Read the comments.

We need to save the roadless rule for all of the species that rely on these remote areas for living. From mammals, to fish, to reptiles they all deserve to have undisturbed habitat. Ruining this will not only ruin the forests. It will decline species diversity rapidly and many tragic consequences to this. My career is in natural resources and so the fact that this is even in question is mind boggling to me. Facists should not be allowed to make decisions on natural resources because they are only in it for the money and don’t care about the species and people who rely on these forrest’s. Please I beg you to shut this down and not allow anything to happen to our land.

I grew up visiting wilderness areas protected by the roadless rule, and still do very often today. They’ve made me who I am and part of what makes this country so beautiful. All nature is beautiful, but having places unimpacted by development and the march of human progress is so important. For us, and for the wonderful and unique organisms we share this land with. As mentioned above, not only do these roadless areas have a profound meaning to us as humans, but it’s essential to wildlife. Roads fragment habitat (which is already generally extremely fragmented as is on a landscape scale), lead to animal mortality events from road collisions, and allow for easy access to potential extraction of resources in areas where that would have not formerly been considered feasible. I’m a masters wildlife biologist student here in the southern Appalachians and I’ve seen what roads can do first hand. Firefly populations being impacted by vehicle traffic, high road mortality in rare reptiles, sensitive habitat like bogs being disturbed. These are all things I’ve seen personally, and things that areas formerly resilient to such human disturbances (like the Nantahalah and Pisgah National Forests) are now under threat of. The sensitive habitat under former protection by the roadless rule is now potentially vulnerable. For the future. For us to enjoy. For the animals and plants that need this habitat. Please uphold the roadless rule.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Appalachian mountains offer something increasingly rare: peace. They are among the only undeveloped areas in my region, and they need to stay that way. Roads would bring noise, light, and fragmentation, all things that would ruin prized camping ground, and I am submitting this comment because the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule moves directly toward that outcome. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale used to justify opening these areas. The 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." If the agency is now citing fuels management as a reason to rescind a rule that keeps roads out, it must explain how that argument survives its own data. I ask that the agency reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and that it explain why the proposal departs from these prior findings. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record acknowledges that "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." I photograph the vast diversity of life within these forests, the canopies of endless green, the mammals, fish, insects, reptiles, amphibians, flowers, trees, mushrooms, and grasses that make up what development would put on a path toward extinction. All of that has value, and the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish that destroying it produces a net benefit, projecting timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. Working people in my city expect the money taken from their paychecks to go toward the functioning of their society, not toward expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog while city roads crumble. The agency must explain on the record how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies that expansion. Related to that recreation loss is a regulatory flexibility problem the agency has not resolved. "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." That certification was reached by spreading expenditure losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, and the analysis itself concedes some firms may lose these receipts. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not some national average firm that has no permit at stake. Finally, the agency solicited reliance interests, and this comment is one. "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." The peace and biological richness I depend on for hiking and photography in the Appalachian mountains exist because roadless protections have held. Supporting families does not require the destruction of life, and we are well past the point where that trade is necessary. The agency invited these reliance interests into the record and must now identify and weigh them, including this one. Sincerely, Ryan McArthur Atlanta, Georgia

To: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination Division, I am writing to express my opposition to the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001. I believe the Roadless Conservation rule is one of the best and most successful conservation measures implemented. As a person who loves the outdoors and spends a lot of time in the National Forests of North Carolina and across the United States, I see firsthand the magnificent ecosystems this rule protects and the opportunities it provides for outdoor recreation. These wilderness areas include the last remnants of the old growth forests of the United States; forests that are irreplaceable and should be protected now and for future generations. Allowing roads in these areas will harm the ecology of these forests. These are the last strongholds for numerous species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates, many of which are endangered. They are vital for migratory birds, providing intact habitat and safe nesting areas during breeding season and safe places to rest during migration. Rescission of the Roadless Rule would harm the nation's water supply by increasing erosion, sedimentation and pollutants into pristine watersheds. Roads break up essential wildlife corridors and allow invasive plants to proliferate in wilderness areas. These protected landscapes help mitigate climate change by being an effective carbon sink. Carving roads through our wilderness areas will degrade the forests ecosystems and increase fire risk. The majority of wildfires are human-caused and concentrated near forest roads. Roadless areas have one of the lowest density of wildfire ignitions across areas managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Roadless wilderness areas support local communities that rely on outdoor recreation experiences such as hiking, climbing, backcountry skiing, hunting, and fishing to support their economy. Intact roadless wilderness is important in the protection of Tribal cultural sites. I urge you to leave the 2001 Roadless Rule intact to continue to protect the biodiversity of this nation's amazing ecosystems and wildlife. Our wilderness is one of the greatest treasures of this country and deserves our stewardship and protection.

