Read the comments.

Daphne Muehle 1810 Northridge Dr, Hailey, ID 83333 Gognomenow@gmail.com Date: October 6, 2026 Attn: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Docket No.: FS-2025-0001 RIN: 0596-AD66 Subject: Public Comment Opposing Any Reduction or Elimination of Roadless Rule Protections To the U.S. Forest Service: I am writing to express my strong opposition to any regulatory changes, exemptions, or amendments that would weaken, eliminate, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Inventoried roadless areas represent the last remaining bastions of intact, undisturbed public forest land in our country. Protecting them is absolutely vital for ecological preservation, climate resilience, and local economies. I urge the Forest Service to maintain strict roadless protections for the following substantive reasons: • Climate Mitigation and Carbon Storage: Intact, old-growth, and mature forests within roadless areas serve as critical carbon sinks. Constructing new roads facilitates commercial logging, which actively releases stored carbon, disrupts soil ecology, and destroys the very canopy needed to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. • Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity: Roadless areas provide large, contiguous habitats free from human fragmentation. Many endangered, threatened, and sensitive species rely entirely on these undisturbed corridors for migration, breeding, and survival. Introducing roads fragment habitats, introduces invasive species, and increases wildlife mortality. • Watershed Protection: Millions of Americans rely on national forests for clean drinking water. Roadless areas protect headwaters and stream systems from the severe erosion, sedimentation, and pollution that inevitably accompany industrial road construction and heavy machinery usage. • Fiscal Responsibility: The Forest Service already faces a massive backlog of billions of dollars in deferred maintenance for existing forest roads. Authorizing new road construction when the agency cannot afford to maintain its current infrastructure is financially irresponsible and shifts a heavy burden onto taxpayers. Developing these last untouched wild spaces provides short-term commercial gains for extractive industries at the permanent expense of the American public and future generations. I strongly urge the Forest Service to reject any proposals that compromise roadless protections and to instead focus on restoring and maintaining our already-developed forest lands. Thank you for your time and for considering these comments during the rulemaking process. Sincerely, Daphne Muehle

Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) Dear Forest Service Officials, I am a resident of Driggs, ID and someone who frequently recreates on public land, mostly in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness and Caribou-Targhee National Forest. I am writing to strongly oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For a quarter of a century, this rule has successfully protected roughly 45 million acres of pristine national forest lands from commercial logging and new road construction. I am concerned about the impact that new roads will have on the ecosystems that so many species depends on. I think it is short-sighted and dangerous to rescind safeguards that threaten vital public resources: • Clean Water: Roadless national forests act as natural filtration systems, supplying clean drinking water to more than 60 million Americans across thousands of communities. • Wildlife Habitat: These untouched landscapes provide critical corridors and refuges for hundreds of at-risk and imperiled species. • Climate and Recreation Resilience: Intact forests sequester carbon effectively and support robust local outdoor recreation economies. Furthermore, the justification that removing protections improves wildfire management is flawed and contradicted by existing science and maintenance backlog realities. Instead of opening these wild public lands to extractive industries, the agency should focus its capacity on maintaining existing infrastructure and prioritizing community safety. Furthermore, the economic vitality of my small tourist community hinges on the protection of these pristine places. To jeapordize them for the interests of commercial logging could have negative impacts on the economy of my small town. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this repeal and maintain full protections for our roadless national forests. Sincerely, Jennifer Piperno Driggs, ID 83422

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , It's important to have places that are untouched and left wild. We should keep these places intact now and preserve them for future generations. Studies have shown that allowing the forest canopy to develop traps moisture near the ground and naturally prevents wildfires. Logging removes this natural defense and dries out the forest. Adding more roads means more maintenance costs for taxpayers for years to come. The Forest Service should take future maintenance into account because many current USFS roads I have been on are not well maintained due to poor funding. I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Nicholas Britz 2316 E Hastings Ave Coeur D Alene, ID 83814 Sincerely, Nicholas Britz

Secretary Rollins This letter is in support of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and I request you not to roll back the Rule. I know of no one who does not consider the Roadless Rule one of the most significant conservation and recreation tools of our public lands. Contrary to the statement that the Roadless Rule prevents people from using roadless areas, the Roadless Rule provides recreation opportunities for millions of people who value wildlife, wild settings and clean air and water. Reasons not to roll back the Roadless Rule include the loss of public lands to private and business interest at the expense of the general public, a degradation of water sheds and increased road building in remote areas, an expense that the Forest Service can not afford even at current road levels. Rolling back the Roadless Rule only benefits business special interest and the uber wealthy. I strongly oppose rolling back the rule. Steve Frank 1958 Creek Resort Circle, Driggs, ID 83422 208 520-6450 sbskfrank@gmail.com

September 13, 2026 My Public Comments on the proposed ‘Roadless Rule’ by the US Forest Service: Idaho is a GREAT State. One quality that most Idahoans love about our state is the outdoor recreation opportunities available to us. These adventures to experience nature abound in Idaho. It is a part of our heritage. We, the people, love these lands and all that they provide for our wellbeing. Let’s talk about the US Forest Service and the ‘Roadless Rule’, passed in 2001. The USFS reasoning behind this rule 25 years ago was 1) ecological importance, 2) overwhelming popularity with the public, 3) economically responsible. All these points are just as valid in 2026 as they were in 2001. In fact, it could be argued that benefits of the Roadless Rule (such as habitat, water quality, and air quality) are more important now. Repealing the Roadless Rule is myopic folly. It would be a harmful decision for our State and our Nation for the foreseeable future. A repeal is not necessary; the USFS currently has too many miles of road to maintain. The preservation of roadless areas is so beneficial for our nation, the people, the flora and fauna, and the natural ecosystems.This August, my wife and I just spent four days in the Selway/Bitterroot National Forest. What a beautiful and sacred place! The public has access now; they don’t need more roads to enjoy this gem of the Gem State. The public needs to know these lands are protected by our government. Forever. Sincerely, Gerald Flatz 1347 S. Tetonia Dr. Boise, ID 83705 GHFlatz@msn.com