Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Tribal consultation is incomplete and its summary is withheld from comment The consultation owed to Tribal governments is owed to tribal members such as myself (Native Village of Kwinhagak), and it is not finished. The agency's own record says so: The Forest Service received 64 requests for Tribal consultation; 29 consultations have been held and 5 more scheduled, with the published Tribal Summary Impact Statement records that the majority sentiment among consulted Tribal governments is opposition, viewing the rescission as a threat to inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival and the ecological health of ancestral homelands; the final Tribal Impact Summary Statement is deferred to the final rule. Tribal governments proposed alternatives, including a strengthened roadless rule and a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule, and none was analysed; the final impact statement arrives only when comment is closed. I ask that the agency complete all 64 requested consultations and publish the Tribal Impact Summary Statement for public comment before any final rule. Issue 2: Wildfire The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds. The agency's own 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." (Roadless Area Conservation FEIS Vol. 1 (Nov. 2000), fire-occurrence discussion, printed p. 3-115) "The net result is that there is a substantially increased level of fire occurrence outside inventoried roadless areas." (Roadless Area Conservation FEIS Vol. 1 (Nov. 2000), text introducing Table 3-19 (human-caused fire occurrence 1986-1996), printed pp. 3-104 to 3-105) I ask that the agency explain on the record why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement (DEIS Table 21), which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. Furthermore, there are multie studies that demonstrate how old growth forests are resistent to the types of large-scale fires we are witnessing in parts of Canada (often attributed to outdated logging practices and monocultures) as well as the states. Issue 3: A court already said they had the authority The proposal argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. The courts that reviewed that question held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." (Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011), disposition (slip op. p. 4)) "In sum, we conclude that the Roadless Rule did not designate de facto administrative wilderness areas in contravention of the procedures set out in the Wilderness Act." (Wyoming, 661 F.3d 1209, Wilderness Act holding (slip op. pp. 34-35)) I ask that the agency address the Tenth Circuit's holding that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) and did not create de facto wilderness, and that it explain on the record the basis for any contrary position. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Nastasia C. Palmer, AK

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294, Subpart B; Docket FS-2025-0001). Rescinding blanket protections across 58.5 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) threatens headwater drinking supplies, critical fish and wildlife habitat, and vital backcountry recreation, while failing to meet basic legal requirements. First, the proposal violates the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983), an agency reversing course must provide a reasoned explanation supported by empirical facts. When the Tenth Circuit upheld the 2001 Rule in Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011), it recognized the agency’s extensive record showing that local, forest-by-forest planning had demonstrably failed to prevent the piecemeal degradation of roadless areas. Citing political directives for timber extraction and "local flexibility" does not overcome this established record. Second, the rescission ignores the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332). In California ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit struck down the 2005 State Petitions Rule because the agency failed to conduct a programmatic "hard look" at the cumulative environmental impacts of removing national protections. Shifting management to localized decisions does not excuse the Forest Service from analyzing cumulative fragmentation, erosion, and biodiversity loss. Third, using wildfire prevention as a justification is fundamentally flawed. The 2001 Rule already allows fuel reduction and small-diameter timber removal to reduce wildfire risks near communities (36 CFR § 294.13(b)(1)). Roads increase human ignitions and fire risk, and building new roads into remote backcountry will only exacerbate the agency’s multibillion-dollar deferred road maintenance backlog, contradicting sustainable management mandates under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA). Finally, roadless areas serve as essential strongholds for species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and fulfill diversity requirements under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B)). Lifting nationwide prohibitions will fracture migration corridors and imperil sensitive populations. The Forest Service must withdraw this proposal and maintain the established protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule.