I would like to comment on the Roadless Rule on behalf of the San Diego Off Road Coalition (SDORC). SDORC advocates for off road vehicle users in the Southwest of the USA and beyond. We have taken an interest in this action because we have mixed feeling with it. We agree that local forests should have control over their land. We agree that large paved roads and wide graded dirt roads don't belong in certain back country areas, but we would like to drive our recreational vehicles on roads known as two track or single lane trails. We want the rule amended so that if it conhtinues to stand, routes no wider that eight feet be allowed to be constructed in Roadless Areas. Narrow dirt roads have a minimal effect on species in the forests. Some reptiles prefer areas like dirt roads to soak up the sun. 8-foot-wide trail serves as a vital recreation asset without crossing the threshold into becoming a high-speed, industrial "road" 8-foot trails can act as critical, low-impact access routes for wildland firefighters, search-and-rescue teams, and emergency personnel utilizing smaller tactical vehicles without compromising the overall "roadless" integrity of the area. Whether the Forest Service completely rescinds the 2001 rule or modifies its frameworks, managing the backcountry requires a balanced approach that embraces the massive economic and cultural value of motorized recreation. I request that the Forest Service direct local forest supervisors to integrate sustainable, 8-foot-wide motorized trail corridors into upcoming Travel Management Rule updates and local forest plans. Ed Stovin Director of Land Use SDORC

Hello all that this may concern. I fully oppose overturning the roadless rule. There is a reason this law was set in place and I fully believe in maintaining this boundary between our need for resources and preserving public land that belongs to all of the people of the United States. In my time working as a wildlife biologist, mainly for endangered herpetofauna, I have been exposed to many of the downsides that would be exaggerated should the roadless rule be overwritten. Herpetofauna population trends are in serious decline all around the world. Habitat loss is one of the biggest threats as their habitats rely almost solely on the presence of water within their environment. I have seen with my own eyes the impacts roads have had on wetlands and other fragile environments. Roads that have been cut through areas without thought or planning that has caused whole rivers to reroute onto the road, making it impassible by vehicle. I fear this will be the unfortunate case should this rule get overturned. How will it be possible for the constructors of these roads to create a navigate-able roadway without tampering with complex water systems? This would require specialized hydrologists to be present during constitution of every mile and even then, unknown and unforeseen impacts can occur. While reptiles and amphibians are incredibly important for the delicate balance of an ecosystem, the overturning of this rule threatens much more. Whole forests will be altered by adding accessible roadways to parts previously isolated from heavy machinery. Old growth is incredibly important for the overall health of a forest. A singular old growth tree provides a home for walks of all life. The overturning of this rule would put these ecosystems into direct threat by unsustainable timber harvesting methods that lack attention to the environments health and focuses solely on profit. Additionally, this would generate physical pollution from machines such as gasoline, oil, grease, noise pollution, and light pollution the likes that have never been seen in the 44 million acres proposed to be opened up. How will constructors deal with that disturbance? Lastly, if you have not a care for the environment or those living peacefully within it, I ask you to think about the fact that this is land meant for the American people. Listen to all who have spoken out against it. It is our beautiful right as a citizen of the United States that we have access to this land. It is a right I thoroughly enjoy and makes me proud to know our leaders have fought to protect that right in the past. If this rule gets overturned, the overall existence of our land will, without a doubt, get degraded. Fueled purely by greed and done without thinking of alternatives that show sustainability. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. I trust that the decision that is made will be done with the future of the American people in mind. I mean a long term future where my grandkids will not have to deal with environmental Armageddon.

