come back to Alabama. As a birder, my home (Alabama) is a great place to observe birds. The Roadless Rule, as I have come to know it through field observation while birding rather than through statutory text, is the federal instrument most directly responsible for the population-level persistence of the species I enjoy seeing, and I write in opposition to its rescission. The Talladega National Forest, and Reed Brake in particular, is a place close to my home, which has made it easy for me to get there to watch birds. The last time I was there, I saw so many warblers it was incredible! There are a multitude of species, including the black-throated green, the Kentucky, the hooded, and more. They're all so beautiful and they need this habitat to survive. Creating roads in this beautiful area would make it less likely that I would see these species there. Woods warblers, and the black-throated green warbler in particular, need large, intact tracts of forest and if roads come in, those large, intact tracts will disappear. Regarding the Reed Brake in the Talladega National Forest, Alabama: Every spring, the black-throated green warbler, (G5, S3B in Alabama), a long-distance neotropical migrant, completes its journey spanning continents to reach the interior forest of the Reed Brake IRA, Talladega National Forest, where they nest and raise young. Breeding-site fidelity means these birds do not simply relocate when habitat is degraded, they just don't reproduce. The Mississippi Flyway breeding function this roadless area provides is irreplaceable for every one of them. Brown-headed cowbirds are obligate brood parasites that penetrate forest interiors along road corridors. In the Reed Brake IRA, Talladega National Forest, road construction would expose all Mississippi Flyway breeding songbird species to increased parasitism simultaneously. Cowbirds do not target one host — they parasitize every open-cup nesting species they can access, reducing reproductive output across the entire breeding community. The DEIS must analyze the pathway by which road corridors through the Reed Brake IRA, Talladega National Forest, introduce brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism into interior forest used by Mississippi Flyway breeding songbird species. Cowbird parasitism is a documented cause of reproductive failure in every species in this assemblage. The analysis must address the community-level impact, not individual host species in isolation. "The expansion of Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) and several species of noxious plants and animals is facilitated by the cleared line of sight along highways, particularly where these species had been limited by blocks of unsuitable habitat. Line of sight clearing is a safety measure that normally is a minimum of 10 m (30 ft)." — USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, 2005 I understand that the vast majority of public lands the Roadless Rule rescission would impact are in the west, not the southeast. However, I live in the southeast and the rescission is just as important to me here. Additionally, there are numerous species in the western US that would be negatively impacted just a the black-throated green warbler would be in the east. I ask the Department to weigh the record honestly and conclude, as I have, that the rule should remain. With kind regards, Ginger Deason Birmingham, AL

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Rule. As a native of north Alabama who camped, fished, and hiked in Oakley Mountain in the Talladega National Forest, I experienced how vital these public lands are. The USDA's proposal would devastate these public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the water, habitat, and recreation that many millions of Americans rely on. These roadless forests represent some of the most intact ecosystems left in our country. They serve critical ecological functions: filtering clean drinking water, provide wildlife habitats, and are carbon sinks . People, like me and my family, hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find pleasure in these places. Roads will do damage: spreading invasive species, disrupting habitats, and disrupting the particular remote recreation that is unique to these Roadless areas. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and nce roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. Please abandon this misguided effort, and I ask that the USDA instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests. References: Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Jessica Hines Saco, ME 04072-3544 hinesjn0@gmail.com

I wish to express my opposition to the proposed changes to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule in place has worked well for many years to protect areas of national forest that are wilderness in practice though not yet designated officially, and focus appropriate forestry management and harvest in areas with existing road systems. The few remaining old-growth forests are irreplaceable living museums of our country’s natural past and present. Undisturbed areas in general are important for wildlife and native plants and trees, so these are significant protections for hunting and recreational use. Our ancestors who came here from other countries prioritized the ability to hunt, something that in many of their home countries was not possible due to overcrowding and over-harvest or reserved only for nobility. Our wilderness and wilderness-adjacent areas are star attractions for locals, and for U.S. and international visitors, which generate income and goodwill for us. Much more importantly, preventing road development is one of the most important practices for protecting watersheds— both the amount and the quality of water— and clean water is a critical resource for humans, crops, livestock, and wildlife, and something that we routinely run short of in many areas of the country. Roadless areas protect water resources and serve as protective buffers for national parks, designated wilderness areas, towns, farms, and ranches, and provide many services that don't appear on spreadsheets. Of personal interest to me are roadless areas in my home state, Alabama’s Talladega National Forest, in my family’s home state, Tennessee’s Appalachian watersheds, and in my state of residence, New Hampshire’s White Mountains. I enjoy hiking, and many of my friends and family are hikers, naturalists, foragers, and hunters. Additionally, knowing that these places and their animal and plant inhabitants exist in an enduring protected condition is a source of comfort and immense patriotic pride. When I look at a map of the current roadless areas of our country, they appear to be a scattering of small dots on our vast country. Our unique natural landscapes and their plants and animals are one of the things that truly makes America great. How can we not continue to preserve a small sampling of the grandeur of our natural heritage?

