FS-2025-0001-469961

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Subject: Strongly Oppose the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Dear Secretary Rollins and the U.S. Forest Service, - I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am horrified and disgusted, in fact, about this proposal. - I feel strongly that the United State's natural resources are vital to our natural heritage. I am an avid recreational user of National Forests and other nationally designated wild places like Wilderness Areas and National Parks. Whenever I travel, I choose to go to these places. I particularly look on the map for roadless areas because I know that the quality of my experience will be best in roadless areas, due to the intact vegetation and superior wildlife viewing opportunities. - I feel that, as an American citizen, our National Forests and other federally owned wilderness, are mine. The government merely manages these properties for me. I strongly object to the current management proposition to build more roads in roadless areas because it detracts from my experience, will encourage the growth of invasive species, and will deeply further endanger many endangered species that depend on large stretches of uninterrupted habitat. These aspects of roadless areas (native plants, wildlife, and the size of roadless areas) matter greatly to me. - I do not believe the government's excuse that more roads are needed to combat forest fires. I believe, to be plain, this is a lie, and a gross betrayal of myself and other citizens. If the government cared about proper management of our forests, it would be to maintain and enhance them - we would see MORE funding for all our federally owned properties (for example to hire many ecologists who would plan and implement management for public-benefiting ecology not private profit), not the give aways (theft) we are seeing from the public to corporate holders such as Space X, AI companies, and timber companies. We would see our National Parks fully funded instead of wrung dry so they can barely operate, degrading park goers experience. We would see bans on using glyphosate and other herbicides in national forests for the purpose of timber harvesting, which poison ourselves, our water, and our wildlife while creating monocultures instead of forests, AND leave behind huge swaths of completely dessicated fuel for fires. Also, if roads are needed to combat active wildfires, they are already legal in roadless areas. -While I object to this nationwide rollback, I am particularly deeply concerned about the devastating impacts this decision will have on the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia holds the most designated roadless acreage in the eastern United States, spanning nearly 394,000 acres across the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Stripping these protections will instantly expose 84% of these fragile lands—over 332,000 acres—to commercial development. Unmanaged roadbuilding and timber harvesting in pristine areas like Little River, Skidmore Fork, Adams Peak, and Little Walker Mountain will permanently harm our state by: -Endangering Clean Water: Fragmenting these forests threatens critical watersheds that supply clean drinking water to downstream communities. Destroying Outdoor Recreation: These areas contain world-class hiking, hunting, angling, and mountain biking trails, including invaluable sections of the Appalachian Trail, which drive our local outdoor recreation economies. -Fragmenting Wildlife Habitats: Increased road construction will destroy vital habitat connectivity, increase vehicle-animal collisions, and degrade the cold, clean waters required by dwindling native brook trout. -Taxpayer & Operational Burden: It is fiscally irresponsible. With U.S. Forest Service staff reduced by nearly 20%, and a nationwide road maintenance backlog of over $6 billion, it is unrealistic to expect the agency to manage new road systems or safely administer expanded commercial exploitation. National forests are a shared public trust belonging to all Americans, not short-term financial assets to be liquidated at the taxpayers' expense. The existing rule provides a balanced, popular, and deeply valued framework for conservation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this misguided proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Joanna Salidis Barboursville, VA