I am deeply opposed to ANY rescinding of he roadless rule. As a documenter of rare species including rare plants, reptiles, amphibians, and birds, I’m well aware that roads fragment forests, motorized traffic disturbs wildlife, and pollutes the air. Road construction destroys rare plant populations including native orchids. Road noise and human disturbance cause imperiled bird species to retreat from and abandon traditional nesting territories. Roads create harmful edge effects sometimes 600’ wide, hastening the colonization of otherwise healthy forests by invasive species, predation of native wildlife by non-native predators such as outdoor house cats, and attract nest parasites such as Cowbirds. Wilderness areas should remain pristine. They constitute US citizens’ natural heritage and should be protected in perpetuity for future generations, rather than be exploited by commercial interests. Thank you for rejecting this preposterous proposal.

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: Growing up in the southern Appalachian Mountains, my choice in career, hobbies, and the life I live were all shaped by the public lands of the region. Now as an ecologist, outdoorsman, and conservationist I have come to understand the importance of unfragmented, intact landscapes. Over the years, my research on reptile and amphibian ecology has taken me to many conservation areas across the southeast, but wilderness areas have been the most impactful. By studying species composition and ecology, I have seen first-hand how these intact landscapes have higher quality habitat and support higher biodiversity, than many other conservation lands, and this is largely in part to a lack of roads and the habitat disturbance that road access allows. The loss of these roadless areas in the southern Appalachians will have a cascading effect on the biodiversity and ecological functionality of not only the tracts themselves, but also the landscapes downstream of them. The development of new roads quickly impacts water quality and stream ecosystems via erosion, siltation, pollution, etc. These impacts will be continuous, not just felt during the construction phase, and will reach miles and miles downstream. Even for small species, habitat fragmentation via roadways is a serious problem that can drive local extinctions. The southern Appalachian Mountains are often referred to as the salamander capital of the world, as the diversity and abundance of this region is unparalleled. However, many studies have also shown that amphibians can be incredibly susceptible to road mortality, and some amphibian populations can lose as much as 10% of individuals to vehicle traffic every year (Carr and Fahrig 2002, Glista et al. 2007, Hels and Buchwald 2001). Roadways can also inhibit movement or cause genetic isolation leading to population fragmentation or declines (deMaynadier and Hunter 2000, Rodriguez et al. 1996). The construction of roads across landscapes with streams often involves the use of culverts which can present serious barriers to aquatic species such as fish, turtles, and aquatic salamanders. The habitat fragmentation posed to aquatic species by culverts beneath roads can be comparable to that of large dams (Lehrter et al. 2024; Sliger et al. 2026), and these barriers may force semi-aquatic species of reptiles and amphibians to cross roadways and increase mortality. Over the years I have had the pleasure of working in many of these beautiful biodiverse places, such as studying Timber Rattlesnakes in the Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area, or conducting salamander surveys and wildlife inventories in the Southern Nantahala Wilderness, Middle Prong, and Shining Rock Wilderness. These places have left a major impression on me and I find myself coming back to these places year after year to go backpacking, photograph wildlife, and to snorkel their pristine rivers for a chance to see Eastern Hellbenders and the incredible fish diversity of the southern Appalachians. And it has been these experiences that have encouraged me to seek out other wilderness areas in the western US, such as the Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington and the Rincon Mountain Wilderness, Miller Peak Wilderness, and Chiricahua Wilderness in Arizona. Every vacation I take into these amazing places reinforces the value they have to not only our native wildlife and water, but also the American people. They give us a place to experience this nation as it once was, and allows us to understand just how special our natural heritage is. There is so much at stake here, and I fear the rescinding of the Roadless Rule with permanently spoil what so many Americans not only cherish, but depend on for recreation, renewal, and clean drinking water. No one who truly cares about this land wants this. The American people have spoken. Leave the protections in place.

1. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will accelerate the already increasing frequency of wildfires rather than contribute to fire mitigation measures as stated in the Proposal. Increased roads will mean increased wildfires; this has been demonstrated on multiple occasions by peer-reviewed research. Ninety percent of wildfires are caused by humans, and 95% of those fires are within one half mile of a road. The reasons for this are many and include discarded cigarettes, campfires, fireworks, equipment malfunction, vehicle-caused sparks, and alteration of the vegetation to more flammable varieties. A recent peer-review article (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) presents data supporting the widely recognized fact that increased roads translate into increased wildfires. Additionally, USDA analysis of wildfires during the decade 2014-2024 shows that only 8.7% of roadless lands burned during that period compared to 14% on other federal lands. The present Rule already allows for fire mitigation treatments; in fact, 34% of all fuel treatment activities between 2001–2019 occurred in roadless areas. Thus, the claim articulated in the proposal that the Rule constrains fire mitigation is untrue. This claim has been suggested as the main rationale for rescinding the rule but is in fact inaccurate and has no functional application. 2. The forests in roadless areas are generally not suitable for timber production. These forests are in remote, steep areas with rocky terrain, making construction of road access difficult, costly, and hard to maintain. The majority of the timber that would be available if new roads were built to access the present roadless areas is frequently of low quality and would require extensive and expensive haul times. This is particularly true on our local forest, the Flathead National Forest (FNF), where proposed timber sales have failed to attract successful bidders; selling only after dramatic reductions in minimum bid price (https://hungryhorsenews.com/news/ 2025/jul/23/expect-more-timber-harvest-on-flathead/). 3. New roads will unavoidably be poorly maintained. Presently, the USFS is responsible for many more miles of road than the Federal Highway Department. They cannot keep up with present road maintenance needs due to staff and budget constraints, with a reported $8 billion maintenance backlog. Currently, the cost of maintaining the 368,000 miles of USFS roads is estimated to be $1.6 billion. In 2025, Congress appropriated only $73 million to road maintenance, roughly 0.5% of the estimated need. This is apparent on the Flathead National Forest, where poor road conditions are a persistent barrier to public access for recreation or to private property contiguous with the USFS lands. 4. Recreational and municipal water supplies would be threatened. Roads threaten water quality by causing increased sediment runoff. This, in turn, endangers municipal water supplies. Increased sediment runoff from roads reduces water storage capacity upstream from municipal systems, resulting in the need for expensive system upgrades. This sediment also threatens local fisheries, including the endangered bull trout and native cutthroat trout. 5. Roads threaten the populations of both endangered species and species important to recreational hunting and fishing. This has been documented in numerous scientific studies. As noted above, roads negatively impact fisheries. Native fish are critical to the local outfitter and guide industry; threats to these fisheries in turn threaten the local economy. Populations of other species important to recreational pursuits such as hunting and wildlife viewing have been to be diminished by roads. These include wolves, grizzly bears, mule deer, cougars, bighorn sheep, and moose. Amphibians, reptiles, and migrating songbirds are also negatively affected. Increased roads will also encourage the spread of invasive species. 6. More open roads will mean more motorized recreational access. This is a poorly policed industry which has caused fatalities in the North Fork of the Flathead River Valley. Recent reductions in agency capacity will further limit law enforcement needed to police increased motorized recreation. This is complicated by the recent explosion in motorized recreation as a result of newer technology designed for on- and off-road use. These technologies threaten riparian habitat and the opportunity for quiet recreation at a time when law enforcement is already compromised.

Common sense is the whole point of Roadless Area Conservation. There is no reason to defile every single area on Mother Earth with machinery. Humans are not the only living things on the planet. Plants, mosses, fungi, lichen, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, need space to thrive. Please remember that just because you can do something; doesn’t mean you should. Respect Teddy Roosevelt. Think of what Coco Channel said about luxury; “it is the opposite of vulgarity.” Let’s not treat conserved areas as vulgar roadside rests and picnic areas; to make a buck for humans who have no need of it. Enjoy the luxury of unspoiled nature; for yourself and your descendants.

Hello - I am a resident of eastern Washington state and am opposed to the proposed changes to the Roadless Rule for a number of reasons. The lands protected by the rule provides habitat fresh, clean water for drinking and irrigation where I live by slowing runoff and and allowing rain and snow melt to better percolate into groundwater. Large roadless area provide a haven promoting biodiversity of plants and animals in our area. These animals might be game animals, songbirds, predators, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Roads promote the introduction of invasive species that impact our native plant communities. Roads built to clear cut our forests or to promote oil extraction will not improve forest health, and will in fact produce more forest fires. Most of our large fires impacting our forest communities start in roaded forests. Roadless areas are used by tourists and visitors to hike, fish, hunt, bicycle, birdwatch, and camp. Our visitors come to our area to enjoy the wild country. The rescission of the Roadless rule will have a major negative impact on the beauty of our public lands impacting our local tourist economy. As a hiker, I use these lands regularly. Road building and industrial development will harm my quality of life. These wild lands are why I live here.

