Read the comments.

Good morning, I am writing to implore that you not, absolutely not, rescind the Roadless Rule in our National Forests. Bring human activity. They also disrupt the migration patterns (corridors) of large and small animals. The construction of roads, their use and upkeep require human activity as well as alteration of terrain. All of this is problematic to the habits and habitat of wildlife who then have to migrate further from the margins of their territories; thus shrinking them to an unsustainable sizes for adequate population viability. Degradation of the forest floor disrupts water runoff patterns, leads to erosion issues and has impacts on the aquafers. The end point is corruption of the forest buffers around our National Parks and greater environmental and ecological stresses on these national treasures. Do not rescind the "Roadless Rule". Lawrence Schissel Newport, NH 03773

I am writing as a New Hampshire tourism business owner to express my opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. New Hampshire's mountains, forests, lakes and rivers are some of our state's greatest assets and a significant driver of tourism. They are a main reason people choose to visit New Hampshire, return year after year, and support the thousands of small businesses that make up our tourism economy. My family has operated a hospitality business in New Hampshire for generations. Since the late 1800s, visitors have been escaping city life to come to New Hampshire to experience the natural beauty, open spaces and undeveloped landscapes that make our state different from more developed destinations. More than a century later, that is still why many of our guests come here. If these special places are compromised by roads and development, it will be impossible to fully restore them to what they were. Conservation of these areas needs to be seen as a long-term investment in maintaining a strong tourism economy in our state. Both visitors to New Hampshire and those who choose to move here to work and raise a family value the natural, quiet and remote recreational opportunities our state provides. People are looking for places where they can get away from noise, traffic and development and reconnect with the outdoors. That is something New Hampshire has to offer, and something we should be careful not to lose. It has been argued that this change is necessary to address forest health, public safety and wildfire risk. As I understand it, however, the existing rule already allows limited exceptions to address specific management needs. Rather than removing protections altogether, it seems reasonable to address those needs through targeted solutions while continuing to protect these areas from unnecessary roads and development. We have an obligation to consider the long term impact this could have for future generations. New Hampshire has benefited tremendously from generations before us who had the foresight to conserve these extraordinary places. We should extend that same stewardship to those who come after us. I respectfully ask the USDA and Forest Service to retain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule and pursue targeted solutionseri for specific forest-management needs rather than eliminating nationwide protections for these important lands. Peggy Ames Ames Farm Inn 2800 Lake Shore Rd Gilford, NH 03249

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Living minutes from the White Mountain National Forest, and walking in it daily, I have watched the difference between roaded and roadless land long enough to know it in my feet. The Rob Brook and Bartlett Experimental Forest areas, both crossed by wide logging roads, are hotter, noisier, and carry more trash and invasive species than the roadless stretches nearby. The storm damage there is worse too, and I suspect it is the roads themselves, the runoff they generate, the fill, the culverts, the bridges, that explain that difference. I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) because what I see daily in these woods is exactly what the agency's own analysis predicts. The White Mountain's 16 inventoried roadless areas total 240,669 acres and are the headwaters for rivers flowing to the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Saco, drinking water for communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the federal purchase of private land for national forests specifically because of what happened when New England's mountains were clearcut. Rescinding a rule that protects what remains of that recovery requires better justification than this proposal offers. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement contradicts the wildfire rationale it offers for rescission. 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 proceeds on the premise that removing the roadless rule serves forest health. I ask that the agency explain why it departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and that it reconcile that departure with the ignition data reported in DEIS Table 21, which shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The thrush I listen for in the White Mountains, what I call the Cathedral birds, the ones whose sound creates a tangible peace, are harder to find than they were. They need mature forest. 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. Bicknell's thrush is a verified species of the White Mountain. The proposal does not address what additional road access would do to species already receding into the quieter interior. What specific analysis has the agency done on the bird communities of the White Mountain roadless areas, and where does it appear in the record? On administrative burden, the agency has not shown that the rule itself is the obstacle. The rule as written 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)." I ask that the agency identify, specifically and quantifiably, which burdens are not already addressed by those exceptions, including the provisions for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection. The regulatory flexibility analysis reaches a no-significant-impact conclusion by spreading the estimated annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators actually holding permits in the affected areas. The DEIS names those operators as affected parties, and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The agency should withdraw the small-business certification and assess the impact on the firms actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not a national average. 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. A person who lives adjacent to these roadless areas and has organized daily life around what they provide has relied on the rule's protections. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it can lawfully change course. Sincerely, Carol Felice 16 Ash Lane Madison, NH 03849