Dear Chief Tom Schultz: As a hunter and angler, the country the rule covers isn't excess — it's the part of the public-lands estate that still functions as designed. The proposal doesn't add anything that justifies what it takes away. Regarding the Oakey Mountain in the Talladega National Forest, Alabama: Quiet, undeveloped recreation on roadless lands supports local economies through tourism, outfitting, hunting, and fishing. Road noise reaches deep into protected areas. Anthropogenic noise doubles background sound levels in 63 percent of U.S. protected area units and produces a tenfold increase in 21 percent of them. Elevated noise was found in habitats of endangered species, with 14 percent of critical habitats experiencing a tenfold sound increase. Noise pollution in protected areas is closely linked with transportation, development, and extractive land use (Buxton et al. 2017). — Buxton et al., 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4783) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Oakey Mountain, Talladega 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. Our wild places should remain wild. Do not allow roads to be placed there. Rescinding the Rule opens the door to damage that won't be undone. Don't open it. Yours truly, CommentID: RLC-20260930-SSXNW7

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The birds I go looking for drew me into this fight. I bird watch across Sipsey Wilderness, Ruffner Mountain Preserve, and Talladega National Forest, and once a year I travel to Big Cypress Preserve. These are not abstract coordinates to me. They are the places where I go to relax, find quiet, and observe nature, and the roadless areas within and around them are precisely what makes that possible. The Forest Service's own record tells me why roads threaten that: 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. That evidence is in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement, and it belongs at the center of this decision. Yet the agency proposes to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule anyway, in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, while its own record 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." I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from these findings, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. Alabama holds 5 inventoried roadless areas totaling 12,713 acres. I have watched roads in Alabama steadily deteriorate, and building new ones into country that currently has none, largely to benefit logging operations, strikes me as a misuse of public funds the agency plainly does not have. The agency is already running far behind on maintaining what it has, and the record bears that out. The proposal also justifies rescission on permitting and administrative burden, but the rule as written already accommodates exceptions. As the agency's own analysis states, it "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The agency should identify which specific burdens remain unaddressed by those existing exceptions, including those for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection, and it should quantify those burdens on the record rather than assert them in general terms. The small-business certification supporting this proposal does not hold up. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The agency reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading an annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than looking at the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. That approach obscures real harm to real businesses. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. 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. I have organized my birdwatching and my travel, including my annual trip to Big Cypress Preserve, around the expectation that roadless areas remain protected. An agency that changes course is required to account for what people have come to depend on. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your City, State]

Dear Chief Tom Schultz: I am an avid hiker in Alabama. I know the joys of hiking where you cannot see, hear, smell, or feel the touch of “civilized man”. I also know the abrupt, jarring experience of suddenly coming upon a road - the trash, the sound of engines, the absence of wildlife at ease in their natural habitat. The facts show, from my understanding, that roadless areas are far less susceptible to wildfires so that federal argument is bogus. My hiking trips into the forest, where I restore my body, mind and soul, would be gone. I would lose that total seclusion that I crave, the sense that there is still somewhere I can go where I see our great country unspoiled by man. As an outdoor enthusiast who understands what it means to travel in country that has been kept outside the road system by regulatory protection rather than by geographic inaccessibility, I submit that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Rule would remove a protection whose absence would be felt concretely and irreversibly across the national forest landscape. Regarding the Cheaha A in the Talladega National Forest, Alabama: "Increases in fine sediments are known to change grain size distribution and consequently cause degradation of spawning grounds. The increase of fines clogs the pore space and can lead to 'sustained clogging,' since the turnover rate is markedly reduced or prevented even in the case of exceptional high flows. In such situations, washed out soil (e.g., from agricultural land use) or fines may lead to sedimentation of fines on coarse bed material and/or artificially placed gravel with consequent, negative impacts on embryo survival of gravel-spawning fish through suffocation." — Springer Nature — book chapter in Riverine Ecosystem Management, 2018 “Road traffic had a consistent negative effect on territory densities up to approximately 650 m distance from the road for different species and ecological species groups. Within road-effect zones, densities of breeding birds were significantly lower (on average 25%) than at greater distances from the road. Effect distances were positively associated with traffic intensity in various ecological species groups. — Landscape Ecology (Springer Nature), 2025 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-025-02100-5)” Monarch (Danaus plexippus), ranked G4 by NatureServe and federally listed (PT), is present in the Cheaha A IRA, Talladega National Forest, where it confronts 5.3 - Logging & wood harvesting at Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline severity across Restricted - small scope. The roadless character of Cheaha A currently prevents the infrastructure penetration that initiates 5.3 - Logging & wood harvesting. Rescission removes that barrier, allowing road construction to trigger the full cascade of impacts documented in NatureServe's threat assessment for Monarch. If the DEIS does not evaluate how rescission affects Monarch (Danaus plexippus, G4) in Cheaha A with respect to 5.3 - Logging & wood harvesting, the agency has failed to consider an important aspect of the problem — a standard basis for finding an EIS inadequate under NEPA. Let the roadless areas remain what they are. Thank you. CommentID: RLC-20260916-2SDMDU