Our public lands are just that: public lands, protected by us for our air,water,forests,wildlife, fish, reptiles birds, and for our planet. We must NOT allow one person to destroy the ecosystems, and the National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and our , country for his personal ruthless and careless greed. The national parks were created with great foresight and care for the future, and the protections have been sustained for many years, for the greater good of all Americans. The Roadless rules are imperative, and we need no more logging nor a baseball park, or a development in our National Parks. This is an egregious and appalling proposal, and not supportive for our fragile forests and parks. Millions of people visit these parks, and enjoy them annually. They are an important part of America, and help to unify us. Creating more roads will just erode that, as well as do irreparable damage. I am a Vermonter, who cherishes our woods,mountains,waters, birds and wildlife. We need to protect them,not log them and cut more roads. I went to the Tongass Forest in Alaska, after having supported for years to protect their Roadless Rule. It was breathtaking,with a sense of silence, from an ancient time, and grandeur, those huge trees and the scents of the forest. I felt grateful that I was able to go there, and appreciate what I saw, and had helped protect. And now the Forest Service wants to renege, and build roads through these sacred places. Please - DON'T. We need them to stay wild, and protected for the future, and future generations.

Please do not rescind the roadless rule. Wildlife and the natural environment need open and wilderness spaces without being harassed by people on ATV’s, dirt bikes, side by sides, and trucks. The disruption of the wilderness is too high a price on all of us. We need wilderness and to get there under our own power makes it healthier and safer for everyone. Can’t we just have some nice places to go in the wilderness, or protect the wildlife that live there and don’t want to be chased and injured by disrespectful people? This would make poaching more accessible to those criminals and very difficult for investigators. I’ve watched people in the backcountry chase and harass wild horses and other herd animals that get separated from their young and stressed beyond survival. It’s sickening, but that’s how some people are. Hunters do NOT want you to rescind the roadless rule, because they know how depleted the herds already are and how irresponsible people can be. There is no skill to running down game and killing animals that way. This is important to people, like veterans, to find quiet and solace in the wilderness. Why can’t we have nice things like that? Why do you possibly think that opening it will benefit anyone except those unwilling to walk or get back there under their own power? We all need the exercise, the quiet, the peace of wilderness. The erosion caused by high traffic will further degrade waterways, affecting streams and the fish, and reptiles, and the plant life they need to survive. Please do not rescind the roadless rule.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Fishing for sport and sustenance my entire life, I have watched first hand what happens when unmitigated negative pressures are placed on fish habitats: populations decline, fish health deteriorates, and the water that once held them becomes something else. The isolated wild places I have fished, hiked, and camped in for many, many years are not simply recreation areas. They are the places where it is still possible to get somewhere not interrupted by the constant hum of vehicles and construction. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would foreclose that possibility for the public and for the ecosystems that depend on undisturbed ground. The agency's own document acknowledges that skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." That figure is stated and then left to stand alone. No projection of what that sediment load means for the people drinking water downstream appears anywhere in the analysis. The DEIS tells us that "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." Citing a number of that scale while offering no projection of sediment delivery to those intakes is not analysis, it is an omission. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to those more than 7,000 municipal intakes as part of any final record of decision. I also ask that the agency identify, forest by forest, which plan provisions are enforceable substitutes for the protections currently found at 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13, because the DEIS asserts that forest plans address municipal drinking water sources without naming a single binding provision that would do so. I venture into wild places specifically to see where the natural world acts with minimal human interference, and birds are a large part of what draws me there. Roads are, as I have observed across many habitats, the biggest cause of fragmentation. The DEIS supports that view numerically: it cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. It also carries 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. Birds, mammals, and reptiles all need these protected places to help balance the development occurring elsewhere. What the DEIS does not do is apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. The agency should do that. A cited finding that is never applied to the affected acreage is not a finding, it is a footnote used as insulation. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment and explain on the record what that projection means for the species the document identifies as sensitive to road presence. On the question of economics: 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 supporting analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading expenditure losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than looking at the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. I have spent time in many national forests throughout the years and have seen how staff manage these places using minimal resources, how infrastructure falls into disrepair because of personnel and budget constraints. The people guiding trips into these landscapes operate under the same constraints. Diluting their projected losses into a national average and calling the result no significant impact is not a defensible methodology. The agency should withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. The question of new roads compounds all of this. Let's take care of what already exists before we think of adding new roads. That is not sentiment, it is resource management. The agency has acknowledged a substantial maintenance backlog on its existing road system. Adding road miles into currently roadless country while that backlog persists does not represent a rational allocation of limited budget and personnel, and the DEIS does not explain how it would be one. The agency should answer that question before any final action is taken. Sincerely, J. Mothershed Georgia

