Read the comments.

I am a California resident writing in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and on the adequacy of the draft EIS. My concern is the Sierra Nevada corridor: the Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Humboldt-Toiyabe, Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests. This rule does not govern Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks or the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wildernesses, which hold statutory protection. That is the point. The inventoried roadless areas at issue are the lands in between: the buffers and corridors that make those protected units ecologically functional rather than isolated islands. They are frequently indistinguishable from adjacent wilderness in condition and function, and they carry wildlife movement, watershed, and backcountry recreation values the designated units cannot sustain alone. My use is sustained and year-round. I backpack multi-day Sierra routes, run ultra-distance trail events across the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests, and ride backcountry terrain in the eastern Sierra in winter. Much of that occurs in inventoried roadless areas, on terrain whose value depends on the absence of roads. The Tahoe region illustrates the stakes. Inventoried roadless areas comprise more than 80,000 combined acres across the Tahoe National Forest and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, roughly a quarter of Forest Service lands in the Basin, including terrain near Luther Pass and Echo Lakes, lands skirting Desolation Wilderness, portions of the Tahoe Rim Trail, and Freel Peak. Luther Pass is occupied habitat for the Sierra Nevada red fox, federally endangered, and the American marten. The DEIS does not adequately analyze effects on listed species there, nor the conflict between new road construction and Lake Tahoe’s Total Maximum Daily Load program, under which two decades and hundreds of millions in public investment have targeted fine sediment reduction to restore lake clarity. Roads and disturbed surfaces are a principal fine sediment source. The stated justification is wildfire risk reduction, and the record does not support it. Aplet et al. (Fire Ecology, 2026), covering 1992 to 2024 across all eight contiguous Forest Service regions, found ignition density of 7.99 fires per 1,000 hectares within 50 meters of a road, versus 1.97 in inventoried roadless areas and 1.75 in designated wilderness. The Forest Service attributes roughly nine of ten wildfires to human causes. Roads into roadless terrain increase ignition sources in the places the agency says it wants to protect. Deficiencies I ask the agency to address: 1.The DEIS does not adequately analyze cumulative watershed effects in Sierra headwaters, including fine sediment impacts on Lake Tahoe clarity and effects on the Truckee, San Joaquin, Kings, Kern, and Owens River source waters serving millions of Californians. 2.It does not analyze how new road access increases human-caused ignition risk in high-hazard fuel types. 3.It does not evaluate a narrower alternative retaining roadless protections while permitting targeted fuels treatment where documented wildland-urban interface risk exists. 4.It does not analyze fragmentation and connectivity loss along the Sierra crest. Roadless areas in the Tahoe, Eldorado, Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests form the corridor linking designated wilderness and Park units. The agency has not evaluated effects on species dependent on landscape-scale movement, including Sierra Nevada red fox, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, Pacific fisher, and wolverine, nor how fragmentation would degrade the wilderness character of adjacent designated areas it is obligated to preserve. I have an eight-year-old daughter. She has backpacked in Desolation Wilderness, Yosemite, and out of Mammoth Lakes, reaching those places through roadless areas in the Eldorado, Stanislaus, and Inyo National Forests. She may be the first generation in twenty-five years to inherit the absence of these protections. That asymmetry is the heart of my objection. The projected benefits are annual, modest, and reversible: a few million dollars in timber revenue and some administrative flexibility. The costs are permanent. A road cut into an unroaded drainage persists for generations through hydrologic change, sediment delivery, invasive species vectors, and fragmentation, long after the timber that justified it is gone. My daughter’s generation will inherit the roads. It will not inherit the revenue. The DEIS does not seriously analyze these irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, as NEPA requires at 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)(v), nor engage the policy Congress set at 42 U.S.C. 4331(b)(1), directing each generation to act as trustee of the environment for those that follow. I ask the agency to strongly withdraw the proposed rescission.