Dear Ms. Rollins: I'm an Alabama native, a backpacker, an educator, an adventurer, a wife and a mother. As someone who has traversed many roadless areas across the U.S., I submit these comments in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I've backpacked in Cheaha many times, marveling at the wildness that is still available to us in the midst of a modern world. I have appreciated delicate, ephemeral flowers blanketing the forest floor, firefly larvae sparking on creek banks, and the sacred feeling of being far from anything constructed by humans. This removal creates space to connect with creation. My son is almost 2 now, but when he was still in my womb I backpacked with my husband and father in a roadless area. I thought to myself that this would be one of the most wonderful things I could ever hope for my son - to have a place where he could stand outside of development and just connect with the land, animals, and plants of a place. No sound of cars passing by, no marker of time or modern expectations, only the sun and moon sculpting the rhythm of a day. Alabama contains some of the most biodiverse places in the United States, places researched and written about by people like E.O. Wilson, Scot Duncan, and Bill Finch. The roadless areas in our state and our country protect endangered mussel species, bats, and healthy soil and watersheds to name a few. The health of humanity ultimately depends on the health of our wild places. Beyond this large scale impact, my heart would break if my son grows up in a world where these truly wild places no longer exist. I want him to be able to backpack in the woods and not come across a road. To be able to just live in "time outside of time", even if only for a few days. Regarding the Cheaha A in the Talladega National Forest, Alabama: Mussel Spawning and Recruitment Habitat in Upper Cheaha Creek Headwaters — The Upper Cheaha Creek headwaters support four federally endangered mussel species—Coosa moccasinshell, Southern clubshell, Southern pigtoe, and Triangular kidneyshell—along with the federally threatened finelined pocketbook. These mussels depend on stable, sediment-free stream substrates for spawning and larval development, and on specific host fish species that carry their larvae. The roadless condition of this drainage preserves the hydrological and geomorphological stability these species require. Systemic Asymmetry Between Quantified Economic Benefits and Unquantified Environmental Costs This EIS's own comparison table concedes that "less than one percent of the affected environment has mapped invasive plant populations," then describes the incremental risk from Alternatives 2 and 3 only in vague terms—that increased ground disturbance "could potentially increase the extent or the number of invasive plant species" (Comparison of Alternatives, pp. 20-36). No acreage projection, spread-rate model, or dollar cost accompanies this statement, even though the same document quantifies economic benefits down to specific dollar figures and job counts elsewhere. Independent research confirms roads are a documented driver of "facilitation of invasive species" and habitat fragmentation (Hoffmann et al. 2024), yet the EIS never applies comparable rigor to that side of the ledger. This asymmetry violates NEPA's requirement of forthright, balanced disclosure under Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989), and the reasoned-analysis standard of Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002). I request quantified, alternative-specific invasive-species spread projections and cost estimates matching the specificity given to economic projections. Cutting roads through wild land is irreversible. Keep the Rule that prevents it. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie

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

Dear Secretary Rollins, As an avid hiker in roadless areas within Alabama, I realize how much we all need these untouched areas for their quiet beauty, changing seasons and admiration of nature. Your proposed removal of the Roadless Rule would substantially damage what I and many others in Alabama enjoy. I have hiked, camped and spent many enjoyable years in the Talladega National Forest and the Cheaha Wilderness. It would be devastating to see this area desecrated by repealing the Roadless Rule. The solitude and peacefulness of hiking to McDill Point and Hernandez Peak via the Pinhoti trail by myself, without another person and no roads was an experience I will never forget. Regarding the Cheaha B in the Talladega National Forest, Alabama: Timber harvest, associated road construction, and vegetation removal directly alter roadless character and degrade habitat quality. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Cheaha B, Talladega 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. “Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities). The basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material may be permitted if: (1) a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or (2) the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404)” “Road traffic had a consistent negative effect on territory densities up to approximately 650 m distance from the road for different species and ecological species groups. Within road-effect zones, densities of breeding birds were significantly lower (on average 25%) than at greater distances from the road. Effect distances were positively associated with traffic intensity in various ecological species groups. — Landscape Ecology (Springer Nature), 2025 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-025-02100-5)” “Road traffic had a consistent negative effect on territory densities up to approximately 650 m distance from the road for different species and ecological species groups. Within road-effect zones, densities of breeding birds were significantly lower (on average 25%) than at greater distances from the road. Effect distances were positively associated with traffic intensity in various ecological species groups. — Landscape Ecology (Springer Nature), 2025 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-025-02100-5)” I haven't found any viable science behind your decision to rescind the Roadless Rule repeal. But I have found substantial science to the contrary of your repeal. Respectfully, Don Coker