I have lived in the Valley for over 39 years. I have recreated in this valley for the same amount of time. I lived near some of the proposed mine sites. I have spent time at active mine sites in southern Utah from the 1960`s thru 1980`s. I have seen GOOD mining and BAD mining practices. The Illinois Valley produces some of the BEST and CLEANEST WATER in the USA. THAT IS A FACT !!! All the lands are connected. No matter what HUMAN boundaries you wish to apply to this or that situation. I will be speaking about all the lands in the Illinois Valley !!! Allowing commercial mining to take place in this near pristine environment can never be allowed for thousands reasons. Obvious reasons are CLEAN WATER for everyone, people, domestic and wild animals, plants, reptiles, birds, insects, etc etc etc ... Less obvious reasons, but just as important are the major pollution elements that will be brought from mining activities, mercury, cobalt, arsenic are just a VERY FEW that WILL be released into the environment. The winter weather, rain, snow, wind will gladly deliver these toxic elements to our clean water. Yet, much more will contribute contamination, tire debris, fuel fumes, fuel spills, oil spills, trash thrown from vehicles. So many plants will be killed by allowing vehicle traffic. Some WILL be endangered plants and animals. And the allowing of STRIPPING of top soil that WILL take hundreds to thousands of years to heal, .... or possibly NEVER ! There is more I would like to add, but could go on and on, but I won`t. The last time someone came into our valley hoping/planning to harvest nickel many acres of alyssum was planted in many areas. Some was harvested, baled and left at the IV Airport. LEFT there. It was never processed. IT started spreading all over the place, even leaving the valley. It caused the deaths of some livestock. To date it has COST the State of Oregon well OVER $2,000,000 to try and clean it up, over 20 years. Please show how this "mining" activity benefited the local community, the county, the state ? Before any further commercial mining can happen in our mostly clean valley, There MUST be laws, not just rules, LAWS that will BENEFIT the VALLEY, the COUNTY, the STATE, in several POSSITIVE WAYS. Don`t make laws that benefit companies only, as they leave our valley with their pockets stuffed full, ours empty and torn ! AND IF these UNWELCOME visitors force their way here, There MUST be LAWS make by the State that the miners MUST FOLLOW BEFORE ANY MINING BEGINS about how THEY WILL CLEAN UP THE MESS THEY MAKE. An account will be opened and stocked by the miners with complete funds, of money that the company WILL NOT have assess to. The money will only be released by a third party to the miners as they clean up their own mess !!!!!!!!!! WE NEED SOMETHING POSSITIVE TO HAPPEN IN THIS VALLEY !!!!!