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN: 0596-AD66 Subject: Public Comment in Strong Opposition to Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Removing these protections will severely threaten the ecological integrity of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) by triggering irreversible habitat fragmentation. The WMNF is a critical ecological sanctuary in the densely populated Northeast. It provides large, contiguous blocks of intact forest that are vital for the survival of numerous wildlife species. Rescinding the Roadless Rule opens the door to road construction and industrial logging in areas that are currently undisturbed. I urge the Forest Service to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule for the WMNF based on the following critical impacts: Disruption of Wildlife Corridors: Species such as the American marten, Canada lynx, and black bear rely on large, unbroken forest patches to hunt, mate, and migrate. New roads act as physical barriers that slice through these habitats, isolating wildlife populations and reducing genetic diversity. Edge Effects and Invasive Species: Building roads creates artificial "edges" that alter local microclimates, increasing sunlight and wind penetration deep into the forest. This degrades the interior habitat required by sensitive deep-forest species and creates pathways for invasive plants and pests to choke out native ecology. Acoustic Pollution: Roads introduce ongoing vehicular noise. This disrupts wildlife communication, elevates stress levels in animals, and drives sensitive species away from vital feeding and nesting grounds. Increased Wildfire Risks: The argument that roads are needed to prevent fires ignores local reality. More roads mean more human access, which statistically increases the risk of human-caused ignitions in previously pristine areas. The 2001 Roadless Rule has successfully protected the wildest corners of New England for a quarter-century. The Forest Service must prioritize long-term ecological resilience and habitat connectivity over short-term resource extraction. Please withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Timothy M. Frazier 214 Valley Road Sullivan, NH 03445

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN: 0596-AD66 Subject: Public Comment in Strong Opposition to Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Eliminating these protections will cause irreversible harm to the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) by accelerating the loss of our remaining wild spaces and exacerbating severe overuse. The WMNF is already one of the most heavily visited public lands in the United States, drawing millions of outdoor enthusiasts annually. This intense recreational pressure is already straining the forest's ecosystems. Removing the Roadless Rule to allow road construction, motorized trails, and resource extraction will destroy the very qualities that make these lands irreplaceable. I urge the Forest Service to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule for the WMNF to address the following critical threats: Destruction of Solitude and the Wilderness Experience: Roadless areas provide a rare, vanishing opportunity for primitive, non-motorized recreation. Allowing roads and motorized vehicles into these sanctuaries destroys the quiet and solitude that visitors seek, fundamentally altering the character of the backcountry. Concentration and Magnification of Overuse: Opening up wild spaces with new roads does not alleviate pressure; it introduces vehicular crowds, trash, and trail erosion into areas that lack the infrastructure to handle them. This degrades the land and strains overextended trail maintenance budgets. Irreversible Loss of Wild Character: Once a road is cut into a pristine forest, that land's wild character is permanently lost. The Forest Service must protect these remaining untouched pockets as a baseline of natural beauty and quiet in an increasingly developed Northeast. Degradation of Watersheds and Soils: Heavy traffic and new road surfaces lead to severe soil compaction and accelerated erosion. This directly damages the fragile alpine and sub-alpine watersheds that provide clean drinking water to communities across New England. Our public lands are already facing historic levels of crowds and wear. The solution to overcrowding is not to pave and develop our last wild refuges, but to fiercely protect them. Please withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely,[ Karen K. Frazier Sullivan, NH 03445

Melissa Dillier 650 N Main St Bristol, NH 03222 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule Docket Number: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director, As a resident of New Hampshire, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Our state’s roadless areas, particularly within the White Mountain National Forest, provide irreplaceable ecological, recreational, and economic value that must remain protected from commercial logging and road construction. I urge the Forest Service to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule protections for New Hampshire for the following reasons: 1. Protection of Watersheds and Drinking Water: Roadless areas act as natural filtration systems. In New Hampshire, these pristine landscapes safeguard the headwaters of major rivers that supply clean, reliable drinking water to thousands of local residents and downstream communities. Building roads and introducing commercial logging would increase erosion, degrade water quality, and threaten municipal water supplies. 2. Support for the Outdoor Recreation Economy: New Hampshire’s economy relies heavily on tourism, outdoor recreation, and the fall foliage season. Visitors flock to our backcountry areas for hiking, camping, fishing, and wildlife viewing because they offer a rare sense of solitude and untouched natural beauty. Fragmenting these landscapes with roads would severely diminish the wilderness experience that drives our local tourism economy. 3. Wildlife Habitat and Climate Resilience: The continuous forest canopies in New Hampshire’s roadless sections serve as critical habitats for native species, including brook trout, American marten, and migratory birds. These large, unfragmented blocks of forest are also essential for climate resilience, allowing species to migrate and adapt to changing conditions while acting as vital carbon sinks. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately account for the long-term economic loss to New Hampshire’s recreation sector and the permanent damage to our high-quality watersheds. Thank you for considering the perspective of New Hampshire residents. I strongly urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Melissa Dillier