I am a rock climber, whitewater kayaker, angler, hiker, mountain biker, hunter, and equestrian who uses inventoried roadless areas constantly, and I do volunteer trail work myself. I also have a friend whose primary job is conducting professional fishery surveys on rivers like the Colorado, and another friend who works for the U.S. Geological Survey doing sonar-based hydrographic surveys — work that depends directly on the low-sediment water conditions this rule would put at risk. This rule guts the resource all of that depends on, and it should be withdrawn. USDA's own numbers admit near-term timber gains would be "modest and localized," yet the rule could impose over $100 million/year in net costs, including $6.1 million annually in lost recreation value — while the agency already carries a $6.9 billion road/bridge maintenance backlog it can't fund. You're proposing to build more roads you already can't maintain, to chase benefits you can't quantify. That's not policy, it's vandalism with a cost-benefit annex. This isn't a close legal call. USDA's rationale — that NFMA forest-level planning, not a national rule, is the right vehicle here — is the exact argument Wyoming made trying to kill this rule, and the exact argument the Tenth Circuit rejected in Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011), holding nothing in NFMA "precludes national action on a conservation issue within the power of the Forest Service," and reinstating the Rule nationwide. Kootenai Tribe v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002), and California ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009), went the same way. USDA is relitigating a theory that has already lost twice. Under State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983), and Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016), an agency reversing a 25-year policy with entrenched reliance interests owes a "more detailed justification," not less. USDA's own preamble instead asks commenters to do its reliance analysis for it. That is precisely the abdication those cases forbid. Roadless watersheds supply drinking water to roughly 25 million Americans (PLOS Water, 2026) — over a third of Colorado's and New Mexico's populations. An onX analysis found 99% of Wyoming's roadless acreage functions as elk security habitat, the exact kind of low-road-density cover big game and Pittman-Robertson-funded wildlife management depend on. Roads and logging degrade the cold, clean headwaters that trout, salmon, and steelhead need, undermining Clean Water Act antidegradation protections (40 CFR §131.12) and, for anadromous fisheries, Magnuson-Stevens Essential Fish Habitat obligations. Whitewater and scenic values on Wild and Scenic-eligible rivers running through these areas are equally at risk. The wildfire justification doesn't hold up either: risk to communities is concentrated in the wildland-urban interface, which the agency can already treat under existing exceptions, not in remote backcountry this rule would newly expose to roads. USDA's own notice admits the "majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition," citing threats to sacred sites, subsistence resources, and treaty rights, and admits a failure to fulfill trust and consultation obligations — obligations that carry the "highest responsibility and trust," Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942). ANILCA §810 requires a subsistence evaluation before, not after, action in Alaska. And procedurally: this comment period is 30 days with zero public hearings, following a truncated 21-day notice period on which 99% of 220,000+ comment letters opposed rescission. The 2001 Rule was built on 600+ hearings and 1.6 million comments. That is not a good-faith effort to hear from the public — it's a box-checking exercise on the way to a predetermined outcome. Withdraw this rule. If site-specific flexibility is genuinely needed, the existing state-petition process (5 U.S.C. §553(e); 7 CFR 1.28) already used by Idaho and Colorado is the right tool — not eliminating baseline protection for 44.7 million acres of the last big wild country left in the National Forest System. Full legal analysis, additional statutory citations (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Clean Water Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, Pittman-Robertson Act, National Trails System Act, NEPA, ESA), and complete source list are provided in the attached comment letter, which I incorporate by reference.

Formal Public Comment Draft SUBMITTED VIA: www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / Document ID: FS-2025-0001-223869) AGENCY: Forest Service (USFS), USDA ACTION: Proposed Rule; Draft Environmental Impact Statement (36 CFR Part 294) TITLE: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation DOCKET / RIN: Docket No. FS-2025-0001; RIN 0596-AD66 Re: Opposition to Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule; Habitat Fragmentation, Fishery Degradation, and Corporate Exploitation (36 CFR Part 294) I. Identification of Commenter and Statement of Opposition I am submitting this comment as an active American sportsman, angler, and hunter in formal opposition to the Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600–1614, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. The Forest Service must withdraw this rule and preserve nationwide roadless protections. As an angler pursuing wild salmon and trout, I depend on cold, silt-free headwaters. As an upland hunter pursuing wild turkey with airguns, I require undisturbed backcountry far from motorized access. I support sustainable commercial logging, but true multiple-use management requires balance. Hundreds of millions of public acres and over 370,000 miles of roads already accommodate active timber operations. The 2001 Rule preserves the last intact conservation baseline. Rescinding it will irreparably harm public lands to facilitate corporate exploitation against overwhelming public opposition. II. Irreparable Harm to Public Fisheries, Game Habitat, and Conservation Balance * Sedimentation of Coldwater Fisheries: Native trout and anadromous salmon runs rely on clean spawning gravels in roadless headwaters. Logging roads cause severe slope erosion and thermal canopy loss, elevating stream temperatures and suffocating spawning beds. * Fragmentation of Upland Game Habitat: Stalking turkey with airguns requires unfragmented interior cover. Road penetration introduces noise, poaching corridors, and invasive cheatgrass, degrading forage and permanently displacing game. * Disruption of Multiple-Use Balance: Under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 528–531, timber must balance against wildlife and recreation. Sacrificing the remaining unroaded backcountry tilts public policy toward private extraction at the expense of outdoor sportsmen. III. Administrative and Empirical Defects Under APA § 706 Under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) and FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009), the agency must rationally justify reversing course and address its prior factual findings: * Contradicting Fire Science: While the agency cites wildfire risk, over 80% of wildfires ignite along road corridors. Roads expand fire vulnerability rather than mitigate it. * Unfunded Maintenance Liabilities: The Forest Service already faces an unfunded road maintenance backlog exceeding $3 billion. Adding remote logging roads while neglecting existing infrastructure is arbitrary and fiscally reckless. * Flawed Decentralization: Subordinating uniform national protections to fragmented local forest plans abdicates statutory stewardship (Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011)). IV. Corporate Exploitation vs. Public Stewardship This proposal prioritizes corporate timber volume over the public interest. The public has repeatedly opposed opening these lands. Rescinding the rule privatizes resource profits while offloading environmental and fiscal costs onto American taxpayers and sportsmen. V. Requested Regulatory Actions * Withdraw the Proposed Rule: Retain 36 CFR Part 294 and the 2001 Roadless Rule protections. * Select the No-Action Alternative: Preserve the 58.5 million protected acres in the Final EIS. * Focus Active Logging on Existing Road Networks: Direct fuels reduction to degraded roaded corridors and the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Strategic Audit * Authorities Cited: 16 U.S.C. §§ 528–531, 1600–1614; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 4321; 36 CFR Part 294; State Farm, 463 U.S. 29; Fox Television, 556 U.S. 502; Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209.