I support the Forest Service's Roadless Rule. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule! The rule reflects the best available science, the popular support for our public lands, and the global need to protect our planet. The Roadless Rule protects our public watersheds, an original purpose of the creation of our forest reserves and later national forests. The Roadless Rule provides habitat for our public wildlife, native plants, even our microbes, insects and other invertebrates, animals, and birds. The Roadless Rule enable forests to store carbon and to return carbon and nitrogen to the soil. The Roadless Rule enables us as an apex species to coexist with other life forms, such as beavers that help protect water on the surface and in the soil of our public lands. And the Roadless Rule keeps lands eligible for Wilderness designation, the gold standard of conservation and a model being adopted around the global. Furthermore, the Roadless Rule enables us to walk in nature, something that is not safe given the large population of mechanized recreationists on trails of other lands. The Roadless has proven practical, useful, effective in its more than twenty years of application. No. My state's congressional delegation does NOT reflect public opinion in Montana, where our local and state economies depend upon PROTECTED public lands and where our quality of life depends upon PROTECTED public lands. The delegation consists of people who shamelessly — and openly — bought their seats in Congress. Alas, Montana has long history of money paying for political positions, mostly famously when William A. Clark so blatantly bought a U.S Senate seat that the Senate refused to seat him! The problem of roads has been long known. Vehicles introduce invasive species, cause erosion and sedimentation, compact the soil, and harm the soil biome, as well as introduce pollution from the exhaust and from the tires shedding chemicals and microplastics, and noise pollution. Roads are a human construct. People use roads. People cause widespread disruption of animal movement, affecting fitness, survival, and population viability — of terrestrial and aquatic species. Tim S. Doherty, Graeme C. Hays, and Don A. Driscoll documented negative impacts on birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and arthropods, and reported the same in their article in Nature Ecology & Evolution (2021). A road is a divide, a barrier, were connectivity is what native species require. Roads carve up any landscape and create barriers in ecosystems, barrier to wildlife migration, a barrier even in microecosystems. Constructing a road and providing motorized and mechanized has proven to be harmful to the road verge. Roads degrade wildlife habitat and degrade the wilderness characteristics of our public wildlands; for a little example: "Roads pose a significant threat to bee movement," according to an article of that title, by Gordon Fitch, Chatura Vaidya, and Lori Lach, in the Journal of Applied Ecology (2021). Roads mean tires. Vehicle tires shed a chemical additive (6PPD-quinone) that turns streams toxic for many fish, and tread wear particles are a significant source of microplastic pollution, both facts document in an article by Zhenyu Tian and his colleagues in the journal Science (2020) and by Bibai Du and his colleagues in Environmental Science and Technology Letters (2022). Roads negatively impact the scenic, interpretive, recreational, and paleontological values of our wildlands. Roads are permanent scars. Stephen Rostain and his colleagues recently reported in Science (2024) on an Amazonian agrarian-based civilization more than 2000 years old. They found that roads were "the most notable elements of the landscape" The "straight-dug" intersite routes were dirt roads through damp jungle. Enough is enough! More than 80% of the United States lies within less than a mile from a road. That's more than enough! The Forest Service has 300,000 miles of roads, much more than can be properly maintained given the budgets appropriated by Congress year after year. Additionally, roads reduce fire resiliency; one source on that is James D. Johnston and his colleagues in the refereed journal Environmental Research Letters (2021). Furthermore, since most wildfires have a human cause, roads increasing human access increase fire danger. As Edward Abbey famously said in his book Desert Solitaire (1968), "Let people walk." The quality of experience of access on foot is better for the users, the native plants, the wildlife, the watershed, and the soil biome. Also, the absence of motorized and mechanized access contributes toward meeting the national and global goal of 30-30 to mitigate climate change and the accompanying climate chaos. PLEASE KEEP THE ROADLESS RULE!

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. A large part of my opposition centers on wildlife habitat. By that I include not just vertebrates but invertebrates as well. More public access is certainly disruptive to big game habitat and consequently all species, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and fish are affected and all are important to an intact ecosystem. Currently, there are hundreds of thousands of miles of Forest Service and BLM roads. All these roads come at a cost to build and maintain. Adding more cost to the Forest Service, which is already stretched thin, does not seem logical. Wildfires are a great concern and fighting them takes a large portion of the Forest Service budget. The Forest Service has determined that the majority of wildfires begin along or near roads. Creating more roads and consequently more public access would likely cause more fires. With a drier climate fires are consuming more acreage and increasing the danger to homes in the Wildland Urban Interface, building more roads and therefore more access, again doesn't seem logical. There are aesthetic values as well to roadless areas. Values that cannot be figured on a spreadsheet, but exist just the same. Compromising these values by roads makes no sense and the damage takes a very long time to undo. Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.A Sincerely, Pete Clarkson Montana