I do not support repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and encourage our Nation's leaders and the U.S. Forest Service to perform further analysis on a case-by-case basis of environmental and conservation impacts of the proposed change in public and commercial logging access in national forest. Opening of wild national forest lands to the public traffic is not wise financially for the U.S. Government due to the cost of maintaining roads and budget cuts to U.S. Forest Service operations over the last 20 years. I live near the Talladega National Forest in the southeastern United States and our existing public accessible roads on national forest lands are poorly maintained, are a source of soil erosion and funds and staffing for law enforcement of forest roads and areas are limited. This results in poor or non-existent enforcement of wildlife rules and regulations with harmful impacts on deer and turkey populations as well as a wild-West type of environment where under-age alcohol use, DUI and drug use are widespread which sometimes results in violent crime and assault. Citizens (especially in under-funded rural government jurisdictions such as Talladega County, Alabama without funding for animal shelters) regularly abandon dogs on forest roads which results in further impact on wildlife populations, spread of disease and interbreeding of undesirable aggressive cross breeds of dogs which are harmful to people and other animals. Most importantly to consideration of repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is that logging operations are generally unproductive and not cost efficient in many national forest lands due to the rough terrain and long-term damage caused to forests and waterways by logging operations. Modern commercial sawmills cannot accommodate larger size logs from older forest, and the logs instead have to be ground up into chips and have little value as most valuable saw logs for cutting into boards suitable for building construction. Harvesting, handling and transportation of the large older growth forest logs is much less efficient than obtaining chipped wood feed from planation type of forest species in more accessible and private owned controlled tree plantations which are abundant in many areas of the U.S. Russell W. Adams, C.P.A., M.B.A., Birmingham, Alabama.

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: As someone who gets out there regularly and knows what roadless areas offer that other public land designations don't, I want the Department to understand that this isn't a minor policy adjustment — it's a substantive change to what's available. Roadless areas in Talladega National Forest have enhanced my appreciation for the outdoors by giving me and my family opportunities to experience nature away from roads, traffic, and everyday distractions. Being surrounded by quiet forests, wildlife, and challenging trails allows us to feel a stronger connection to nature and encourages my children to explore, stay active, and appreciate these unique and diverse wild spaces. One occasion in particular illustrates what that relationship means in practice. Walking along the trails, we sometimes encounter unusual marker trees—trees whose distinctive shapes or growth patterns were intentionally created by Indigenous peoples to mark trails, waterways, campsites, or other important locations. Seeing these trees in the forest makes the landscape feel like more than wilderness; it becomes a living record of the people who traveled through and cared for these lands long before modern trails existed. Their presence adds a sense of mystery and connection. The standing connection and the specific experience above together illustrate what the Rule has made possible over twenty-five years of operation. Regarding the Cheaha B in the Talladega National Forest, Alabama: Bat Hibernacula and Foraging Habitat Connectivity — Three federally endangered bat species—gray bat (*Myotis grisescens*), Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), and northern long-eared bat (*Myotis septentrionalis*)—depend on the unfragmented forest canopy and cave systems within and adjacent to t… Logging skid trails extend road edge effects deep into the forest. Skid trails extend road edge effects on plant communities up to 60 meters into adjacent forest stands, acting as conduits for non-forest and invasive species and removing interior forest species. Road construction materials such as limestone gravel further alter soil pH and damage acid-loving native species (Avon et al. 2013). — Catherine Avon, Yann Dumas, Laurent Bergès, 2013 · Biological Conservation (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.008) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Cheaha B, Talladega 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. Talladega's roadless areas are not empty acres. They are living ecosystems, watersheds, wildlife habitat, cultural landscapes, and places that inspire people to care about the world around us. Protecting them is an investment in the forest and in generations yet to come. The Department should let the Rule stand. Warm regards, CommentID: RLC-20260826-ZRQHH9