To whom it may concern: the following are my thoughts and comments regarding the Trump administrations proposal to rescind the USDA Forest Service Roadless Rule. I very strongly oppose the rescission of the Forest Service Roadless rule. There are many very valid reasons to oppose this change. There are already over 400,000 miles of Forest Service Roads, and these roads are suffering from tremendous maintenance back log. With so many roads already in poor condition it is ludicrous to build more. Building more roads as a means to combat forest fires fires is counter productive. Forest roads are associated with higher risk of forest fires - fires associated with human activity. Wild land fire fighters themselves indicate that more roads will not improve their ability to fight forest fires. Roadless areas are perhaps the most important areas for the production of clean drinking water. Forest Roads degrade water quality through erosion, run-off and sedimentation of streams. Forest Roads degrade the quality of habitat for wildlife- fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, as well as a plethora of invertebrates that support these vertebrates. Human life depends upon functioning ecosystems, which in turn depend upon the living web of interactions that takes place among the greatest possible diversity of living creatures. Decrease diversity and the whole ecosystem becomes degraded, and thus less functional for human survival. But let us not think only of humans. All living creatures have a right to exist. They are not inferior to human life. They are contiguous with it. Each species is an expression of Earth’s creativity and beauty, and through the web of interactions contributes to the health of all life on Earth. Forest roads are a major conduit for the introduction of invasive species into areas where they are not yet present. More roads equals more ecosystem degradation due to the an increase in invasive species. Let us be clear, the real reason for removing the Roadless Rule is to facilitate increased resource extraction. We are living in an age when all life on earth is threatened by climate disruption. Our best course of action is to protect the few intact and healthy functioning ecosystems we have left. It is clear that more road building is not only not necessary, but in fact profoundly counter to this objective. Roadless intact forests protect our precious water, sequester carbon and thus help to mitigate global warming. Let me also be clear about this. I like to go into the forest. We could remove half the forest roads we already have with no detriment to citizen forest access.I often go into the Mount Baker National Forest. Many of the roads are in very bad condition. Let us give some attention to maintain some of the roads already in place. I strongly urge the Forest Service to maintain the Roadless Rule. Please do not, for the health and well being of humans and all living things, build more unneeded roads. Thank you very much for considering my comments.

Do not loosen or eliminate existing roadless conservation. There are reasons for conserving roadless areas: to protect and preserve the diversity and uniqueness of flora, fauna, and ecosystems to prevent them from extinction. Once gone, there is no turning back. Imagine the United States without forests, creeks, springs, ferns, grasses, flowers, undergrowth; dominance hierarchies or pecking orders; the balance and interdependence of the seven major groups of animals that are mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and other invertebrates. The silent spring without birdsong. If some or much of the current special areas designated roadless area conservation are opened to roadbuilding, land development will follow and destroy any chance of further conservation. Not everything is about money, private-sector business, and profit. Do not loosen or eliminate existing roadless conservation.

I am an artist and full time community college art instructor. I am the descendant of working class people both in civil and military service and farmers. I learned the importance of land and the care and keeping of land from these people. They taught me to bring my awareness to the physical characteristics of the land and its inhabitants. I have carried this teaching with me throughout my life, and it has brought me many moments of joy and wonder. It has also occasionally brought moments of sadness and dismay. Over the course of my adult life I have had several profound encounters with animal deaths driving our nation's highway systems. It was the last of these encounters on Highway 5 in northern California that led me to discover a book called Crossings, How Road Ecology is Shaping the Future of Our Planet by Ben Goldfarb. In his book, Ben recounts the origin story of roads in the United States and how the study of road ecology grew alongside it. He visits and works alongside scientists and citizen volunteers all over the world who work to count, collect and research animals, reptiles and insects found dead along roadsides and work to create solutions for safer passage. He also recounts the origins of Roadless Rule coming from within the US Forest Service, then led by the former chief Mike Dombeck. A brief passage from the book states “Soon after the Roadless Rule was passed, scientists calculated that it had protected more than two hundred endangered species and some of the “most biotic areas in the nation.” I am writing to you today because I believe in the Roadless Rule and what its provisions have done over the last 25 years to protect and preserve wilderness areas, and the creatures that live within and move through them. Roadless areas also create extraordinary spaces for human recreation, like camping, hiking and backpacking, hunting and angling, wildlife viewing and photography, and many other activities. Across the US large sections of the Continental Divide, Pacific Crest, and Appalachian National Scenic trails cross protected roadless areas. We all need these wild spaces, the Earth needs these wild spaces. Our National Parks and Wilderness Areas are our greatest publicly held treasure. The Roadless Rule must not be rescinded. If anything is done with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, it should be strengthened to eliminate logging and roadbuilding loopholes and provide better protection to roadless areas and adjacent Wilderness areas. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. (Plesae note: This is a resubmission that does not include my name.)